Greg Burnham

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.

How do you know: 1) that the appearance of the damage changed? 2) if so, what caused the change to the appearance of the damage? 3) if the appearance did, in fact, change (which has yet to be established) and was caused "due to the 1600 mile flight to AAFB" (as you assert) -- by what mechanism did such change occur? --or are you speculating? If you are speculating, that's ok, as long as I'm not being asked to assume facts not yet reasonably proved.

Joe, I still need to get your book. Been real busy lately with COPA presentation and Dallas in Wonderland documentary. Looking forward to reading it soon.

I too am a part of this production. Will give more details when we are through.

Me too. It's been that way since the JFK Forum was temporarily closed, but hasn't cleared up yet. I'm using Safari, as well.

Thanks for reconsidering, John. Also, note that the "bug" (that was causing the posting glitch) has been corrected.

Might I suggest The Silence of the Historians by David Mantik, MD, PhD.?

Fascinating book. Here's one page for research purposes only:

Very well said, as usual, Robert. The first sentence I quoted from you above is reminiscent of my relationship with Jim Fetzer. Although I understand and respect (more than you know) your decision to offer this ultimatum to John, I fear that "ego protection" could unfortunately come into play in this instance. I hope it doesn't. However, If it rules the day, I will miss the brilliance of your posts and contributions to this forum. We have been in contact since your first post on JFKresearch Forum nearly 15 years ago when you inquired via private email about Jack White, the details of the message to be left out here. Suffice it to say, I recognized a "brother-in-arms" in search of the truth ever since. ALLER_SECURISE moine

I suggest that members refrain from attacking those who have been banned from the forum, since the latter are unable to defend themselves. If you are happy or relieved that those persons have been banned for what is, in your opinion, "good cause" -- that should be good enough.

While I was the Sgt-at-Arms for Rich DellaRosa'a JFKresearch Assassination Forum from 1998 to 2010 we had our share of heated debates. And from those debates much was gained in terms of the dissemination of information, the "think tank" style of discovering new significance to old information, and much more. There were approximately 13 persons banned from the forum in the same number of years. The litmus test that was applied to justify deleting a member's post or banning a member (in the event that the behavior leading to the deletion of posts persisted) was simple. The question we asked ourselves was: "Does this member's behavior consistently DISRUPT research more than it contributes to research?" This question was asked without passion and without prejudice. Based on THAT litmus test, only one person per year, on average, earned the boot. Certainly individual researchers will become passionate about their views and occasionally will break the rules. It is human nature. However, banning those with whom we disagree BECAUSE we disagree with them is censorship. Banning those who interfere with research through their persistent disruptive behavior is not censorship. It is self-preservation.

Although the relevance of this might not at first be evident, bear with me: There is a mostly forgotten marketing tool once used widely in the US known as "trading stamps". These resembled postage stamps in both size and application: moisten the back before applying to a paper surface. Those of us who are old enough to remember them might recall how we or our parents diligently frequented only the stores that honored these "trading stamps" because of the extra "bang-for-the-buck" they afforded. Several companies produced them. The most popular were the "S&H Green Stamps" and later the "Blue Chip Stamps". Essentially they were rewards for shopping at a participating retailer. For every purchase made in such an outlet you earned a certain number of these "trading stamps" which you collected by sticking them into the pages of "S&H Green Stamp or Blue Chip Stamp Books" specifically designed to hold the stamps. Once the book was full you began a new book. There was an accompanying catalog that let you know how many stamp books you needed to accumulate to earn a "free" piece of merchandise. It was similar to accumulating airline mileage points, but less confusing. Once you had accumulated enough stamp books you would visit the S&H Green or Blue Chip store where you would trade your stamps for the merchandise you had earned. In any event, as a child I would see the little old lady who lived across the street, her niece, maybe the school's principle, or even my own mom accumulate the books of stamps and visit the merchandise outlet for their redemption. Upon selecting the coveted piece of "free" merchandise and "paying" for it with these "trading stamps" not ONCE did I ever witness anyone expressing guilt for having obtained this merchandise without paying for it with money. Never did they say: "I feel awfully guilty for just walking out of here with this lamp without paying for it!" Not even once...quite the contrary. The attitude was: "This is my lamp, I earned it! Just look at how long I have been saving up for it with all of these stamps!" Sometimes humans trade in anger stamps, too. When we neglect to preserve boundaries that protect us (our feelings, finances, personal safety, etc.) oftentimes it just "builds up" -- like saving Anger Trading Stamps. And the "nicer we are" to those offending us, the greater the number of "Anger Trading Stamp Books" we think we have accumulated. When we finally have had enough, it's only after we have accumulated a rather massive amount. When we "cash them all in at once" we do so without guilt. After all, we have this coming to us. We've earned it. I don't know if the damage that's been done by such an approach to anger management can be reversed. Sometimes it can, but not always. Sometimes recognizing it is the first step. In any event, the negative consequences of such an approach should be instructive for the future.

That's just not true, Craig. You've painted with too broad a brush. Its reliability depends on a number of things, including: how much time passed between the event and the reporting of the event; the personal bias or prejudice of the eyewitness; the presence of peripheral distractions; the presence or absence of trauma related to the event; the age (very young, in the middle or very old) of the eyewitness; the eyesight of the eyewitness; if the eyewitness had special training in observational techniques, such as, those learned by police officers, cinematographers, or news reporters...; among others things.

Or with the Zapruder film.

Greg, I appreciate your response. What I had in mind was not a duplication of DP, but an approximation showing a car at about the distance of the limo from Zapruder moving in the same direction, etc. etc. Doesn't have to be Dallas especially. Can an 8 mm film be altered the way the alterationists say it was....that was my only point. Obviously using current technology it could. As to 1963 era technology, doesn't Douglas Horne describe how it would have been done? Optical printers, traveling mattes and such? I've seen documentaries showing how effects were achieved in the silent era - surely there are techies who could explain what was possible in the 60s. Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Anscochrome, who cares? This would only be a demonstration, not courtroom worthy proof. I'm agnostic on the subject of alteration, but if it can be demonstrated it was at least possible, wouldn't that be a valuable contribution to the discussion? Likewise, if it can't be done, well...... Richard, As you noted above, the shooting of the test film would not be a problem if certain allowances--as to setting and film stock--are granted. The challenge is finding both the equipment and the personnel trained to properly operate the equipment needed to manipulate the original. I would guess that if the film had indeed been altered at "Hawkeyeworks" in Rochester, NY, it is probable that even THEY no longer have that equipment or the personnel trained to use it today. And--even if THEY still have it and the personnel--I hear they would not be willing to help. I'm not suggesting that this is an impossible task, just a daunting one. Lest we commit a fallacy assuming otherwise, I would also add that: Notwithstanding the absence of this proof of alteration, same does not constitute proof of authenticity.

ROFLMAO! If I still had stitches I'm sure they would have popped open when I read that one! Eloquently irreverent, as usual... Hi Greg, Just the other day I wondered how you were doing. Much better I trust.. Just like with RC-D, I always enjoy reading your posts. Hi Michael, Yes, I'm finally feeling much better. Thanks for asking. I don't want to go too far off topic here, but suffice it to say that the recovery time from this surgery is typically one of the longest. Everything was a success and I should be back full force post haste.

ROFLMAO! If I still had stitches I'm sure they would have popped open when I read that one! Eloquently irreverent, as usual...

Richard, I purchased a camera identical to that of Zapruder a number of years ago and I also purchased ALL of the remaining Kodachrome film stock in existence at the time. Kodak has since discontinued Kodachrome production and processing. I filmed the last possible sequence from the Zapruder pedestal on November 22nd, 2010 that could still be processed. History in the making... Now, while it's true that Ektachrome film would suffice for the same purposes, it's also true that the nay sayers would possibly, if not most certainly, have discredited the experiment if the FILM STOCK did not match Zapruder's Kodachrome--even as irrelevant as that is. So, I took no chances. Suffice it to say that a number of studies are imminent. My recent surgery has delayed the process, but some progress has been made. I did not have the opportunity to conduct the experiment that you are suggesting because it is very difficult--if not impossible--to get the City of Dallas to cooperate. After all, Elm Street is heavily trafficked and such a project would have required the street to have been shut down for a period of time by the DPD. However, I think your experiment could be conducted using Ektachrome film and could perhaps be set on a less trafficked street. It is also important to note that restricting the experiment to 1963 technology is harder that it sounds. Much of that technology exists only in the memory of those who worked with it 50 years ago, but by now it has passed into the void of obsolescence. Having said all of that, I think your suggestion is instructive--albeit challenging to accomplish.

Nicely done, Anthony. KUTGW

The new Iranian suicide bomber...

Deleted because after reading the article, I see that the answers to my questions are contained in the article.

"There It Is" made in 1928.

The pertinent part of the speech can be found at this link around the the 17:00 mark or so. I recommend hearing the entire speech to put it into context.

Bernice, That is not my work or my website--well it seems like some of the work might be "borrowed", but without my knowledge. No problem. Although I am not married to the idea of the storm drain, it certainly isn't worthy of dismissal without further investigation. I believe that it is definitely a possibility. The link below is from a preliminary study I did nearly 15 years ago. Since then I have been down in the system and Scott Myers and I explored the mouth of the Trinity River where the system leads. In my opinion, it is the perfect escape plan. http://rense.com/politics4/drain.htm

That's not JFK in the car...it's Lovelady! See how JFK is both "in front of and behind" Doorman? Oswald was sworn in on AF-1 wearing a cheap suit he purchased mail order from Sears Roebuck & Co with LBJ's face pasted on the photo. Ruby actually killed J.D. Tippit in the basement of the DPD. All very neat and clean. Case closed.