Greg Burnham

Actually, Tommy, I said it to Hemming. He said I was on the right track. I don't know if JFK was aware, but I highly doubt it. RFK--very possibly. LHO, yes.

Plan A: Fake an attempt on JFK in order to free him to attack Cuba, since an assassination attempt originating with Castro would relieve JFK of his obligation to the Soviets to never invade Cuba--blame it on the patsy, Castro sympathizer, Oswald--and make it look real good. Team A was deployed to that end. Perpetrators (Team B ) infiltrated that plan and launched a real assassination plot using the machinations for cover that had already been manufactured to accommodate Plan A. The only trouble was that the Plan A cover story was airtight ONLY if JFK survived as planned. Because a traitorous element exploited a very dangerous psychological "Operations Northwoods" type propaganda campaign, JFK was killed and the cover story began to become far more dangerous than it had originally been intended. This did NOT suit the original objective of Plan A, the justification of a Cuban invasion...rather, if exposed it threatened to launch a nuclear exchange. And they got away with it...almost. They didn't count on us.

Mark, As you are already probably aware, the FBI traced the actual casings allegedly retrieved from the 6th Floor "sniper's lair" back to a batch of 400,000 (Four Hundred Thousand) ordered by the USMC in 1954 from the Western Cartridge Company of Chicago. FBI had been requested to find the provenance of the ammunition in the hope of "placing it in the hands of Oswald" and they concluded that it was purchased for the CIA "by the Marine Corps for concealment" purposes. FBI deduced this because the Marine Corps, did not at the time--and never had they in the past--any weapons from which that ammunition could have been fired. This dovetails nicely with Hemming's account of the use of weapons for which the ammunition would have been appropriate in training the rebels. Since we know that Oswald was being framed, it makes perfect sense that in order to obstruct the investigation the evidence of the ammunition (casings) that was intended for CIA covert operational use would be planted. It was not difficult to trace back to the source...and the source was teflon.

Gerry assured me that this is an inaccurate interpretation of the conversation he had with Weberman. He believed that many of the misquotes were deliberate (on Weberman's part) so as to induce a lawsuit from Hemming that would result in subpoena power (of records and other evidence) and the like. We had dozens of conversations regarding the Carcano alone. He said emphatically that the alleged weapon was a piece of xxxx. This was not a mild expression of distaste, rather it was an all out loathing of the weapon. He claimed that the US military (probably the Marines) ordered and supplied over a thousand of these weapons to the anti-Castro Cubans who were training at various bases, post Bay of Pigs, for a second attempt at invading Cuba. They were training with them at Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana, as well. Hemming claimed that it was not to be used as a "sniper rifle" per se because it lacked accuracy--even at relatively short distances. When I asked him why the anti-Castro Cubans were being trained with it--if it was so inferior, he said: "They [anti Castro Cubans] weren't being supplied with better, more expensive, weapons because there never was really going to be a second chance at Cuba anyway. It drove Dave [Ferrie] nuts to have that crap down there. They [CIA] were just going through the motions with the rebels. How the hell do you think they could have contained that bunch of pissed off Cubans?--half of them left families in country [Cuba] when they escaped--some in Castro's jails. They were f*cking pissed off. When the weapon of choice turned out to be that piece of crap gun, we all knew it was over [for a second invasion], but the rebels still bought into it."

Great points, Tom. The greatest portion of this is the facts; a small portion is responsible supposition (at a minimum); another very important portion is a cogent presentation of the evidence that absolutely refutes the official version, i.e. the work of David Mantik, et al; another is the actual spokesperson ... "the face" of it.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/09/24/researcher-poor-st-louis-minorities-targeted-for-secret-cold-war-chemical-testing/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XlH6srJPDoo#!

I don't know even one police officer or sheriff's deputy that prefers an unarmed victim of a crime when arriving on scene. I would much prefer an armed "good guy"--irrespective of the "type" of weapon--to a dead victim. Because of my work I had to carry a gun most of my life. Ihate the xxxxing things. Guys like you make me sick. Norman, I neither like nor do I dislike guns. They are what they are. Some people misuse them, but the vast majority do not. I am neutral toward them. You are entitled to your view. You and I may disagree on this topic. Either way, you do not make me sick. For clarity: I am not advocating an increase in gun ownership nor am I singing the praises of assault weapons. That is not the point. The only point I am attempting to make is that the Constitution is quite clear as to the "Right of the People" to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. This is not a simple challenge. On the one hand, we all want our streets, churches, shopping malls, schools, etc. to be safe. On the other hand, we also need not surrender our Constitutionally guaranteed right of deterrence against an oppressive government. For me that is the issue. It is not "rah-rah-rah everyone gets a gun" in my book. It is balancing public safety with Constitutional concerns in a responsible way.

Why? You have no evidence to support your claim. In 2011 there were approximately 31,940 deaths from guns including suicides. However, there are approximately 270,000,000 guns in the United States. So the "death by gun" rate is less than 0.015% of the total guns owned. Hardly significant statistically. Indeed, it does not match the current death by car statistics, which are improving. Yet, no one has suggested a ban on cars.

I don't know even one police officer or sheriff's deputy that prefers an unarmed victim of a crime when arriving on scene. I would much prefer an armed "good guy"--irrespective of the "type" of weapon--to a dead victim.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. The second amendment is only peripherally about personal protection/defense against criminals. The Second Amendment is about citizens being capable of defending themselves against an abusive government. That was the entire spirit of this "God given right" according to the founding fathers. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution) is the only portion of the Constitution that cannot be amended--such was their import in the minds of those who had escaped the tyranny of King George III in...wait for it...England. Given the grave concerns of the founding fathers which are undisputed, it is quite clear that their intent was to arm citizens similarly to that of their own government. Today, there must be some rationale for limiting the type of weapons that non-military personnel can possess, such as, tanks. Of course, most folks can't afford one and secondly without proper training they should not be allowed to own or operate such things. Even our basic State run Departments of Motor Vehicles rightly would prohibit such "vehicles" from operating, as well a plethora of other existing laws would automatically prohibit their use. However, citizens are quite capable of being trained adequately to properly and safely operate so-called "assault weapons" if they so desire. In my opinion, those weapons are, in fact, protected under the Second Amendment--whether some groups like it or not. The problem has more to do with disallowing criminals and mentally deranged individuals from possessing those weapons. Even if a law is passed (against the Constitution) that requires all assault weapons to be surrendered, what makes anyone here think that CRIMINALS are suddenly going to become law abiding citizens and turn in their weapons? The answer, of course, is that they will not. The old adage is apropos: When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. As for the claim that the government's military has overwhelming superiority, I say this: Although that is true, keep in mind that wherever we have waged war--from Germany during WWII to Iraq and Afghanistan today--our personnel end up going Door-to-Door after all of the major weapons' utility has been expended. Big weapons have a place, but they don't end the conflict. Not even close. So, there remains a place for personal arms in citizens' homes--even the objectionable types--in order to resist a tyrannical government. This is in the spirit of the US Constitution and should not be viewed any other way. -

Two dear friends came to visit me and my wife for dinner on Christmas evening. They are aware of my somewhat obvious interest in this subject given that my home office is decorated in a very Kennedy-esque motif, replete with a book case full of volumes on the subject, framed artwork and photographs on the walls, and historical items, too numerous to list, almost spilling out of drawers. I was, however, quite taken aback at their innocently enough offered--well intentioned--Christmas gift: Killing Kennedy by Bill O'Reilly. In an attempt to give me a meaningful gift they inadvertently did the exact opposite. I thanked them for their generosity noting that: "I never would have gotten around to buying this one--not in a million years!"

My copy has 576 pages.

deleted

This so-called reenactment photo is worthless except to demonstrate how shoddy these research methods are proving to be.

The late Sherman Skolnick was a personal friend of mine. His research skills were exemplary; his courage to expose corruption was unparalleled; his dedication to the truth was stellar.

Robert once again shows his predilection for making TEXAS (LBJ) omnipotent. That Israel was not complicit does not necessarily make a native son of Texas (LBJ) complicit by default. LBJ was not nearly as grandiose as you would have others believe, except in his own mind. Don't get me wrong, LBJ was no saint--far from it--with many ghosts in his closet. But, he is not the overly dominating father-figure you would have us believe is the master-mind behind the plot.

Spoken from a position of utter ignorance, Robert strikes again... Indeed you haven't read very much so it's no wonder you haven't gotten to it yet. Burnham, aren't you the one who did not know (in 2012 no less!) Robert Kennedy was on the verge of destroying Lyndon Johnson both by feeding LIFE magazine damaging info and by sending a lawyer up to the Senate Rules Committee with the same agenda? And you didn't even know that your supposed friend Jack White emphatically thought Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination? Which he stated on many occasions - for decades - as he fingered LBJ as the most important player in the JFK assassination. I agree I don't know a lot things, but you really don't impress me, Burnham. Averell Harriman had absolutely nothing - and I mean nothing - to do with the JFK assassination. And what I have learned is Cuba policy played a far, far bigger role in it than Vietnam policy. And if anyone DOES think Averell Harriman, a friend of John Kennedy, was involved in the JFK assassination, please list some books or some good web links for me and others to read on this topic. Just because Harriman disagreed with his FRIEND John Kennedy on Vietnam, does not mean he murdered him. However, Lyndon Johnson was having a 3 year war with the Kennedys and was on the verge of political execution and personal destruction by them. You raised many irrelevant objections in your reply. We were talking about Harriman. But, since you brought it up: I last spoke to Jack White, in person, in 2010--after my COPA presentation--where I met you. Jack affirmed that immediately following the assassination and for many years thereafter he believed LBJ was behind it--the mastermind--and he said he thought that most Texans believed that, as well. However, upon many years of research he concluded that although LBJ was an essential figure, no doubt, he was not in any way the "mastermind" -- and not really even close to it. Later in life he leaned heavily toward Dulles being in that role. That conclusion (Dulles) is not one that Jack and I shared.

While the generosity you have displayed here at the EF is simply, well, overwhelming, your interpretation of events at DPF is sorely lacking. Jim Fetzer was not banned because the owners disagree with him. We'll just leave it at that.

Spoken from a position of utter ignorance, Robert strikes again... Indeed you haven't read very much so it's no wonder you haven't gotten to it yet.

Exactly Bernice. Yep! Great observation, Beans.

I already did before I posted this thread! Did you get my PM? Check your in box if it hasn't been compromised. I have no faith in Forum messaging. I'll give you a phone call.

I had the pleasure of spending the day with David Mantik and Noel Twyman. The last time the three of us were together (at the same time) was in 2001 when we presented our respective work, along with Jim Fetzer, at the Encinitas Conference. Noel remains sharp as ever, a real gem, and a wealth of information. And of course David is a good friend and colleague. The meeting was most constructive. There will be more to come, stay tuned. For those who do not yet have Noel's book, Bloody Treason, (and even for those who do), it is available in electronic form (E-book) on Amazon for only $9.99! I know that many folks were unable to afford the $37.50 price tag when it was released in hardback. Today it sells for $393.00 (new) and $129.00 (used)! However, this e-book edition is a fantastic resource as the pictures are extremely clear and typos have been corrected along with a few very minor items. Don't misunderstand: This is not a sales pitch! It is an opportunity... David asked Noel: "Would you recant anything you wrote in the book?" Noel replied: "Not a thing." That is quite remarkable for a 600+ page book. http://www.amazon.com/Bloody-Treason.../dp/B0035G09FW

Good stuff, Bill. Thanks for posting it.

No measurements. A pity. I was going to go to bat for you.

I would like to thank Craig Lamson for his honesty. This thread has been here for over two years. We now find out that Craig never measured anything within the Zapruder film. Nothing. No distances. No angles. Not a thing. (Or he just refuses to tell). John Costella measured EVERYTHING. It is impossible to test Lamson's "work" because he cannot provide the RAW DATA that would have been required for him to reach any scientific conclusions, let alone refute the scientific conclusions of someone else. Lamson's cry of "Costella was wrong" is weak and irrelevant. What exactly was Costella wrong about? Perhaps he overstated a point. Big deal. It is, at worst, a short-cut. However, this does not have any bearing on the specifics of the subject. For the specifics, we need measurements. And what did Lamson measure? Nothing. Not one thing. He has no argument. He has rebutted himself by omission.