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#!

On a separate note I'm surprised a former LEO would take such a stand. Would you like to still be a CHIP today knowing there was a good possibility people you came into contact with would be armed with assault rifles or automatic pistols capable of firing numerous armour piercing or dumb-dumb rounds per second?

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.

You'll probably end up shooting your significant other, a neighbor or yourself.

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.

On a separate note I'm surprised a former LEO would take such a stand. Would you like to still be a CHIP today knowing there was a good possibility people you came into contact with would be armed with assault rifles or automatic pistols capable of firing numerous armour piercing or dumb-dumb rounds per second?

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!"

The only JFK paperback from the nineties that was 900 pages that I can think of is Dick Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much.

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.

Averell Harriman had absolutely nothing to do with the JFK assassination. Nothing. Nothing at all. In 4-5 years of intense JFK research I have found almost nothing in the literature or in comments among the top JFK researchers to indicate that Averell Harriman had anything to do with the JFK assassination.

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.

I see that the DPF have now banned Jim Fetzer because they disagree with what he says.

You won't see that here. I disagree with most - if not all - of what Jim Fetzer asserts on various issues but as long as he states his beliefs within the Forum rules, he will always be allowed to state them.

If people disagree with what others say, there will be rebuttals. If people agree with what a poster says, there may be posts of support. Others may simply lurk, read and consider.

I think I'm right in saying that this Forum was established not to tell you what to believe, but rather to allow all voices to be heard - in a civil manner - and let people decide for themselves what to believe.

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.

Averell Harriman had absolutely nothing to do with the JFK assassination. Nothing. Nothing at all. In 4-5 years of intense JFK research I have found almost nothing in the literature or in comments among the top JFK researchers to indicate that Averell Harriman had anything to do with the JFK assassination.

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.

And a thread like this, started by Mr.Colby deliberately, only brings more attention to those out there contributing in any way they can, in putting the serious researchers down and hopefully in heaping more ridicule on them by the media sharks...b

Exactly Bernice.

Yep! Great observation, Beans.

Greg, will you get back to me on contact info on Lamar Chaovin?

Thanks, BK

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.

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.