Greg Burnham

Monk, you make a good argument that cannot be discounted entirely. But if I'm designing an assassination with the available technology I'm going for a first-shot paralytic and a second-shot kill shot. Why mess around? The patsy was already well set-up. Wouldn't they be more concerned with Job #1 -- a kill shot? Cliff, In my view, the order of priorities would be thus: 1) The target must not survive; 2) The designated patsy must be framed; 3) The evidence must be fabricated and/or destroyed as appropriate for the purpose needed; 4) The cover story must be air tight for as long as it takes to gain a momentum of its own; 5) The guilty parties can never be held accountable First, paralytic; second, place a round of "provably the patsy's" ammunition in close proximity to the victim's body, third keep shooting until successful The alleged "discovery" of a bullet matching the patsy's weapon lent a lot of weight to his guilt despite the inconveniently pristine condition in which it was found.

Well, we know that the assassins did not use darts because there is definitely discernible traces of the wounds left in the presidents body. Wounds? Yes--wounds. Darts and toxins? No trace.

There was indeed a modified Colt .45 (1911-A) employed by the agency to fire Flechette darts that carried a chemical named "46-40" to instantaneously paralyze the target. Originally, we used this to render attack/guard dogs immobile BEFORE they could sound an alarm (bark). The chemical and the delivery agent (dart) are both soluble within the body and leave no discernible trace without intense forensic examination. The dart was later modified to carry an extremely high explosive. The dart was powered by "solid rocket fuel" and was initiated by an ignition, as opposed to an explosion (such as a firing cap). However, the darts were tiny. From the Church Committee testimony of CIA Director Colby: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1975. Testimony of William E. Colby, director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Committee met at 10 A.M. in the Russell Building. Present: Senators Church, Tower, Mondale, Huddleston, Morgan, Hart of Colorado Baker, Goldwater, Mathias, and Schweiker. Also present: William G. Miller, staff director, Frederick A. 0. Schwarz, chief counsel, Curtis Smothers and Paul Michel, Committee staff members. Chairman Church: The particular case under examination today involves the illegal possession of deadly biological poisons which were retained within the CIA for five years after their destruction was ordered by the President. . . . The main questions before the Committee are why the poisons were developed in such quantities in the first place: why the Presidential order was disobeyed; and why such a serious act of insubordination could remain undetected for so many years. William Colby: The specific subject today concerns the CIA's involvement in the development of bacteriological warfare materials with the Army's Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick, CIA's retention of an amount of shellfish toxin, and CIA's use and investigation of various chemicals and drugs. . . . Information provided by him [a CIA officer not directly associated with the project] and by two other officers aware of the project indicated that the project at Fort Detrick involved the development of bacteriological warfare agents--some lethal--and associated delivery systems suitable for clandestine use [emphasis added]. The CIA relationship with the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick was formally established in May 1952. The need for such capabilities was tied to earlier Office of Strategic Services World War II experience, which included the development of two different types of agent suicide pills to be used in the event of capture and a successful operation using biological warfare materials to incapacitate a Nazi leader temporarily. The primary Agency interest was in the development of dissemination devices to be used with standard chemicals off the shelf. Various dissemination devices such as a fountain pen dart launcher appeared to be peculiarly suited for clandestine use. . . . A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of incapacitating guard dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were developed for the Army, the Agency did request the development of a small, hand-held dart launcher for its peculiar needs for this purpose. Work was also done on temporary human incapacitation techniques. These related to a desire to incapacitate captives before they could render themselves incapable of talking, or terrorists before they could take retaliatory action. [Or to prevent guard dogs from barking.] One such operation involved the penetration of a facility abroad for intelligence collection. The compound was guarded by watchdogs which made entry difficult even when it was empty. Darts were delivered for the operation, but were not used. Church: Have you brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people? Colby: We have indeed. Church: Does this pistol fire the dart? Colby: Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a small dart. [self-propelled, like a rocket.] Church: So that when it fires, it fires silently? Colby: Almost silently; yes. Church: What range does it have? Colby: One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100 meters. Church: About 100 meters range? Colby: Yes. Church: And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die? Colby: That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used. There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which potentially would be able to enter the target without perception. Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy? Colby: Well there was an attempt-- Church: Or the dart? Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1975. Richard Helms' testimony: Huddleston: Mr. Helms, you said you were surprised, or that you had never seen the dart gun that was displayed here yesterday. Would you be surprised or shocked to learn that that gun, or one like it, had been used by agents against either watchdogs or human beings? Helms: I would be surprised if it had been used against human beings, but I'm not surprised it would have been used against watchdogs. I believe there were various experiments conducted in an effort to find out how one could either tranquilize or kill guard dogs in foreign countries. That does not surprise me at all. Huddleston: Do you know whether or not it was used, in fact, against watchdogs? Helms: I believe there were experiments conducted against dogs. Whether it was ever used in a live operational situation against dogs, I do not recall. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1975. Testimony of Charles A. Senseney: Senseney: I worked in the Biological Warfare Section of Fort Detrick from 1953. . . . I was the project engineer of the M-1 dart launcher and following on microorganism projectiles and so forth. Smothers: Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45 caliber pistol with a sight mount at the top? Senseney: This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-1 projectile to go into the Army stockpile. It did look like a .45. Smothers: Did the CIA have, Mr. Senseney, the wherewithal to utilize this dart launcher against humans? Senseney: No, they asked for a modification to use against a dog. Now, these were actually given to them, and they were actually expended, because we got all of the hardware back. For a dog, the projectile had to be made many times bigger. It was almost the size of a .22 cartridge, but it carried a chemical compound known as 46-40. Smothers: And their interest was in dog incapacitation? Senseney: Right Baker: Your principle job with the DOD, I take it, was to develop new or exotic devices and weapons: is that correct? Senseney: I was a project engineer for the E-1, which was type classified and became the M-1. They were done for the Army. Baker: Did you have any other customers? Senseney: To my knowledge, our only customer was Special Forces and the CIA, I guess. Baker: Special Forces meaning Special Forces of the Army? Senseney: That is correct. Baker: And the FBI? Senseney: The FBI never used anything. Baker: Looking at your previous executive session testimony, apparently you developed for them a fountain pen. What did the fountain pen do? Senseney: The fountain pen was a variation of an M-1. An M-1 in itself was a system, and it could be fired from anything [emphasis added]. It could be put into-- Baker: Could it fire a dart or an aerosol or what? Senseney: It was a dart. Baker: It fired a dart . . . a starter, were you talking about a fluorescent light starter? Senseney: That is correct. Baker: What did it do? Senseney: It put out an aerosol in the room when you put the switch on. Baker: What about a cane, a walking cane? Senseney: Yes, an M-1 projectile could be fired from a cane; also an umbrella. Baker: Also an umbrella. What about a straight pin? Senseney: Straight pin? Baker: Yes, sir. Senseney: We made a straight pin, out at the Branch. I did not make it, but I know it was made, and it was used by one Mr. Powers on his U-2 mission. Huddleston: Were there frequent transfers of material between Dr. Gordon's [a researcher at Fort Detrick] office and your office, either the hardware or the toxin? Senseney: The only frequent thing that changed hands was the dog projectile and its loaders 46-40. This was done maybe five or six in one quantity. And maybe six weeks to six months later, they would bring those back and ask for five or six more. They would bring them back expended, that is, they bring all of the hardware except the projectile, okay? Huddleston: Indicating that they have been used? Senseney: Correct. Huddleston: But it could have been used on a human being? Senseney: There is no reason why it could not, I guess. Schweiker: Mr. Senseney, I would like to read into the record [from a CIA document] at this point a quote from paragraph nine [exhibit 6, document 67]: "When funds permit, adaptation and testing will be conducted of a new, highly effective disseminating system which has been demonstrated to be capable of introducing materials through light clothing, subcutaneously, intramuscularly, and silently, without pain." Now, I just have a little trouble, Mr. Senseney, reconciling your answers in conjunction with this project, when the CIA document makes clear that one of the very specific purposes of the funding and the operation was to find a weapon that could penetrate light clothing subcutaneously, which obviously means through the skin, and intramuscularly, which obviously means through the muscles of a person. And are you saying that you have absolutely no recollection at all that tests or programs were designed to use any of these devices to permeate clothing on people and not dogs? Senseney: We put them on mannequins. Schweiker: What's that? Senseney: We put clothing on mannequins to see whether we could penetrate it. These were the requirements. You almost read the exact requirements that the SDR quoted from the Special Forces there. Schweiker: I would not expect you to test them on live human beings. I would hope that you did use mannequins, Mr. Senseney. Wouldn't that be directed toward people-usage, though? That is the point we're trying to establish. Senseney: That is what the Special Forces direction was. You have to look at it this way. The Army program wanted this device. That is the only thing that was delivered to them. It was a spin-off, of course, from the M-1. The M- 1 was a lethal weapon, meant to kill a person, for the Army. It was to be used in Vietnam. It never got there, because we were not fast enough getting it into the logistics system. Schweiker: What was the most-utilized device of the ones with which you worked and supervised? Senseney: The only thing I know that was really used was the dog projectile. The other things were in the stockpiles. I don't think anyone ever requested them. Schweiker: How do you know for certain it was for dogs? Senseney: Well that is what they asked us to test them against. They wanted to see whether they could put a dog to sleep, and whether sometime later the dog would come back and be on its own and look normal. Schweiker: Of the devices that came through you, which of these were utilized in any capacity other than for testing? Senseney: That was the only one that I know of--the dog projectile. I call it a dog projectile. We were developing it because the scenario read that they wanted to be able to make entrance into an area which was patrolled by dogs, leave, the dog come back, and then no one would ever know they were in the area. So that was the reason for the dog projectile. Church: Thank you Senator Schweiker. I think it is clear that the CIA was interested in the development of a delivery system that could reach human beings, since not many dogs wear clothing. And you would agree with that, wouldn't you? Senseney: Yes. Church: Okay. Schwarz: Along the same line, I assume you must agree that spending money in order to make darts of such a character that they cannot be detected in an autopsy does not have much to do with dogs? Senseney: No, that would not have anything to do with dogs.

Cliff, As for the shallow wound to the back, I think it probable that an under-powered sabot round was used, which contained the 6.5 Manlicher Carcano round that had already previously been fired into cotton baffling using Oswald's rifle. Thus it would bear the rifling of the patsy's weapon without any distortion to the body of the missile. The sabot round would then roll out of the back with the Carcano round free to eventually be found (on a stretcher or wherever) with the incriminating markings present. This would also explain why the Magic Bullet bore the rifling yet remained in pristine condition. it's a good way to set up the patsy's known weapon.

That "Ron" is a fine fellow, isn't he?

I doubt McAdams will take the challenge. He doesn't fare well in the court of public opinion as that would require a lack of common sense. He doesn't do well in debates either. I trounced him in a 1999 debate on the Paul Garson Radio Show and Jim DiEugenio defeated him on Black OP Radio more recently.

A broken record doesn't play even if you glue it back together with songs that are just as bad from a different album.

No. If I thought that-- I would be claiming to know about "everything" you do-- which is clearly not the case. I was not talking about the people in the Pergola's doorway. I was talking about the man you claim was "probably" the Grassy Knoll shooter.

In my view, this is irresponsible research. How can one seriously claim that the man seen may be the shooter from the Grassy Knoll? Why? What makes him suspect? Moreover, even IF true, there are absolutely no identifying features to be obtained from the very limited amount of information available in this photo. I see no value in pursuing this line of inquiry.

I hesitate to even attempt a positive I.D. of the two men, TUM and DCM, from these photos. I do not believe it can be determined given the limited amount of information available. However, it is equally irresponsible, IMO, to dismiss them as innocent. They are, at the very least, "persons of interest" given the nature of their behavior that day in proximity to the target. But, this has already been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere on the forum.

The Banking System, Itself, is the ROOT CAUSE of Money System Instability by Paul Grignon http://paulgrignon.n....html#interest1 http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/twicelentanimated.html --- .

...

Unfortunately, Ed's declaration that "the CIA" was behind it is a bit shallow. Were/are they heavily involved in the cover up (obstruction of justice) of the crime? Yes. But, that is an easily demonstrated fact. However, there is precious little evidence, if any, that they were "behind" the actual deed itself. Many people have drawn inferences from the available evidence implicating the agency in the actual murder, but those inferences are mainly based on unsupported assertions. The underlying theme seems often to be: "If you can't figure out exactly who done it, then it must have been the CIA." That is flawed thinking.

Peace Kathy. You have my sympathy.

Hanks will be narrating the movie only. Nothing about the Bug in it. Paxton is an even less note worthy actor than was the "B-movie" king, Ronal Reagan.

I wonder why he's lagging so far behind. To get a message or a handoff from the "Lansdale" character? --Tommy Maybe not to get a message from the Lansdale character, but rather, to transfer a weapon to the Lansdale character... Well, I doubt that, due to violations of trade-craft, but it is consistent with the manner in which he is carrying the gun. It looks like he's preparing to give it to the man. I can not think of any other reason for a police officer to be holding his gun in that manner. On the other hand, this whole photo might be nothing more than a deliberate distraction. Fletcher used to say it seemed as though Lansdale was there to offer "assurances" that everything was under control.

Memories of Jack White. Len Osanic and I spoke about Jack White on Black Op Radio this morning. The interview is streaming there. Len is also going to stream Jack's interview from the first year BOR was online. He was guest number 15. Just click on "Listen Live" -- http://www.blackopradio.com/

Just for the record, this is still an unconfirmed report. It is very possibly true due to his age and health issues. However, I have not (nor has anyone else I have contacted) received a similar email. The Fort Worth and surrounding newspapers haven't reported anything as of yet. Stay tuned.

Doing what he loved to do most...

John, You're right. Puerto Ricans are US citizens without the right to vote, but can serve in the military. There is considerable debate amongst them as to whether or not to seek statehood. There is a referendum due this November on the subject. I also agree with you that the "Obama did it out of the kindness of his heart" reason behind his EO is a huge stretch--and not very plausible. It seems timed for the election.

It is equivalent to granting amnesty by decree or fiat. Through an Executive Order, President Obama circumvented congress and the American People. Now, it is possible that congress (representing its constituencies) may have passed something similar eventually, but the fact that it was done by an EO undermines the process. I think that the issuing of executive orders is often appropriate, but not so much in this case. I know many people who agree with Obama about this and I also know many who do not. I personally think that the spirit of his action is noble, while the timing is suspect... [edit: John, sorry about being somewhat off topic. I was focusing on the word fiat--but not in relation to currency.]

A different kind of "fiat" was created by this executive order. WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama eased enforcement of immigration laws Friday, offering a chance for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to stay in the country and work. Immediately embraced by Hispanics, the step touched off an election-year confrontation with congressional Republicans. "Let's be clear, this is not amnesty, this is not immunity, this is not a path to citizenship, this is not a permanent fix," he said. "This is the right thing to do." The policy change will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants. It bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the DREAM Act, which would establish a path toward citizenship for young people who illegally came to the U.S. but are in college or the military. Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 and are younger than 30; have been in the country for at least five continuous years; have no criminal history; graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED or served in the military. They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed. Obama said the change is effective immediately to "lift the shadow of deportation from these young people." The move comes in an election year in which the Hispanic vote could be critical in swing states such as Colorado, Nevada and Florida. Although Obama enjoys support from a majority of Hispanic voters, Latino enthusiasm for the president has been tempered by the slow economic recovery, his inability to win congressional support for a broad overhaul of immigration laws and by his administration's aggressive deportation policy. The step, to be carried out by the Department of Homeland Security, comes one week before Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials' annual conference in Orlando. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is to speak to the group Thursday. The policy closely tracks a proposal being drafted by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a potential vice presidential running mate for Romney, as an alternative to the DREAM Act, formally the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act. The change drew swift criticism from GOP lawmakers, who accused Obama of circumventing Congress in an effort to boost his political standing and of favoring illegal immigrants over unemployed U.S. citizens. "President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegal immigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, GOP chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Republicans, including Romney, say they want tighter border security measures before they will consider changes in immigration law. Romney opposes offering legal status to illegal immigrants who attend college but has said he would do so for those who serve in the armed forces. http://www.freep.com...immigration-law

Pat, Even though the commission's counsel were not technically "members" they were under the command of the commissioners. Again...my original answer to Glenn's question is apropos here: The commissioners either knew or should have known that obstruction was taking place since a lot of it was due to activity on the part of their own staff including counsel. Whether or not Ford was actively or passively guilty of obstruction is irrelevant. I believe he was and you believe he was not. However, we both agree that Specter was and is guilty of obstruction. Do we also agree that Ford and the rest of the members "knew or should have known" that obstruction was taking place?

Let me re-phrase my answer. In my opinion, the Warren Commission members knew that obstruction of justice was taking place. This is evidenced by many different things. However, I originally phrased my answer as "knew or should have known" because I do not believe that some of the members necessarily knew the extent of the cover-up. Still, they chose to "look the other way" when evidence of obstruction was right before their eyes. One example: Gerald Ford even admitted to changing the location of the back wound by moving it up! He did this in order to mislead us into believing that the SBT was plausible. Glenn, I have not bullied you. I think I have been rather kind under the circumstances.

The Warren Commission either knew or should have known that they were actively or passively participating in obstruction of justice. The "should have known" is a legal standard that is commonly relied upon by courts. It should be noted that this standard had its genesis in military matters involving command responsibility, but has been invoked routinely in civilian cases and in both criminal and civil trials. "In order to hold a military commander either criminally or civilly liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, the prosecution/plaintiff must prove three elements: 1) those committing the atrocities/war crimes were under the command of the defendant; 2) the commander knew or should have known, based on the surrounding circumstances at the time, that the subordinates were engaging in impermissible conduct; and 3) the commander failed to prevent or punish those responsible for the commission of such crimes. "In the United States this legal standard was first articulated by the Supreme Court in the case In re Yamaxxxxa, 327 U.S. 1 (1946). In Yamaxxxxa, the court held that under the laws of war, a commander was responsible for the actions of his subordinates even if he did not directly order them to commit the crimes, provided that he knew or should have known that troops under his command were engaged in wrongful acts. As part of its holding, the court recognized that military commanders, by virtue of their position, were under an affirmative duty to act and that a failure to prevent or punish their subordinates could lead to personal criminal liability. "Under the first element listed above, the prosecutor or plaintiff must demonstrate that the individuals committing the violations of the laws of war were the subordinates of the commander. These individuals need not have been the direct subordinates of the commander charged. The commanders need only to have been in a position where they could legally or practically order the subordinates to engage or refrain from engaging in an action. In short, the commanders could be located anywhere along the chain of command, so long as they had the ability to issue an order to subordinates." http://www.pbs.org/w...nd_command.html Because the Warren Commission had authority granted to them by the President of the United States they were in a "command" position, by definition.