Greg Burnham

Good stuff, Don. Welcome home!

Thanks Greg.

I appreciate that list and your arguments. I'll digest them. Thank you, Greg.

You're welcome, Glenn.

Glenn,

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and list some of my beliefs. None are based on CONSPIRACY THEORY. I will only name five. They are enough, but there are many more.

They are based on evidence. Some are even based on LACK of INVESTIGATION of the relevant evidence.

1) the SBT is contrived (this shouldn't even need explanation anymore)

2 ) the protection detail broke down in myriad ways and "lost" their client (that FACT is prima facie evidence of their having been compromised)

3) the medical evidence is very suspect, i.e, the autopsy photographs and x-rays don't match each other nor do they match themselves (big problem)

4) some of the film evidence has been tampered with (even though many still are not convinced--and I don't blame them, it is my belief)

5) the "chain of evidence" was compromised regarding EVERY SINGLE piece of vital evidence:

a ) the disposition of the president's body (no autopsy in Texas!!!)

b ) the disposition and treatment of the presidential limo (the immediate scene of the crime!)

c ) the provenance of the Z-film in the hours and days following the crime

The list goes on and on and on.

Glenn,

You seem to be intent on "cornering" me into a caricature you will find easy to sucker punch. Guess what, buddy? It's not gonna happen.

I do not have any "conspiracy THEORIES" and therefore I have none to defend.

I am not sure if you're just having difficulty with the written English language, but I can't understand what you are asking.

Glenn Viklund said: Greg,'

"i do not have a pet theory".

Please explain what that mean you are buying into anything you find acceptable and denying the rest. no? You are not cherry picking the reasons for you basic conspiracy beliefs?

Thanks Greg,

for pointing out this, I'll try again, OK?

Please explain what that means; you are buying into anything you find acceptable as a CT and denying the rest? You are not cherry picking the reasons for your basic conspiracy beliefs?

Heck Greg,

It's been four years and I've yet to see you (the die hard CT) take a clear stand on any specific issue. You find that strange, Greg?

Not at all Greg.

The thing is quite the opposite; where and why are you in this case? Oh, I've seen your dates with Mantik, Fetzer etc, so even I, over here know that you know these fellas...

But that couldn't be it?

Glenn,

You seem to be intent on "cornering" me into a caricature you will find easy to sucker punch. Guess what, buddy? It's not gonna happen.

I do not have any "conspiracy THEORIES" and therefore I have none to defend.

I am not sure if you're just having difficulty with the written English language, but I can't understand what you are asking.

Glenn Viklund said: Greg,'

"i do not have a pet theory".

Please explain what that mean you are buying into anything you find acceptable and denying the rest. no? You are not cherry picking the reasons for you basic conspiracy beliefs?

Thanks Greg,

for pointing out this, I'll try again, OK?

Please explain what that means; you are buying into anything you find acceptable as a CT and denying the rest? You are not cherry picking the reasons for your basic conspiracy beliefs?

Heck Greg,

It's been four years and I've yet to see you (the die hard CT) take a clear stand on any specific issue. You find that strange, Greg?

I am not sure if you're just having difficulty with the written English language, but I can't understand what you are asking.

Glenn Viklund said: Greg,'

"i do not have a pet theory".

Please explain what that mean you are buying into anything you find acceptable and denying the rest. no? You are not cherry picking the reasons for you basic conspiracy beliefs?

Glenn,

I am not a "conspiracy theorist" (CT), meaning I do not have any pet theory of what happened. In the past I have entertained various possibilities, but today I shy away from holding any particular theory or speculating because I believe that a whole lot will never be known by design. I see no purpose arguing for a position that cannot be adequately substantiated.

However, make no mistake: I believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and a conspiracy to obstruct justice during the investigation of the crime. The latter extends to this very day. It is easier to show what could not possibly have happened (the WCR) than it is to show the details of exactly what did happen.

This is incredibly funny. He posted this in May of 2011 on alt.assassination.jfk --

On May 6, 12:32 am, "F. Carlier" <Fra-Carl...@bbox.fr> wrote:

=============

Hello everybody.

We can now announce the results of our great competition : "Who is the

most stupid, conceited and useless conspiracy theorist?"

There is a draw between James DiEugenio, Jim Fetzer, Jack White, Lee

Farlooser, Greg Burnham, and an unknown moron named Michael Hogan.

They have all won.

All of them are very stupid, very conceited, and very useless.

Poor me!

=======

So, I guess you can count me out...although I really do appreciate being included in a group of such distinguished fellows!

Very timely, indeed.

(If not appropriate for this section, please move to appropriate area)

People who know me will know I don't agree with Jim Fetzer on most issues (e.g. 9-11, Apollo). Hell, I can't think of an issue where we do agree. Still, as a non-JFK person, I am pretty amazed at the way some people have turned against him and all but declared him as the antichrist. He has posted material and opinions which many people do not agree with. Some of those people have previously been his ardent supporters. Now that he differs in aspects of his beliefs (with respect to historical events, not religious or spiritual beliefs), some people have now started not just disagreeing with him but are disowning him, actively calling into question his abilities / sanity / whatever.

Why can't his previous 'friends' just say they disagree with - but still respect - him? It seems that some researchers are unable to tolerate anyone who disagrees with their particular theories, who differ from their cult.

What does this say about those people?

Evan has prefaced his questions with certain premises which, in my opinion, could have been phrased more accurately than they were.

Who are Jim Fetzer's ardent supporters that have turned against him?

Evan merely says how he can't think of an issue where he and Fetzer agree, but he leaves unsaid just how ascerbic some of his discussions with Fetzer were.

There is one good friend that we all know of, but the reason for that estrangement is a personal and complicated one.

What cult is Evan referring to? Who are these "previous friends" that Evan is referring to? Who are "those people?"

Evan does not claim to respect Jim Fetzer. If he does not, why should others?

Although Don Jeffries feels that Evan is defending Jim Fetzer, I actually don't think that's the case. Evan's post was destined to get members

to say negative things about Jim Fetzer, and that is exactly what has happened so far.

Great stuff, Michael. "Spot on" as they say in the vernacular across the pond...

I am probably going to get a bit of trouble for this ( other moderators, if this post needs to be hidden, by all means, do so.)

Many of us argue, and yet keep a level of respect. Most folk here will take evidence to heart, and if they make a mistake, they will admit it. We are supposed to be providing ideas and evidence to each other. Sometimes we are wrong. It is OK to be wrong. It is how we react to it that is important.

Many of the people here have endearing qualities as well which shine through what they write. Their posts exhibit the human qualities that we all possess. That is what makes them likeable.

Dr. Fetzer doesn't do that, IMO. His posts are written in a yelling manner, and I almost feel that I am reading things written by Oz, the Great and Powerful, instead of the man behind the curtain. This is exactly how it is to me:

"

Kathy,

Wow.

You said a great deal there. I very much appreciate your courage to say what you said...and your very (IMO) astute observations.

This very good information, Joe. Thanks so much for posting it. I'm looking forward to your article.

You're a funny guy, Burnham. Of all the things I said in my last post,that's what you wanted to comment on, my not being intimidated? You copied that over and responded to it and ignored all the rest? Especially the letters from my readers? There was some content there concerning things of substance to the case. But no, you're not interested in that. You prefer playing this game of oneupsmanship.

You're not that interested in this, Burnham. Why don't you just admit it? You're not interested in talking about the facts of the case. So why are you here?

Ralpy,

You are not allowed to question the motivations of other members.

--

Greg Burnham - well isn't that rich... How many times have YOU crossed the line on that? Just because you have not figured out Lyndon Johnson is not a key player in the JFK assassination does not mean that others who have are some sort of intelligence operatives.

What the hell are you talking about? Who said that any of you have worked with any intelligence agency? I wouldn't be surprised, except that YOU are not "intelligence agency" material for OBVIOUS reasons, no?

No, I would never give you that much credit, Bobby boy.

Naturalism

http://www.online-li.../naturalism.php

Oscar Wilde

and the Aesthetic Movement, and the Cult of Beauty in Art and Design

Report of the lecture given by

Dr Anne Anderson BA PhD FSA

on 26 January 2011

http://www.cranleigh...org/rev1101.htm

Thank you for that. It is a shame that most of the writers mentioned are not read very much today. I am a great fan of people like Frank Norris, Jack London and David Graham Phillips.

http://www.spartacus....uk/Jnorris.htm

http://www.spartacus...uk/JlondonJ.htm

http://www.spartacus...AphillipsDG.htm

Great stuff, John! Thanks for it. I too am a big fan of Jack London. I am not as familiar with Norris' work, but Phillips is top shelf as well.

You don't know who you're dealing with.

Yes, I do. I always do my homework. I advise you to do the same.

Say goodbye, Ralph Cinque. You are done. IMO only--free speech: You are a charlatan and an impostor. You are a snake oil salesman at best. Your "proofs" are a sham. You have been exposed.

I regret that you have taken down Jim Fetzer with you, who once was my friend.

A pity.

deleted

As for Greg Burnham, who was once my dear friend, I did not mean to come between him and his wife, Julie, whom I also like. But he introduced her into a discussion where she was unaware of the context, which I regard as inexcusable. This is not the first and no doubt will not be the last time that I lose a friend related to research on these complex and controversial issues.

You did not come between us. You insulted me. You insulted my family. You disrespected my relationship and THAT is inexcusable. Indeed, them is fighting words. Remember it, Jim. I will never forget.

Next: You are misrepresenting the facts. You've been here, Jim. I have a GIGANTIC monitor. I had six versions of the Altgens 5 photo displayed of varying sizes--close ups as well as original size and everything in between. The only thing I asked Julie to do was to "describe the details" as she saw them in the Altgens photo. That was it. There need not be any more "context" beyond that. David Mantik agreed with me. After seeing her video, which I am re-posting below, David said: "Good for Julie!"

http://http://www.yo...h?v=uS1-AM6e-Gg

Greg,

Sorry for asking, but is there a particular reason for this being displayed in public?

Yes. Jim's offense was done here--publicly. He has yet to apologize privately or publicly. He needs to do that, but that would require an admission of error. Although I am not convinced he is wrong about the person in the doorway, I am convinced that his methodology is faulty. However, that is just my opinion. But, his breach of ettiquette is not just my opinion.

I apologize to the members and moderators and to John Simklin for airing this publicly. It will be my last post on the matter.

deleted

My pleasure.

Thanks Greg.

Robin said: "Bottom line, if your theories are not accepted by the majority of the forum members, administrators , and moderators.

THEN YOU HAVE NOTHING !

As a point of logic...that is fallacious...HOWEVER, your sentiment is very well taken, I'm sure. (I just don't want to give the good professor an easy target).

Jim,

You and I were friends for many, many years. And while I agree with you, in principle, that when friendship compromises truth then only friendship remains--STILL--it is incumbent upon an honest broker to weigh the track record of those with whom he has had a long and PROVEN relationship of trust against those relationships acquired more recently. It is unfortunate that you seem to now be convinced that some of those whom you once sought out for their critical thinking skills are suddenly deemed hostile. The allure of novelty is tempting. It seduces of its own power. But, there was a time when you sought the counsel of trusted fellow researchers. Those days seem to be a thing of the past.

All of the rather caustic exchanges that this topic evokes is caused by a premature publication of findings, IMO. When you spread your pearls among the swine you should expect nothing less. Moreover, a bright guy like you should AVOID a pigsty while carrying precious pearls. But, I suspect that you KNOW that this pen is NOT full of pigs else you wouldn't post here. Perhaps there is more to this dynamic than you first thought.

There is another truth, Jim. It is a human truth. When a person becomes publicly abrasive to a trusted colleague; accuses him of perpetuating a fraud on his own wife; and stubbornly rejects the counsel that is offered--then one must ask: "Why did Fetzer ask what I thought of this study to begin with? He obviously cares not what I believe. He has already made up his mind."

If you are looking for automatic agreement from those you have trusted in the past...count me out. You see, I value the truth too much to humor any man.

I do not know who was in the doorway. I do not think it has been proved that LHO was the man. I do not think it has been proved that it was Lovelady either.

On a final note: I observe a curious doppelganger, of sorts. It reminds me of the early days between Jack White and Gary Mack. One of them always spelled him Badgeman, while the other insisted it was Badge Man. We know what happened there...

Now, one of you spells him Doorway Man and the other Doorman. Coincidence of cognitive dissonance? Me thinks not.

Please do not reply to this post. I do not care what you have to say.

Bill,

I tried to upload the NPIC briefing boards, but the EF doesn't accommodate that large a file. Let me try them one at a time.

--Sorry, it only let me do one.

It's a PDF.

Thanks Doug...

Good work, David. You may be on to something here. The easiest way to know that you probably are close to something...is when the Trolls dismiss you out of hand. It is signature. Keep at it.