Greg Burnham

My experiences with Dr. Cyril Wecht are laid out, chapter and verse, in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence. I spent a full day with him in early January, 1971, laying out the case that the wounds had been altered. I showed him documents, and played him tapes: of FBI agent Sibert, for example, questioned by me in 1966, and confronted with the statement that there had been "surgery of the head area," and stating, "The report stands," and much else besides. The meeting lasted at least 5 hours or more. Wecht was non-responsive--he was sphinx-like when I made point after point--but requested I send him memos summarizing the points I had made. In March (1971), I did that, submitting detailed memos of just about everything I had said, memos which (by the way) became the outlines for chapters in Best Evidence. Then came the events of a year later, when the Kennedy family gave permission for Wecht to visit the Arhives, and examine the autopsy photographs. In 1972, and at Wecht's request, I spent time preparing detailed briefing notebooks, for his examination of the X-rays and photos at the National Archives. I didn't spend a day or two--I spent weeks, with professional assistance from two people at the UCLA Medical School, preparing two three ring binders, with the issues all laid out. Then I flew to Pittsburgh, only to find that he hadn't read any of the materials. I was then the overnight guest in his home; and the next day, we flew together to Washington, D.C. I stood outside in the hallway while he conducted his examination. It became clear, at this time, that Dr. Wecht had difficulty reading the X-rays, and could not locate the entry wound on the Xrays. So I took some thread, and tied two knots in the thread, 100 mm apart, so he could place one knot at the EOP, swing an arc, and use it to locate the so-called "wound of entry" at the back of the head. Wecht followed my suggestion, and from his dictated notes, it is clear that he didn't understand what a "wound" would like on X-ray (This is all described in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence). It also became clear to me that Dr. Wecht did not want to take a stand, publicly, on any of this. He loved to talk about the impossibility of the Single Bullet Theory; but he was not going to deal with the question of whether the evidence, itself, had been altered. When, after his examination was over, he told me that the pictures definitely showed no hole at the back of the head, I located and called the Navy photographer, John Stringer, who insisted there was such a hole, when he took the pictures. I called Wecht, who argued with me that perhaps Stringer didn't know anatomical terminology. I called Stringer back, and he ridiculed the idea that he didn't know such terminology, or had any doubt whatsoever that there wasn't a large hole at the back of the head, which included the "occipital" area. Both these calls were taped, and were played back to Stringer oath at the time of the ARRB. But returning to August, 1972. . .: I then called back Wecht, who still expressed doubts, and --quite obviously-wouldn't "go there." My last contact with Wecht was in the taxicab, going to his hotel, or the airport. As his request, I had called the New York Times and set up the interview with Fred Graham, who was the NY Times correspondent covering this matter. In my presence, Wecht declared (to Graham) that the autopsy pictures showed that JFK was hit twice from behind--once in the head, and the other time in the back or shoulder. Wecht would not deal with matters of (in)-authenticity--whether it was the alteration of the body, or anything else. But Wecht loves publicity, and in subsequent interviews in the days following, he told Graham that the President's brain was missing, and so that became the "peg" for the major NY Times news story about his visit to the National Archives. Dr. Wecht then co-wrote an article claiming that JFK was hit twice from behind--just as he said in the taxicab interview. In other words, Wecht lent his "stamp of approval" to the notion that no shots struck from the front. When I returned to Los Angeles, I wrote a detailed report, of over one hundred pages, spelling out everything that happened on this trip. That report--which I edited to be "polite"-- became the basis for my chapter 20, which is all about my interaction(s) with Dr. Wecht, over the years (but most importantly, focused on the August, 1972 visit to NARA) and ends with the line that, based on my personal experience, I found Dr. Wecht to be a "sheep in wolf's clothing." Subsequently, Dr. Wecht made nasty remarks about me, which appear in Gerald Posner's book. Dr. Wecht has not ever--and probably will never--deal with the central issue in this case, which is the alteration of the President's body prior to autopsy. That is what this case needed--someone with the standard forensic medical credentials who would deal with that issue. Wecht had seen the data; he knew all about it; he just would not deal with it. He gives a great speech on the Single Bullet Theory--and has been doing so since 1967. None of that has changed, and I guess we should thank him for that--but that will not really get us to the heart of the matter, which is that the President's body was altered prior to autopsy, and that is why (a) there were no bullets found at autopsy and (b ) the President's wounds, at autopsy, appear to indicate that he was shot twice from behind. If you don't deal with body alteration, you're swimming in the shallow end of the kiddie pool. DSL Fascinating. Can I forward this to Cyril?

David sent me an advance copy of this in its draft form. I think he nails McAdams (aka Paul Nolan) as a charlatan and exposes the weak underbelly of McAdams' WC apology in its entirety. Kudos!

It was Lifton, not Fetzer who brought it up. Lifton asked what I believed, which is off topic and of no consequence. Now, back to the topic of this thread please.

Jim, Just my suggestion for a friend: STOP TAKING THE BAIT! Be the rational one here. This is NOT the JFKresearch Forum where thread integrity was respected by the members--and when it wasn't respected by provocateurs, thread integrity was enforced! This thread is NOT about the moon landings. Stop talking about it here. FWIW

Jim, I apologize if I was less than charitable in my interpretation of your "processing" out loud. However, there is yet another issue involved here that might have slipped through the cracks. If one depends upon the identity of Umbrella Man to help to establish the identity of the Dark Complected Man, and vice versa, then it is very important. For instance, some have appeared to be convinced that the Dark Complected Man is a CUBAN. Now, I am not speaking figuratively here nor am I merely using "Cuban" as a moniker to specify to which individual I am referring. I am saying that many believe that the man holding his fist in the air in front of Umbrella Man is of Cuban descent. They hold this opinion given the circumstances surrounding the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. However, that is specious, at best, in my view. He could be Cuban. But by no means can that be established based on the thin evidence that we now have which consists of only two things: He is dark complected and many anti-Castro Cubans hated JFK. That is not nearly enough. But, if we go a step farther (which I do not recommend) and actually attempt to identify this so-called "Cuban" as Felipe Vidal Santiago, as others have done, we have another problem. If we had assumed that TUM was NOT Steve Witt and instead was Roy Hargraves, a Santiago associate, then we have a tidy little package. Santiago was with Hargraves and Hargraves was with Santiago. However, once TUM becomes Witt the identification of Santiago falls apart, as it should, and the identification of Hargraves also falls apart. If the argument supporting the presence of Santiago resides in his "complexion" and the presence of Hargraves...and if Hargraves is not present because TUM is Witt--then...we don't know who they are. I don't like "best guesses" either. As you know, I do not believe that TUM was Roy Hargraves, nor do I believe he was Gordon Novel...and most certainly not Witt. I don't believe that the Dark Complected Man was Santiago either. Was he Cuban? I don't know. But, it has never been a crime to be Cuban. Hell, I am dark complected, but not Cuban! GO_SECURE monk

No. Both hands are not is his pockets.

Greg Burnham: Months ago, I asked, more than once, as I recall, if you believe we went to the moon. You replied that you could not provide an answer, because you had not had the time to give the matter adequate study. Perhaps the time has come for you to do so, before holding forth with multiple opinions on other matters in the Kennedy case, such as whether Steve Wittt was in Dealey Plaza, as he testified. So, Mr. Burnham—you who say you took Kennedy and what he stood for so seriously: Did we go to the moon, and multiple times? Or is all of that a fraud, and a vast media conspiracy? Inquiring minds want to know. And I do look forward to your response. DSL While we are going off topic, David, why don't you tell us if you believe in Jesus?

Another thread has run its course. The same "de-railers" have thrown in their two cents. What have we learned: 1) Tink displayed a dismally poor representation of his current BIG PICTURE view, if that view is consistent with a conspiracy; 2) or his performance was consistent with someone who has yet to have formed an opinion; 3) or his position is being (pseudo) cleverly suggested via imprecise inference, which is as useless as a lame rented mule; 4) Fetzer has flip-flopped on the issue concerning Umbrella Man's: a-- IDENTITY (Roy Hargraves, Steve Witt) b-- presence in Dealey Plaza (if Witt) c-- value as a witness to other collateral evidence of special interest (to Fetzer and others, I.e., Z-film alteration) 5) Lifton continues to act quite the "conspiratorial FOP" -- concerned primarily with appearance not with substance Witt remains an anomaly. He was most probably not even there, but maybe he was--no matter, he is of no consequence. In my view: TUM was an operative. Dark Complected Man (NOT "the Cuban"! since we can not possibly discern his ethnicity/nationality from the evidence) was an operative due to his behavior.

LOL Odd or old? jk of course--bump again. Both! Hey Greg, let's get together for a cup of something at the Pannikin (LJ) or Lestat's (Abnormal Heights) or Winston's (OB) or the Longboard Bar and Grill (PB) sometime... Hey, we can talk about the JFK assassination! --Odd Old Tommy O'Pepper Fine. "I'll have my girl give your girl a call and we can do lunch..."

I'm sure Craig will post next.

LOL Odd or old? jk of course--bump again.

Indeed. So is Witt Umbrella Man, or not? If not, how do you think he was recruited to pretend he was Umbrella Man? Were the CTs who first found him "duped" into doing so? Was it just a coincidence then that he looked just like him? Or do you think "they" have files on everyone, and found someone looking just like Umbrella Man to play him? And then there's Jim's question... If Witt was not the real deal, then WHY did he make claims in his testimony which went against the "official" story? Was he just a bad student? An eccentric, perhaps? Well, if he was an eccentric, then why the heck shouldn't we believe his story about Neville Chamberlain? I mean, I come across people all the time, who say and do some mighty weird things... One of these guys, a seemingly nice and intelligent guy, insists he saw an alternative version of the Zapruder film, but is bound by some strange oath into never telling anyone who showed it to him... (Sorry, Greg. But I'm trying to make a point.) Your point is obscure, yet not offensive. Witt is not the UM. My ignorance as to how he was "recruited" (if he was recruited) is of no consequence. That is an idiotic question. I am primarily a researcher and I have resisted becoming a witness for many reasons. Mainly, because what I witnessed is mostly inconsequential without the ability to corroborate it. End of story. However, my statement to Jim Fetzer on this forum, regarding the "other film" -- a statement I could have made over the phone, or in private email-- is very relevant to him. It was a "cautionary tale" to be sure.

I hope that RCD does not object to my bumping his earlier post. It is just so damn apropos that it deserves another look. From Robert Charles-Dunne: Indeed.

Greg I don't understand how anything new I post would ever be seen other than under one title .I dont see anyone else on the Forum posting under only one thread . No, I'm not suggesting that you should only post under one thread. I'm suggesting that you only post new information regarding THIS SUBJECT (Oltmans) under that existing thread. Maybe you didn't see this, but if you look at the top right hand side of the forum there is a link called: New Content Every time one adds a new thread OR adds a new post to an existing thread that entire thread and that new post are both automatically moved to the top of the "New Content" filter ahead of all other threads. It makes it very convenient to view all of the new posts since one's last visit. Your entire thread will remain on the first page until it scrolls off the bottom and ends up on page two, three, etc., unless someone else replies to your new post at which time that thread will move back to the top. But, even a week (or years) later if you or anyone posts to that thread it will be bumped to the first position on page one (of NEW CONTENT) again and again. I just made the suggestion because it will be easier to sort out the information if it is all in one place, especially as time goes by and the information grows in volume. As an example, even if you were to randomly pick any existing thread--say way back on the 20th page--and add a new "test post" to that thread and then went back to the top of the page and press the NEW CONTENT link, you'll see that entire thread and your new post will both automatically be "bumped" into the first position. This is true if the thread was originally started today, yesterday, last month, last year, or even 5 years ago. The more interest in a subject, the longer it will remain at the top of the first page because it will see the most activity. Whenever I log onto the forum, the first thing I do is press NEW CONTENT because the vast majority of posts are in the JFK Assassination Debate forum, which is where my interest mainly lies and I can then see all the new posts without scrolling down to that section and searching, etc. Hey, it was just a suggestion. I hope you find it helpful. Sorry to be so long winded especially if you already knew all this stuff. Thanks Greg, I agree, if Tommy will continue to post under one thread on the subject of Oltmans and Demohrenschildt, it will all stay together so we can refer to it in the future. There are now three or more threads on this subject and I forget what are in the others, but they are too far spread apart to bother to go looking for them. If Tommy would continue to post under one thread, we can easily go back and review whats there, and every time he or someone else responds to it, they will automatically go to the top of the forum. While some people just come here to argue, there are some real researchers here and they can best utilize the info if it can be easily accessible. BK JFKcountercoup Agreed, Bill. Hey and this gives it another "bump" to the top. Hey, Tommy--are you watching?

Having said that, I bet Craig Lamson posts next. He is so predictable. He will take the bait every time.

First off, I am struggling with formatting this reply. Please bear with me. monk said: "That he reported similar eyewitness testimony that was consistent with other published eyewitness testimony does not persuade in and of itself. That he appears to have fabricated the explanation for his actions out of thin air indicates perjury. If he offered perjurious testimony to explain the KEY ELEMENTS of his actions in Dealey Plaza, then I am free to reject his testimony in its entirety." Jim said: "He offered eyewitness testimony that, to the best of my knowledge, was not offered by any other HSCA witness. Are you claiming that he had access to descriptions of the limo stop, the Cadillac running onto the Lincoln, the breaks screeching, and all that? How else could he possibly know if he had not been there?" monk says: "In my view, the probability that he was fed testimony consistent with other testimony to which those involved in the deed were privy, is extremely high. Perhaps I misspoke when I said other "published" testimony. My apologies. But, wait--didn't numerous eyewitnesses state that the limo came to a stop, Jim? Didn't they say that prior to 1975? Were the perpetrators aware of this? Of course they were. I saw the "other film" so I do not need yet "one more witness" to corroborate Z-film fakery. It is a fact. End of debate. Witt's testimony offers not one whit of probable corroboration, in my view.

Not insulted - slightly embarrassed. Lee may not too pleased though... he is from, and lives in, Liverpool, England.... As for "Mr I knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who this guy's chiropodist and he told me the story is totally true"... what can I say? You haven't even produced the names of these people and have now tried your darndest to suggest the alleged Arizona protests would not have been published. I don't think Witt would have told a story that was not true unless he had been assured it would not be investigated. And one thing we do know - IT WAS NOT INVESTIGATED. LOL Oops! Sorry, Lee. Hey, I can make up for it. My sir name is English! Having said that, it is encouraging to know that this issue is important to those even outside of the US. -- I think the evidence supporting Witt's testimony is a combination of non-existent and extremely thin. As a juror, I would need a whole lot more. Apparently as Congressmen, the House Select Committee on Assassination's members didn't even need as much as they got.

Never mind-- I think he got the point? I hope--

David, Are you kidding me right now? What kind of a loon would: While on a coffee break, hear about a protest with umbrellas in Phoenix or Tucson that was related to a Neville Chamberlain issue from "Hitler days" which had occurred at least 25 years earlier--and then, not being educated himself about the significance to Munich, and all the rest, connect the dots to JFK's father, Joseph P Kennedy, formerly the Ambassador to the Court of Saint James (something of which Witt had no previous knowledge prior to this coffee break), who was an American Isolationist (a term with which Witt was unfamiliar, but no matter)--STILL decide to imitate that protest himself in the immediate vicinity of the assassination in Dallas? Thanks for your evaluation, Greg. I believe you are spot on. Unless proven otherwise, I will treat Witt in the same way I would treat him if I were a juror. I would reject his claim as there appears to be nothing to substantiate it, notwithstanding the acceptance of his presence in Dealey Plaza by my friend, Jim Fetzer. That he reported similar eyewitness testimony that was consistent with other published eyewitness testimony does not persuade in and of itself. That he appears to have fabricated the explanation for his actions out of thin air indicates perjury. If he offered perjurious testimony to explain the KEY ELEMENTS of his actions in Dealey Plaza, then I am free to reject his testimony in its entirety. While his testimony regarding the limo stop could be indicative of his presence, it is not dispositive by any means. Moreover, while it could be argued that his mentioning a complete stop would be counter-productive to the interests of those wishing to conceal same, the notion of Z-film alteration had yet to be investigated, and therefore was most probably not recognized as a "hot spot" at that time. He appears to have been "fed" testimony in order to self corroborate his own presence. His testimony was not taken contemporaneously by any stretch of the imagination. For once, Jim & Tink have something in common. Sorry, my friend, but you are both wrong about Witt. He wasn't even there. Well, suppose Witt could produce various family members who would state that he was in Dealey Plaza, and how embarrassed he felt about what he had done, etc.--i.e., who would corroborate what he said to the HSCA. I'm not saying Witt has such witnesses, but he certainly told his dentist about it, and that's the "corroboration" that I became personally aware of, back in the 1970s. Also, HSCA investigator Moriarty went to Witts home. Do you seriously believe that his wife, and children were also part of this "perjury" conspiracy that you implicitly posit was unfolding. Yes, I can just imagine it. .. WITT HOME. . SHORTLY BEFORE HIS HSCA APPEARANCE. . . DOORBELL RINGS. . Witt's Wife: "Honey, its the man from the HSCA. He's here, and he wants to speak to you about your fabricated story about having been in Dealey Plaza. Should I tell him to wait in the living room, until you're ready to see him, and lie to him? (And if you need corroboration, I'll be in the kitchen, baking a pie!)" * * * Oh pleez. . .Greg Burnham. . . let's get real. I think this episode simply shows how some people, enamored of a hypothesis, will simply not give it up, no matter what the contrary evidence is. IMHO: The Steve Witt episode is an excellent example of this behavior. Steve Witt was there, he is/was credible, and he was not part of some conspiracy to "signal" for more shots to be fired, or to indicate that JFK was "not yet dead." Those who cling to that silly idea expose themselves as absurdly biased, or poor analysts of data, or both. How can anyone expect the mainstream media to take advocates of conspiracy seriously when this is the sort of thing that passes for "reasoning." DSL

Greg & Lee, I hope you both take my next comment in the true "spirit" in which it is intended. Keep in mind, my daughter married an Australian and my granddaughter was born in Queensland, as well. So, I have great affection for your country and I have grown to respect both of you over the years as well...BUT-- It is pathetic, in my view, that some of the best reasoned arguments regarding the assassination of the 35th President of the United States come from down under! Thank you both for your interest, hard work, and dedication to the subject. it serves all of us very well.

Thanks for your evaluation, Greg. I believe you are spot on. Unless proven otherwise, I will treat Witt in the same way I would treat him if I were a juror. I would reject his claim as there appears to be nothing to substantiate it, notwithstanding the acceptance of his presence in Dealey Plaza by my friend, Jim Fetzer. That he reported similar eyewitness testimony that was consistent with other published eyewitness testimony does not persuade in and of itself. That he appears to have fabricated the explanation for his actions out of thin air indicates perjury. If he offered perjurious testimony to explain the KEY ELEMENTS of his actions in Dealey Plaza, then I am free to reject his testimony in its entirety. While his testimony regarding the limo stop could be indicative of his presence, it is not dispositive by any means. Moreover, while it could be argued that his mentioning a complete stop would be counter-productive to the interests of those wishing to conceal same, the notion of Z-film alteration had yet to be investigated, and therefore was most probably not recognized as a "hot spot" at that time. He appears to have been "fed" testimony in order to self corroborate his own presence. His testimony was not taken contemporaneously by any stretch of the imagination. For once, Jim & Tink have something in common. Sorry, my friend, but you are both wrong about Witt. He wasn't even there.

Greg I don't understand how anything new I post would ever be seen other than under one title .I dont see anyone else on the Forum posting under only one thread . No, I'm not suggesting that you should only post under one thread. I'm suggesting that you only post new information regarding THIS SUBJECT (Oltmans) under that existing thread. Maybe you didn't see this, but if you look at the top right hand side of the forum there is a link called: New Content Every time one adds a new thread OR adds a new post to an existing thread that entire thread and that new post are both automatically moved to the top of the "New Content" filter ahead of all other threads. It makes it very convenient to view all of the new posts since one's last visit. Your entire thread will remain on the first page until it scrolls off the bottom and ends up on page two, three, etc., unless someone else replies to your new post at which time that thread will move back to the top. But, even a week (or years) later if you or anyone posts to that thread it will be bumped to the first position on page one (of NEW CONTENT) again and again. I just made the suggestion because it will be easier to sort out the information if it is all in one place, especially as time goes by and the information grows in volume. As an example, even if you were to randomly pick any existing thread--say way back on the 20th page--and add a new "test post" to that thread and then went back to the top of the page and press the NEW CONTENT link, you'll see that entire thread and your new post will both automatically be "bumped" into the first position. This is true if the thread was originally started today, yesterday, last month, last year, or even 5 years ago. The more interest in a subject, the longer it will remain at the top of the first page because it will see the most activity. Whenever I log onto the forum, the first thing I do is press NEW CONTENT because the vast majority of posts are in the JFK Assassination Debate forum, which is where my interest mainly lies and I can then see all the new posts without scrolling down to that section and searching, etc. Hey, it was just a suggestion. I hope you find it helpful. Sorry to be so long winded especially if you already knew all this stuff.

Turns out the date of JFK's last trip to Arizona (Phoenix) was November 17, 1961 for anyone who wants to continue researching "Umbrella Men" who allegedly protested JFK there. I have found no reference to anything of the sort in my voluminous archive, but I'll keep looking. Also, here are two photos from that trip. Can you see any "Umbrella Men" ??? I can't.

Greg & Lee, This is all I have found regarding trips JFK made to Arizona. I did not check it for accuracy nor did I verify it. However, the information in it could potentially be a place to start looking for more. Of course, I haven't found any reference to various "Umbrella Men" greeting him in the state at any time. John F. Kennedy's Unique Ties to Arizona by Brian Webb PHOENIX - As the world gets a look at the life of Jacqueline Kennedy through newly released audio tapes, we're remembering John F. Kennedy's ties to Arizona. We know of at least three trips JFK made to our state over the years. The first was in the 1930s, when he came to work on a ranch near Benson in southern Arizona. His last trip was in November of 1961. By then he was president. [my emphasis] But in the 1940s, the unknown sailor came to the Valley to spend a month at the Camelback Inn. He was here to heal in the dry desert air after being injured at sea during World War II. “Some of our associates still talk about it,” said Shane Allor, a sales manager at the Paradise Valley hotel. There is even a picture of a shirtless Kennedy playing a board game at the pool with two unknown women. That pool used to be in front of the main building, but has since been turned into a terrace. And nobody seems to know which room JFK stayed in while he was there, although it was probably one of the rooms to the west side of the main building, because they were the first ones built. After Kennedy’s month long stay at the Camelback Inn he spent more time at the hot springs near Wickenburg. ==== There is a video clip about these visits at this link: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/john-f.-kennedy's-unique-ties-to-arizona

Tommy, I am concerned that your posts are going to be way too disassociated from each other because you've been posting each additional bit of information on the SAME subject (Oltmans) in a brand new thread! This will undermine the continuity of your reportage. Even now I am finding that it's beginning to become too much effort to go back to your other threads in order to correlate the information--and I'm interested in the subject matter!