Greg Burnham

Evan, It's an imposed limit, but that limit is set due to overall safety concerns. Some of those concerns involve the "control-ability" of the aircraft--at that speed and at that altitude--which is a very dubious adventure for even the most experienced of pilots. That it was pulled off by so-called TERRORISTS--turned into extremely IN-EXPERIENCED "pilots"--is suspect. Then we also have issues of structural integrity. There have been far too many experts that have challenged, if not impeached, the official findings to dismiss out of hand. Evan, I don't know if Jim is right here or not. But, I do know your rebuttal arguments are sorely lacking.

Kathy, The only "researchers" who have never, EVER been embarrassed by some portion of their work--hopefully of minimal volume--are those who have failed to even scratch the surface! You got one wrong. So what? We all still love you--carry on.

Great points, Greg! Although many here doubt just about anything and everything that Hemming ever said about anything and everything--FWIW: Gerry told me that the specific gun alleged to have been ordered by Oswald could not have been ordered by ANYONE because none [of that type & size] were available at that time in the United States--specifically, none were available from Klein's. Incidentally, Klein's in Chicago is listed as a "former employer" by Hemming on his application for employment with the CIA.

Creepy, if true. The opposing page's headline is: "Let's Talk Fur" -- but I can't tell for certain if it's Jackie or not.

I have no idea what "our" Walt Brown looks like, or what his personal beliefs are -- but I strongly suspect this isn't him. http://conservapedia.com/Creation_science A case of mistaken identity? How unusual in this case! Walt Brown's segment is found at about the 33:00 minute mark.

And Ed Tatro is now a "Paint Gun Weekend Warrior" I suppose? (No offense Ed). I think your source might be mistaken, Kathy. It's almost as hard to imagine as Palamara agreeing with The Bug! If true...wow.

That's one of the interesting things about the Jesuits (actually the Catholic Church). You can "sin" (commit a crime) and confess it to a priest, recite a few Our Fathers and/or Hail Mary's (depending on the priest's mood), and be on your merry way--no jail time served even after a full "confession" of guilt. So, whoever "disappeared" the film did so with impunity for all intents and purposes. But, that's another story.

Tom, I don't deny those you mentioned are persons of interest to say the least. I just don't agree with your conclusion regarding Ginzburg's role.

Great catch, Jim. Templesman was in fact assigned to Jackie, and Ginzburg, as you noted, was not. The South African diamond industry is rarely mentioned relative to CIA activity and interest, but that is a grossly neglected subject. Alex Constantine has a fairly descent account on his website: Maurice According to Constantine

Had to comment. I'm not surprised an anti-Kennedy CIA film was found in Jesuit Archives. Or that Oswald gave a speech to the Jesuits. Ferrie was an ex-Jesuit. About 6 weeks ago the Jesuits had to cough up 166 million dollars for molesting Native American and Eskimo children for years in their Jesuit run school in Alaska. You can't sweep that under the rug. I hope we're still friends. Kathy C Hi Kathy, If you're asking if "You and I" are still friends--we most certainly are! I am after the truth no matter what it is, where it leads, or what it means. Moreover, I am no fan of the Jesuits--although they do provide an exceptional education. The reason I find the location of this "other other film" fascinating is because there are other "connections regarding the JFK assassination" to those who are ostensibly walking in the footsteps of Ignatius Loyola--from Marquette to Villa Nova, with several in between--and now Georgetown, too. Amazing. BTW: Fidel and Raul Castro were both Jesuit trained.

Fascinating, John. I was not aware of this film. It's curious that it was found in the archives at the Jesuit Georgetown University of all places. I'm not attempting to overly emphasize the connection here, but Oswald also gave a speech at The Jesuit House regarding his experiences in the Soviet Union. Oswald's cousin, (can't recall his name at the moment, but he was Lillian Murret's brother) was studying for the priesthood there at the time and arranged it. I've been unable to determine if Oswald was invited to speak and his cousin arranged it or if it was Oswald's idea to speak and his cousin arranged it. But this "training film" of which you report is definitely worth tracking down, IMO.

Well, My granddaughter is now 13 months old. What a joy to be a granddad! Watch her dance for the very first time (to Classical Gas of all songs)! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfoXryfEp8c

Hey Doug, FYI: This is a re-post of Michael Hogan's post in the thread "More Than Just A Rant" --

That's a very interesting interpretation of Camelot's vulnerability, Pamela. It's one that I find worth further consideration. Thanks for the post...very thought provoking indeed.

Let's see...I wonder what that "other reason" could possibly be? I think all of the "available reasons" have already been USED UP to attempt to justify why the turn is missing from all of the films! Perhaps you can enlighten us, John, about what "other reason" caused ALL OF THE FILMS' failure to capture the turn onto Elm? Or, if you prefer, at least come up with a "new" reason why it happened to this particular film. I don't mind if you simply "guess" what might have happened. That's what Groden, et al, have already been doing for decades. They've been offering nothing more than supposition as to why all of the films have been "accidentally spliced" or otherwise damaged--at the SAME point(s) in the motorcade. It is fascinating. So, John--why do you think 8 frames or even 1 frame were/was excised from the film? Oh, wait--I forgot--that film was also in Life's hands, was it not? Hi Greg, Nice to see you on this thread again after your extended absence. Now that you are back perhaps you'd be willing to tell us the circumstances in which you saw the "other" film. Len, I am unable to discuss the circumstances at this time. I accept the fact that some, if not many, will find it necessary to dismiss my account of it based on that inability. If you wish to dismiss it for that reason, I don't fault you. However, asking me over and over again is not helpful as that will not change this situation.

Chris, While I appreciate your work, I don't understand what you wrote. Can you review what you wrote and possibly rephrase it? It might just be me, but I don't quite get it yet. Thanks--

Let's see...I wonder what that "other reason" could possibly be? I think all of the "available reasons" have already been USED UP to attempt to justify why the turn is missing from all of the films! Perhaps you can enlighten us, John, about what "other reason" caused ALL OF THE FILMS' failure to capture the turn onto Elm? Or, if you prefer, at least come up with a "new" reason why it happened to this particular film. I don't mind if you simply "guess" what might have happened. That's what Groden, et al, have already been doing for decades. They've been offering nothing more than supposition as to why all of the films have been "accidentally spliced" or otherwise damaged--at the SAME point(s) in the motorcade. It is fascinating. So, John--why do you think 8 frames or even 1 frame were/was excised from the film? Oh, wait--I forgot--that film was also in Life's hands, was it not?

Just a coincidence...

I think you helped me to realize that it has already been repaired. The point's been proved empirically. Good. Now how about getting back on topic. I'm sure there are some who would like to discuss it (not me). So, get over it and get on. I've been on topic the whole time! Don't you see that was the topic? Egad, man...

I think you helped me to realize that it has already been repaired. The point's been proved empirically.

That is one of the best ROFL's I've had in a long time, John. Thanks!

There is no need for me to further point out the poignance of Roberts' article since it has been so histrionically demonstrated here by the action(s) of a moderator. No need for you to feign "brain-deadness" while evaluating this issue. It is "OK" to actually "get it" in public. The thrust of the article was concerned with the failure or refusal of the MSM to fairly REPORT research that runs counter to the Official Story, be that story the events of 11/22/1963 or the events of 9/11/2001. The key idea in the article speaks to the exclusion of such "counter" research from MAIN STREAM MEDIA reportage, and its being relegated to expression outside of that MAIN STREAM. In this specific case (EF) the MAIN STREAM FORUM is most definitely the JFK ASSASSINATION Debate forum. The author cites the JFK Assassination as a prime example of how evidence and research that runs counter to the Official Story is ostracized and excluded from the MSM, much like the treatment of 9/11 research. So, John--what do you want to talk about now? That was the thrust of the article. It was exactly as I described it and that's what I've been talking about the whole time. But, even the EF chose to exclude this article--which cites parallels to the JFK cover-up within it--because the article was deemed off-topic for the MAIN STREAM (JFK) forum. That is absurd. However, it is very helpful in easily demonstrating the point in Roberts' article.

Tom, I object further to your now having re-posted Lifton's ill-advised, off topic, "chalk full of fallacious" arguments, post over again, here--in this new thread--where it is CLEARLY OFF TOPIC! Are you kidding me? What does this have to do with Roberts' article? Think it through. What a bunch of crap and double standards this is becoming. The only reason I brought his post up was to demonstrate the double standard being employed. You have now re-posted THE CONTENT of the post. That is completely...weird, to say the least. I strongly recommend that you make your own above post INVISIBLE as it is clearly OFF TOPIC. You are adding insult to injury. I have been rather kind in my assessment of your actions thus far. But, this one is very hard to take gently. Perhaps we should send Lifton's post directly to the MSM so that they will realize that he is in no way related to the rest of us? Perhaps we should all just say, "Thank you David for setting us straight!" We all read his opening post IN ANOTHER FORUM (JFK) where it was not necessarily on topic. You judged that it was on topic there...fine, although I disagree. However, it is definitely OFF TOPIC HERE.

This thread has been thoroughly and irreparably derailed. It now has nothing to do at all with the original article that was posted.

For the record, lest there be any misunderstanding: Although I do not agree with Tom Scully's decision to move this thread from where it was originally posted, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his intent. FWIW, as far as I can tell, Tom is generally fair as a moderator.