Greg Burnham

Colby commits multiple fallacies in his post. He commits a fallacy known as Ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance) with this question: "Do you have any evidence that they are being silenced?" In this fallacy the Burden of Proof has been shifted to the wrong side of the debate. How do we know this? Because he has already stated by implication that a rather large group, including 9/11 researchers (although inappropriately lumped together with researchers of unrelated topics), do NOT deserve "media time". Therefore, according to Colby, there ARE SPECIFIC individuals denied access to MSM exposure. He asked me if I thought they should get media time. That is an admission that they do NOT get it now. He further commits the fallacy of Poisoning The Well with regard to 9/11 researchers by lumping them together with those he assumes the reader will consider "kooks" or will otherwise make 9/11 researchers look bad--which is yet another fallacy called Guilt by Association--and that is assuming that the others in his "group" are, in fact, kooks. It is fascinating to watch how this mind works so unreasonably well. It is an art form to intertwine so many fallacies into a single post.

It is apparent that Mr. Scully failed to comprehend the significance of the article Jim posted by Roberts. By moving this thread from the "main stream" forum (JFK) to the "less than main stream" forum (Political Conspiracies), he has demonstrated right here before our very eyes the kind of treatment that this subject routinely receives by those in control of the Main Stream Media. My comment above is in no way meant to question the intentions of Mr. Scully. I am not suggesting his resignation, although I do appreciate Mr. Rigby's comments as I too believe the action was very ill advised. That said, it is astonishing that the significance of the relationship--in THIS instance--between JFK assassination research suppression by the MSM and the suppression of 9/11 research by the MSM was lost on the moderators. It is simply ASTONISHING given the fact that it was central to the article written by Roberts to begin with! Did you guys even bother to read it and my first reply to it, which dilineated the appropriateness of its placement in the JFK section? The issue being discussed was NOT necessarily whether or not 9/11 has been accurately reported per se. The equally significant issue is the common dismissal of both JFK conspiracy research and 9/11 conspiracy research by the MSM. Such research is relegated to the more obscure means of communication; to the less visible, less accessible, and less exposed outlets. The irony of Mr. Scully's having unwittingly mimicked the very activity originally being cited and criticized in the original article is perhaps on topic, after all. He proved its validity in perhaps the most graphic fashion possible. Thank you, Tom Scully, for making the author's point for him. By demonstrating that such suppresive activity is indeed rampant, even where least expected, you have shown that the author's concern was spot on. .

It is fascinating to note the "censorship" by disassociation taking place even on this forum. The 9/11 topic not only intersects the JFK topic, indeed it runs parallel to it! The same forces that control the dissemination of information about the JFK assassination by suppression of it are responsible for the suppression of opposing views being reported by the main stream media regarding 9/11. No matter what side of this fence you find yourself, it should be a BIG RED FLAG that discussion of the subject is censored...oh, pardon me, I meant to say "moderated" -- poppy-cock! Where were you Tom Scully when Lifton started an ill advised Fetzer bashing in the JFK forum because of Fetzer's work on 9/11??? Where? Why was Fetzer's response moved to a different thread, but Lifton's entire thread remains in place--OFF TOPIC? I have had enough of this.

Thanks for this, Jim. Roberts' insight is matched by his courage to speak up about the truth. Even for those who claim to believe that "there's nothing to see here, folks, move along" regarding 9/11--they should feel it incumbent upon themselves to at least acknowledge the fascist like control of even the mere REPORTAGE of the existence of such theories that run contrary to officialdom's sanctioned account. This should be particularly evident when these contrary reports are offered by EXPERTS in their fields of study. It should make no difference that there are some experts that agree with the official story because they have been heard. It should however make a great deal of difference that there are experts who do not agree with the official story, yet are silenced by being deprived of a platform from which to be heard. That is a violation of the First Amendment no matter how it is being accomplished--even if it is being accomplished with the complicity and/or compromise of the press itself. His having drawn a parallel with the same type of censorship (by implication of wackiness) of nearly any and all theories contrary to the "Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone" officially sanctioned news stories and the censorship of contrary views on 9/11 is very apropos, indeed. For some of us it is this very thing that makes the JFK assassination issue relevant to this day, nearly 50 years later. They got away with it 50 years ago. Shall we allow them to get away with this for another 50 years? Even IF it was true that the official story is essentially accurate, the silencing of its critics is fascist, in both the case of 9/11 and in the case of JFK's assassination... same ladder, differrent rung.

I think my ire was stirred initially when you told me to "Stop preaching to the choir and instead do it this other way"--when I had already identified my post as a "preaching to the choir rant" from the beginning. Sometimes I forget that the atmosphere on this forum is less like "family" than what we created on JFKresearch Forum. Not that we limited our efforts there to venting our spleen only, but we certainly allowed each other such latitude as it was understood that the process of effective action is often accompanied by a good deal of frustration and that the venting of same is actually quite healthy. It's also akin to pausing to reload your weapon and catch your breath. You could be the only soul in the research community who knows me so little that they would imagine that I would settle on complaining about something without doing more about it than merely posting a rant. I also confess to replying to your post when it was very late at night and I was exhausted from a long day. I interpreted your meaning much stronger than it was apparently intended. You simply offered a suggestion. I took it as a demand. My mistake. Like I said, I think we had some relatively minor miscommunication and misinterpretation that unfortunately escalated on both sides. I'd agree to bury the hatchet except that there is probably no real hatchet here to begin with, IMO. .

Greg, I do not think nor do I feel that I'm superior. Go back and read what I wrote. I LITERALLY mistook you for someone else. I didn't realize that until I read about you on Spartacus. I find nothing inferior about you on there at all. Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps we just got started off on the wrong foot this time. One miscommunication or misinterpretation led to another and that was that. To re-iterate, I am not joining Facebook or Twitter, but it is none of my business nor concern if others do so join. I have my reasons. I employed a poor choice of words when I used "pseudo" as its connotation was not my intended meaning. That I fail to appreciate its effectiveness is in no way indicative of the sincerity of one who chooses that method to get the word out. I don't think there is anything "fake or artificial" about your efforts there. My apologies if that's how it came across. Thank you for the compliment at the end of your post, backhanded though it was, I appreciate it. We most likely have a lot more in common than not. GO_SECURE monk

Sorry, I mistook you for someone else... From Spartucus: Greg Parker was born in Newcastle, NSW, Australia in 1958. Having been to 11 different schools, he left altogether at age 14, bumming around the country doing odd jobs until joining the Public Service in 1988. By 1995, he found himself living in tropical Darwin, where he still resides. Greg Parker left the Public Service in 1999, and is currently the manager of the largest employment agency in the city. Greg Parker's interest in the assassination started, as it did with so many others, after watching Oliver Stone's JFK. That interest was short-lived, but rekindled in the late 1990s after reading a borrowed copy of Conspiracy by Anthony Summers. He began his own research in 2000, and since then, has contributed to Joan Mellen's book on Jim Garrison. Greg Parker also had some of his research presented at the Pittsburgh conference in November, 2003. This included strong evidence showing Jack Ruby to be a conduit for funding WMD research in the late 1950s, and the role played by John Edward Pic Jr in USAF human radiation experiments. Greg Parker runs the Re-open the JFK Case website. -------------------------------------------------- 'nuff said.

Sorry, I know you have something to contribute, Greg. I just haven't a clue as to what it is. Nor do I understand why you would pick a bone with me? It is foolish. Like Lifton picking one with Fetzer. Out matched. This is going nowhere. Why the challenge? I expressed a rant. That's it. I choose to refrain from the FACEBOOK trap. You "require" me to subscribe? Go talk to yourself. I invite you to post whatever you found worthwhile in these specific posts in this thread on the "social media" of your choice. END OF DISCUSSSION -- unless you would like to return to the topic, which had nothing to do with you requiring me to follow your directives. Oh, and by the way--I have written to everyone whom is cited in Facebook. You are way behind, my friend. I wrote to them before it was fashionable to do so. My office literally shared a wall with Diane Feinstein separating our suites in the Fifth Avenue Financial Center in downtown San Diego 20 years ago and we remain in contact today. But guess what, "whoop--dee--do!" Who cares? It means nothing as does your well intentioned distracting pseudo-effort. Some of us have long ago "been there and done that" already. You have a lot to learn. Qualifier: It is late at night and I am rather tired. I will revisit this thread when I have time (hopefully tomorrow). If I came across exceptionally grouchy, my mistake. We shall see.

Greg, I'll make you a deal. Stop dictating how and where I pick my battles and I will refrain from becoming your roto-rooter man. A word to the wise. Maybe I'm feeling a bit irritable with those who have no clue as to my work, which reaches far beyond the internet. On the other hand, feel free to post my comments about this specific subject on the "social network media" of your choice, unedited and in its entirety, if you feel strongly about it. There are "websites" that I consider effective, such as those administered by The Stanford Law Review, KFI Radio, Len Osanic, Jeff Rense, Joe Backes, Jim Fetzer, among others--even LANCER, et al, that have published and/or referenced my work, or had me as their guest on multiple occasions. I find it a useless exercise in meaningless self-promotion to provide a complete list--and a bit obnoxious--so I'll leave it at that. I can publish and/or appear in those places in good conscience on my own and at my sole discretion. However, I'm not convinced of the innocuous nature of the "Social Networking" mediums, but I respect the sincere intentions of those who do. I just find Facebook and Twitter akin to "Reality TV" -- which is ANYTHING but real. Peace. I know we're on the same side of this thing. Let's not forget it.

Facebook? Are you kidding me right now? I'm already at work elsewhere. You can take on the social network quadrant along with the remainder of "Generation Text" on your own... No, but seriously, I appreciate your enthusiasm. I'm just not one to buy into the effectiveness of that medium yet. I think it is rather naive of those who actually believe that Obama was elected due to his presence on Facebook and Twitter. If you think that is the place to get the message out...more power to you if you do something about it.

The problem is that this statement of yours is very hard to back up. Otherwise we wouldn't be here, right? Then why do you even bother?

The sad state of affairs that we must all acknowledge is that the status quo is embraced even by those who have been charged with, indeed entrusted with, archiving the TRUTH. This is the crux of the dilemma: DENIAL. Denial is less challenging, less demanding of effort, less fear invoking. For many, denial is comforting. Why? Because the alternative requires uncomfortable action. It could involve risk. It could result in ridicule. But, it could also make a difference...as it should. The spirit of the 35th president should not remain just a lost legacy of what might've, could've, or should've happened--if ONLY blah, blah, blah...and he had lived. Is that what JFK would have wanted? A whole bunch of coulda, woulda, shoulda's from us? Is that what he would have wanted his legacy to be? Not a chance. I know I'm preaching to the choir for the most part here. But, it never ceases to amaze me how much we are willing to accept as though we have no choice. Hopefully we can collectively bring this together while there remains something worth saving.

http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2010/12/greg-burnham-copa-2010-presentation.html http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html

Yes, she shot a cigarette from the mouth. In 1917 she sent him a letter requesting a second shot. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWoakleyA.htm Nice. I had no clue...

It is rather unfortunate that the institutionalized legacy of the presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (aka: The Kennedy Library) has settled on providing a "kinder / gentler" reportage of his service to this country. It is further unfortunate that it is "We The People" and not "them the more powerful" (at least in appearance) who are left with doing the most difficult work in resurrecting our once viable and desirable form of government from the ashes of deception. It is not enough to recognize that the assassination of our 35th president was tragic; it is not enough to celebrate his progressive vision; it is not enough to appreciate his having averted nuclear annihilation more than once during his term; it is not enough to laud his support for the arts, cultural diversity, and integration of race and religion; it is not enough to recognize his wisdom when dealing with powerful forces opposed to his Constitutionally granted authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces; it is not enough... He was murdered in a military coup d'Etat. As a nation, before we can truly celebrate his life, we must resist denying the circumstances surrounding his death. I only wish the JFK Library recognized how important this is. JFK himself would have...appearances be damned.

Actually, it was also a COLD WAR cartoon intended to indoctrinate children by introducing the "bad guys" in the form of characters, Boris Badenov and Natasha. They were obviously the cartoon faces of Communist KGB spies, complete with stereotypical Soviet spy clothing and thickly layed on Russian accents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3QXBHYRhpw And then there was Get Smart depicting CONTROL as American (CIA) and CHAOS as Soviet (KGB). And people doubt the existence of project Mockingbird? What a laugh...

Great stuff, Bill. It is unfortunate that sometimes the history of a region is not taken into account when contemporaries are now judging current affairs. But, without the history there is no frame of reference upon which to base one's evaluation of current events. Everything is out of context without the proper historical back drop. Hopefully the internet will help the accurate reportage of history (as it is being made) as opposed to history being written by the victor after the fact.

Bill, Is the evaluation (quoted above) that you offered an expert opinion? I understand that you are a pilot, but did your training and/or experience ever include making such critical judgments as cited above? Do you have the necessary qualifications to determine what you wrote is true, conclusively, or is this simply a "layman's" opinion? I know a lot of pilots. I know of none who would rely upon that training and experience in order to justify the above opinion.

Yeah, the film: "Wild, Wild West" was indeed awful, Jim. The character of Secret Service Agent James (Jim) West was originally played by Robert Conrad in the TV series, Wild, Wild West. He also played the part of Greg "Pappy" Bowington from the series: "Black Sheep Squadron" that aired more than a decade after Wild, Wild West (the TV series) was long gone. Not to be racist in any way, but--facts are facts: The character of that same individual, Secret Service Agent James West, was played by Will Smith in the movie! Yes, the African-American, Will Smith. Well, that is simply unacceptable from a HISTORY point of view. There were no African American Secret Service Agents employed by the Treasury Department in that capacity during the Grant Administration!! So, SS Agent James West could not have been the ethnicity attributed to him in the movie... So much for historical accuracy. But, the TV series was very cool at the time...

Wild Wild West Mission Impossible I Spy Man from U.N.C.L.E. Rat Patrol The Avengers Bat Masterson Have Gun Will Travel Twilight Zone Outer Limits

Welcome to the forum, Bill. I'm sure the experience you bring here will benefit those hoping to discover the truth.

Posted for research purposes only: AWLAKI VISITED THE PENTAGON IN 2001: WAS THIS A SECURITY FAILURE? A story breaking in the news recently highlights the difficulty of knowing who-is-who in the murky worlds of intelligence, security, and terrorism. It also shows the difficulty of seeing the future, a core aim of the intelligence analyst. Fox News has reported and other media outlets have confirmed that radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, dined at the Pentagon in the months after 9/11 as part of the Defense Department’s effort to reach out to American Muslims. Awlaki, of course, some ten years ago preached at a mosque in San Diego and then at the Dar al Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church Virginia. At both of these he came into contact with some of the 9/11 hijackers. More recently, he has been linked to Ft. Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan, underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Times Square bomber Feisal Shahzad. Awlaki is presently thought to be in Yemen working with al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. He has been widely reported to be on a list of Americans whom the CIA can kill abroad without trial. Fox News quotes an anonymous former high-ranking FBI official as criticizing Awlaki’s invitation to the Pentagon by saying that as of 2001 there was a great “arrogance” about the Pentagon’s procedures for vetting who they would allow in the building: “They vetted people politically and showed indifference toward security and intelligence advice of others.” There are two problems with such a criticism. First, in outreach and diplomacy, as in espionage, one often has to deal cooperatively with people with whom one does not fully agree. Given Awlaki’s public persona in 2001, it was not unreasonable to reach out to him. There are many precedents for such a policy. During the Cold War, the CIA conducted an extensive and long-running campaign of reaching out to the “non-Communist left” in Europe as a way of co-opting them from allying with the Soviets. The US Government also made common cause with Communist Yugoslavia, Romania, and China against the Soviet Communists. For their part, case officers often have to deal with unsavory people in their efforts to get information about other even more unsavory people. By the same token, the police routinely work with informants and prison snitches who are not typically nice people themselves. Second, it is important to remember that in 2001 the Pentagon could not know the place that Awlaki would have in the terrorist world in 2010. Forecasting the future is hard and Awlaki has undergone an ideological evolution over time. At the time of 2001 he was sufficiently moderate to head a mainstream mosque and to impress a Pentagon employee who heard him speak. (The FBI documents that Fox News obtained showed that this was the proximate cause of his invitation to the Pentagon.) This is the man who told visitors to his mosque after 9/11 that “we came here to build not to destroy…We are the bridge between Americans and one billion Muslims worldwide.” Awlaki himself at one point was even criticized from within the jihadist movement for being insufficiently radical. Now, however, he is one of the leading lights of the jihadist movement, a radical firebrand if ever there was one. In short, the future is hard to predict, identities can change over time, and deception is an ever present possibility. With 20/20 hindsight we can criticize past analyses and past decisions, but that’s not always helpful…or fair. ------------- The Spy Museum

I found the following article very interesting regarding a study conducted in Texas about 7 years ago. The factual discoveries contained therein are of particular interest. I am not enthused by the author's eventual conclusion as it is based solely on unsupported assertions. IOW: there very likely are alternate possibilities that are neither consistent with the big bang theory nor with creationism. If the newly discovered (2004) very "old and mature" galaxies defy the Big Bang theory--so be it. Their existence does not necessarily prove "creation" by any means. However, they do raise some interesting questions and the answers may have relevance to John's topic. LINK: 300 Unexpectedly "mature" Galaxies Discovered

The answers to your questions, in the order asked, are: No. Yes. No. IOW: No, he was not a shooter. However, yes--he had advanced knowledge of the plot. He had himself been approached to participate, but in his own words, "Kennedy was not the problem". And, no, he didn't know the inside scoop. He just knew something was being planned.

Welcome back, Jack!