Greg Burnham

Jack told me he liked this bit--so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txIismezLAo

I heard from Jack's wife, Sue, this evening. Great news. The surgery turned out to be a triple (not a quadruple) bypass. It

lasted about two hours. Jack tolerated it fine. As of the time of her message, Jack was recovering in ICU.

My wife and I spent time with Jack and his wife, Sue, in November. We watched a small part of the demolition of the football stadium at TCU, where Ladanian Tomlinson

played college football. Of course, Jack captured much of the remainder of the demolition on film after we were back home. But, he did take a few "before" pictures while

we were there.

Jack White is under going a quadruple by-pass heart surgery today. I wish him the best of luck in that and I hope for him a speedy and full recovery. Jack asked all to

please refrain from sending email for now since his computer is off and he doesn't want to get it clogged up while he's unable to reply. He hopes to be back posting

in a week or so. Let's all send him our best wishes and good thoughts.

I have not confirmed this, but I was told by J Harrison (now deceased) formerly of the Dallas Police Department, that "white hats"

were TRAFFIC enforcement only. Now, I don't know exactly what their responsibilities would have entailed in 1963, as I'm sure

those have evolved over the past nearly 50 years.

FWIW

Hi Kathy,

I hope you're feeling much better now. John's work is really quite remarkable. Even if he had not written a book, but had only collated the official records

that he researched, Armstrong would have contributed immensely to this study.

Greg

An interesting bit regarding Harry Dean's experiences and appearance on Tom Snyder's show:

LINK: Tom Snyder - Harry Dean Interview

EXCERPT:

"While Morris and Dean were staying in New York's Sheraton Hotel, the night before their TV appearance, Dean's room was entered and searched. A man closely resembling Dean had asked

the room clerk for the key to Room 1465, where Dean was registered under the name "Dean Falon". The former CIA/FBI agent had used this alias many times before. Dean's room had been thoroughly

searched, and a suit of his clothes was missing. Fortunately he had taken his briefcase of JFK assassination material with him. Hotel security police, after learning who Harry Dean was, said they were

convinced the incident was not a routine burglary. The suit was stolen as cover for ransacking the room. Shaken, Dean sat in the hotel lobby all that night, afraid to go to bed. The break-in was not

mentioned to Tom Snyder. It had already been decided that Dean would wear a mask to conceal his identity on the show.

SNYDER: Two gentlemen will be on the program during the hour. First of all, Mr. W.R. Morris. Mr. Morris has spent his lifetime working as a news reporter and newspaper man, mostly in the Southern

part of this country. Most of his writings have been in the field of investigative reporting. M y second guest, I can only call Mr. X or Mr. Agent, which do you prefer? Mr. X or Mr. Agent?

AGENT: Either. Either will be fine.

SNYDER: I'll call you Mr. X. This man was acting for both the CIA and the FBI during the 1960's. He has worked as an informant and infiltrator with various organizations here in this country. I'm going

to play stupid here at the outset, Mr. Morris, and I guess I'd like to start with you and find out where this story begins and how you became involved with Mr. X.

MORRIS: As I previously stated, I arrived early at the gravesite and a man was holding the flowers in his hands reading a note. I asked him who he was, and he asked me who I was, and I said a newspaper

man. So, he said don't mention me at all, don't describe me in a story, don't say nothing about it. I said, well, this is a very good chance for a young reporter writing about a mysterious man putting flowers

on the grave of Lee Harvey Oswald. He begged me not to, and then later on, we became acquainted. He was a CIA agent.

SNYDER: Did he identify himself as such at the time?

MORRIS: He didn't. Not right then, but later he did..."

Fascinating stuff.

Thank you, Greg, for providing this to us. You know my interest in Donald O. Norton. What I found on the Internet caused me to go into tachycardia. At the time Rich was sick and not speaking to me. I was going nuts.

Anyway, thanks for your work.

Kathy C

Hey Steve,

Yeah, it's a lot of great stuff. John did a great job of digging this stuff up, to be sure.

Thanks Greg, I've been copying these for personal use for a week or so...lots to wade through...

Jim never questioned Adele about her opinion regarding JVB at my request. I know that they (Adele & Judyth) have differing recollections/opinions, some of

which could be extremely contentious. Due to Jim's quite openly stated support of Judyth, it seemed important to separate the two accounts, IMO. In this way,

Adele could give her account, unmolested--without fear of needing to defend it right off the bat.

Perhaps a future show can focus on the areas where there exists discrepancies between the two accounts.

An interesting bit regarding Harry Dean's experiences and appearance on Tom Snyder's show:

LINK: Tom Snyder - Harry Dean Interview

EXCERPT:

"While Morris and Dean were staying in New York's Sheraton Hotel, the night before their TV appearance, Dean's room was entered and searched. A man closely resembling Dean had asked

the room clerk for the key to Room 1465, where Dean was registered under the name "Dean Falon". The former CIA/FBI agent had used this alias many times before. Dean's room had been thoroughly

searched, and a suit of his clothes was missing. Fortunately he had taken his briefcase of JFK assassination material with him. Hotel security police, after learning who Harry Dean was, said they were

convinced the incident was not a routine burglary. The suit was stolen as cover for ransacking the room. Shaken, Dean sat in the hotel lobby all that night, afraid to go to bed. The break-in was not

mentioned to Tom Snyder. It had already been decided that Dean would wear a mask to conceal his identity on the show.

SNYDER: Two gentlemen will be on the program during the hour. First of all, Mr. W.R. Morris. Mr. Morris has spent his lifetime working as a news reporter and newspaper man, mostly in the Southern

part of this country. Most of his writings have been in the field of investigative reporting. M y second guest, I can only call Mr. X or Mr. Agent, which do you prefer? Mr. X or Mr. Agent?

AGENT: Either. Either will be fine.

SNYDER: I'll call you Mr. X. This man was acting for both the CIA and the FBI during the 1960's. He has worked as an informant and infiltrator with various organizations here in this country. I'm going

to play stupid here at the outset, Mr. Morris, and I guess I'd like to start with you and find out where this story begins and how you became involved with Mr. X.

MORRIS: As I previously stated, I arrived early at the gravesite and a man was holding the flowers in his hands reading a note. I asked him who he was, and he asked me who I was, and I said a newspaper

man. So, he said don't mention me at all, don't describe me in a story, don't say nothing about it. I said, well, this is a very good chance for a young reporter writing about a mysterious man putting flowers

on the grave of Lee Harvey Oswald. He begged me not to, and then later on, we became acquainted. He was a CIA agent.

SNYDER: Did he identify himself as such at the time?

MORRIS: He didn't. Not right then, but later he did..."

Fascinating stuff.

Full collection of Harvey & Lee research materials located here:

John Armstrong Papers

Good Evening Mr. Burnham,

Lets just say someone tries to qualify or dismiss the Zapruder Film as evidence. Everyone says they don't know, can't comment. Someone tampered with it, and they don't know when of how, and all the evidence chain is unknown.

So, if it is proven to be Zapruder Film is all faked, what is next? No more Zapruder, you distroy the main photo identity icon for all of America that saw that film as reality.

Guess what happens next----all the JFK movement dies---instantly. You all will have killed even the public's icon for the assassination.

I am seeing people painting themselves into a corner with no way out, if they were serious on seeking justice for JFK.

Tell me what is to be gained with your method.

I see a pure dead end for the whole JFK movement. Where does this game end? Into a brick wall!!

It is not a game.

Good Morning Mr. Phelps,

A common instruction issued by judges to the jury when a witness has perjured himself is the option to REJECT that

witness's testimony IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Once tainted in a single area, the testimony is POTENTIALLY tainted anywhere within its totality. It is unreasonable to

require that jurors determine which parts of a perjurious testimony are true and which are false.

If there is a single instance of proved Zapruder fakery, as an example, the entire film is suspect. Or, better yet...If there

is such fakery present, the entire conclusion reached by--and the methods employed by--the "authorities" also become

suspect because, in this instance, they are responsible for the "perjurious" evidence having been introduced in the first

place.

Your studies are good but about where some of us were 30 years ago. ALL IMAGES AND FILMS are suspect in some manner and cannot

be relied on as proof of anything. You need to get up to speed on the latest research. You must FIRST establish the authenticity of

images before they can be used in court. Those of us who have studied the images can DEMOLISH any acceptance by any court of law.

Jack

I'll take the Pepsi Challenge on that one, Jack.

Please point out the proven fakery in the following (and by proven I mean that which you could establish in a court of law.)

1) Betzner 3

2) Willis 5

3) Altgens 6

4) Zapruder film frames 186 thru 255. Limo stops and head wound dots don't count.

Jack said that all films and photos are SUSPECT. He did not say that they (your list) are proven to be faked.

Hi Jack,

That sounds reasonable to me, too. I remember meeting with J Harrison (former DPD Criminal Intelligence Division officer; and former Office of Naval Intelligence Officer) in Dallas back in 2000. He was

convinced that it was impossible for Rather to have been in Dallas at the time he says he was there. I don't have my notes handy right now, but Rather was covering a story elsewhere. The location was

too distant for him to have arrived in Dallas by the time he claims to have been there. I remember J saying that, "Perhaps if he had access to a fighter jet, he could have done it. But, short of that, it

was impossible..."

FWIW

Greg,

When was it that you watched this film you've referred to? Already back in the seventies?

Yes.

Regarding the head movement. Dan Rather saw a copy of the Z-film(s) before anyone else in the press and while it was being suppressed from the public. As it is difficult to know what version he saw, we can't really draw firm conclusions without his help. It does not seem that he was forthcoming. He may have been told that his statements would be believed without question. It was his job to tell the public what to think. The curious tidbit about the turn onto Elm, however, could have just slipped out by mistake. Or he could have been mistaken.

Pamela,

In all due respect, Rather was not mistaken about the content regarding the turn onto Elm. Reality dictates that the limousine did, in fact, turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street irrespective

of whether or not any film shows the turn. However, he may have embellished the circumstances under which he claims to have seen the film. Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether

or not he even saw the film at all! Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether or not he was even in DALLAS at the time he claims to have been there!

But, I digress. If he really did see a film of the event--and it was an un-altered version--then it showed the turn onto Elm Street.

Rather's tale of waiting for a "film drop" west of the underpass is ludicrous and false. This puts in doubt other statements.

However, I believe he was in Dallas and played some active role...we just do not know what. What we do know is that

in the Dallas aftermath, he rose from obscurity to the CBS network, perhaps on the basis of what he DID KNOW.

Jack

Hi Jack,

That sounds reasonable to me, too. I remember meeting with J Harrison (former DPD Criminal Intelligence Division officer; and former Office of Naval Intelligence Officer) in Dallas back in 2000. He was

convinced that it was impossible for Rather to have been in Dallas at the time he says he was there. I don't have my notes handy right now, but Rather was covering a story elsewhere. The location was

too distant for him to have arrived in Dallas by the time he claims to have been there. I remember J saying that, "Perhaps if he had access to a fighter jet, he could have done it. But, short of that, it

was impossible..."

FWIW

Regarding the head movement. Dan Rather saw a copy of the Z-film(s) before anyone else in the press and while it was being suppressed from the public. As it is difficult to know what version he saw, we can't really draw firm conclusions without his help. It does not seem that he was forthcoming. He may have been told that his statements would be believed without question. It was his job to tell the public what to think. The curious tidbit about the turn onto Elm, however, could have just slipped out by mistake. Or he could have been mistaken.

Pamela,

In all due respect, Rather was not mistaken about the content regarding the turn onto Elm. Reality dictates that the limousine did, in fact, turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street irrespective

of whether or not any film shows the turn. However, he may have embellished the circumstances under which he claims to have seen the film. Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether

or not he even saw the film at all! Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether or not he was even in DALLAS at the time he claims to have been there!

But, I digress. If he really did see a film of the event--and it was an un-altered version--then it showed the turn onto Elm Street.

I never cease to be amazed that many weren't taught about Thomas Malthus in high school and/or college. His theories were given a special treatment in the schools I attended due to the significance of the impact they had on economic theories near the end of the 18th century and the impact they continued to have throughout the 20th century and continue to have even to this day.

I am also a bit mystified by the lack of recognition that his theories have greatly impacted the way we all think and act when it comes to survival. The influence that Malthus' theory has exerted in the fields of economics and sociology (particularly in justifying population control) isn't in question. In fact, Malthus' theories are as popular in economics circles as Isaac Newton's laws of motion are popular in physics circles.

The reason I bring this up is because it is an area that is extremely important.

Today we know that Newton's Laws of Motion are fundamentally sound and they are extremely useful to us. We also know that those laws "break down" as a "body of mass" approaches the speed of light, thanks to Albert Einstein's introduction of Special Relativity into the field of Physics.

So too, the principles in Malthus' theories appeared sound in 1798 when they were written, but after the extreme progress in the century following the Industrial Revolution we find that these "principles" also begin to "break down" as we approach an age where the socio-political-economic-industrial-agricultural world is traveling near the "speed of light" (to borrow the metaphor from Physics).

So, the point is this: That Malthus' theories shaped our world is not in question anymore than it is in question whether or not Newton's Laws of Motion have shaped our world. Both have done so to a degree that is both profound and subtle. Both have created the paradigm within which we all live.

When we couple Malthusian theory with Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" concept, we observe a truly insidious world; a world in which only a MAD MAX type of character would thrive.

Once we understand that this "Malthusian/Darwinian" paradigm limits our ability to truly support the "human race" because of its inappropriately "catastrophic" view of population growth, we begin to move away from war and away from all things that are war-like, including the creation of offensive weapons.

Thomas Malthus' -- An Essay on the Principle of Population (written in 1798), says the following on page 5:

"...I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second. By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind."

But, what happens when agricultural technology is improved to the point where food production becomes nearly "geometrically increas-able" and not just arithmetically? And what happens when education and birth control techniques are developed to a degree so that population growth can be self-controlled by the individual without war (read:genocide)?

Well, those two items have changed dramatically since 1798, but "we" as an Anglo-based culture have failed to recognize the change as a whole. Those in the highest levels of wealth and power have no reason to recognize the change--or so they think. The promotion of the "there's not enough to go around" myth serves the purpose of maintaining socio-economic inequality to the benefit of the "haves" and to the detriment of the "have-nots".

The rest of us have a moral obligation--to ourselves, to our children, to their children, and to our fellow men--to recognize this change so that we can embrace a new paradigm and shift away from the old. Not only will it be a more accurate world view as to what has evolved, but it will also be a much more pleasing world in which to live.

So is the thinking that this film is from a different position than the Zapruder and is not the Zapruder film in its original and unaltered state?

Yes. It appeared to be shot from a very similar position to that seen in the Zapruder film. I tend to believe that it was NOT the "unaltered"

Zapruder film because of certain differences. However, that possibility has not been ruled out. The very high quality of the film is also less

than consistent with what we see in the extant Zapruder film, among other things.

Can you provide the details of when you saw this mysterious other film?

Still waiting for an answer Greg

You can wait until hell freezes over...and them some more. I am not required to answer your pathetic, ill advised, distracting, no-count, out of context, ruminating, blovatious (ask Tink what that one means), meandering, mindless inquiry...or I'd have to "make a report" to YOUR superiors--and then you'd be sorry!

I've been in Hawaii with my bride for our anniversary for the past 10 days and will be here for several more. When I get back...perhaps hell will have frozen over. If not?

No idea. I'll try to find more later. I thought it was interesting, too, Thomas.

From Frog:

Very astute observations, Tom. The logical fallacies that abound in some of the most popular myths are astonishing.

Sheesh. Even though I have no love for some of those mentioned in this thread, still I hesitate to rely upon Morrow's "investigative skills" in

making a proper determination. Although it is possible that he has stumbled onto the truth in this instance, it is doubtful given his past record

of questionable research practices, i.e., recommending or dismissing books that he has not even read!

Hey, Greg, perhaps you would like to list your top 10-20 books folks should read to better understand the JFK assassination?:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16281

No thanks. However, if I were to make such a list it surely would ONLY include books that I have read cover-to-cover!

Sheesh. Even though I have no love for some of those mentioned in this thread, still I hesitate to rely upon Morrow's "investigative skills" in

making a proper determination. Although it is possible that he has stumbled onto the truth in this instance, it is doubtful given his past record

of questionable research practices, i.e., recommending or dismissing books that he has not even read!

Whatever this is, note that it is from the GORDON ARNOLD location.

Jack

Fascinating.

So is the thinking that this film is from a different position than the Zapruder and is not the Zapruder film in its original and unaltered state?

Yes. It appeared to be shot from a very similar position to that seen in the Zapruder film. I tend to believe that it was NOT the "unaltered"

Zapruder film because of certain differences. However, that possibility has not been ruled out. The very high quality of the film is also less

than consistent with what we see in the extant Zapruder film, among other things.