Greg Burnham

I very much appreciate this exchange, Cliff & Jim. A lot of good stuff here, IMO. Cliff, correct me if I'm wrong, but for clarity--I placed an emphasis on one of the words you used above, namely, the word: CONCLUDE. I agree with you... however, with a few minor (yet significant) clarifications. These may or may not jibe with your position, I don't know. But it is the way I see it. IMO: "The evidence is insufficient to conclude that the windshield strike is related to the throat wound." IOW: There is evidence that such a strike to the windshield was related to the throat wound, but the evidence is insufficient to conclude that the two are definitely related. BURNHAM says: It may have indeed been coincidence. That's a hard one to "nail down"...and the term "coincidence" is hardly anything but imprecise. I remember commenting on the JFKresearch Forum that I would reject a shot through the windshield as a "first choice" when other--more desirable--positions were available. John Ritchson retorted something that I find very compelling. He said that firing a sniper shot through a windshield is not a problem at all. The glass is a non-issue. The broader issue is this: If a shot needed to originate from that spot in order to establish triangulation...then so be it. Done deal. Burnham says: Agreed. We also don't know how many bullets (total) were recovered, nor do we know all of their types. BURNHAM says: You are entirely correct, Cliff. I was shot at on the freeway while off duty riding a police motorcycle years ago. The first 2 shots sounded like a backfire or firecracker. I definitely heard the shots, but I didn't become alarmed as my detail was done and I was on my way home. However, the third shot blew the windshield off of my motorcycle--wham! I knew they were shots fired because of the obliterated windshield, but not because of the sound they made. Now, there is a difference between sounds on the freeway and sounds on a city street, but I had just entered the freeway and wasn't even up to speed yet.

Yeah, Peter. I know what you mean. I generally don't subscribe to such tactics as I described above, but in that particular case...I agreed. Over all, I really didn't care much for Reagan. "Cowboy methods" don't suit my best judgment these days.

IMO, the best thing Reagan ever did was to order the bombing of the French Embassy in Tripoli after the French government refused to allow us the use of their air space when we were retaliating for the Libyan terror attacks in which American servicemen were deliberately targeted and killed. The French refusal caused undue risk to our personnel and was arbitrary--even mean spirited. They received enough advance warning of the "accidental miss hit" to their embassy for all of their personnel to be evacuated...but, they got the message. There are few things about Reagan that I praise--very few. But, that is one of them.

Glen, 1) The film I saw was shown for training purposes. I do not know "who" possessed [read:owned] the film that I saw, but I am sure it was NOT an individual. 2) The "secrecy" seems to be related, IMO, to the gross negligence (at best) --or the complicity--of the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail as demonstrably evident by their inaction and by several breaches of protocol. 3) Although I didn't see it on any TV station, Milicent Cranor saw it as Jack reported and Scott Myers saw it on television. 4) I was in no position to ask such questions at the time even if I had thought to ask them. 5) I have never expected anyone to take my word for it. I understand the reluctance. I would respond in exactly the same way. I wish I could be more helpful, but that is all I know.

Is that why you capitalized the words Child Molesting? And added a couple of exclamation marks for good measure. This seemed to be your conclusion: Jim Garrison was accused "on to many occasions to be coincedence!" Or did Lambert write that too? Michael, Where there is smoke there is often fire. Do you not understand that simple idea? I copied and pasted that title and text from elsewhere. Just as Duncan said. IS there a problem with me copying and pasting? I think that Mike Hogan makes a good point. Here's my take: Mike Williams' bias clearly appeared (past tense) to be strongly anti-Garrison at the beginning of this thread. He has since backed off, ever so slightly, from pushing that original pursuit. As I understand it, he is weighing new evidence and seeking more. If true, perhaps progress is being made here after all.

I think you know what I mean. In a country of 300 million people it is *normal* for pedophilia to exist just as it is *normal* for people to murder each other; they have been doing that since the beginning of time. Ever heard of Adam and Eve, the apple and sin? It is also *normal* for a truckload of hypocritical politicians to lie about their sex lives and criminal sex lives. Ever watch To Catch a Predator on NBC? Some of your politicans are doing the same as those jokers on TV; except they usually have more political pull to get off the charges. Didn't mean to forget Jeffrey Epstein - who had his own pedophile ring of underage women - he is also CFR member, very rich and got his lawyers to rig the system for him when he should be in jail for a long, long time. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-25/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-billionaire-pedophile-got-off-easy/# No time in jail for him, just settle a few lawsuits, make the victims sign confidentiality agreements and he is on his way. While I don't want to digress too far from the topic, I must say that characterizing otherwise heinous crimes as "normal" tends to minimize--even trivialize--their significance, IMO. So, Robert, since we aren't speaking in "statistical" terminology, the meaning of the term "normal behavior" when taken colloquially, is "regular or standard" behavior. I don't think the activities you described are, under that definition, "normal" at all.

And off we go into the woods, down the rabbit hole, and through the looking glass. Fiddle-dee-dee, fiddle-dee-dumb-er-er, what's that you say? Robert, Did you really mean to say you think it's "normal" for some humans to have sex with underaged persons? Perhaps you mis-spoke?

Mike, This nonsense was covered thoroughly about 10 years ago on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum. Gary Mack stood as the lone "Garrison basher" back then. He actually used to post his own messages on our forum instead of asking others to post for him. We had several members who had lived in New Orleans as adults during the time that these claims against Jim were being made and were quite familiar with all of it. Each and every one of them (I believe there were 5 or 6, if memory serves) reported that it was "common knowledge" among those who lived there that the allegations were completely unfounded. According to them: "No one really took any of it seriously because it was so ludicrous..." Mack cited a report of Garrison visiting a community pool of some sort and his having been naked in the presence of a young boy. The locals on our forum stated that "nude bathing" and walking about in that state, was common at this particular public pool (or mineral spring, I don't remember exactly the nature of the facility) where this occurred and that there was nothing in the least unusual or even suspect about it because it was common practice. The facility was not a "gay bath house" -- it was a public, community facility. The specific "contact" with this young boy amounted to Garrison asking him: "How's your dad doing?" -because Garrison and the boy's father were friends. The boy never complained about it nor did he ever claim anything inappropriate occurred. Moreover, the boy's father apparently thought nothing of it either.

Send it on.

Where did the "crack" (very probably a through and through hole) in the limo windshield come form then? Was it yet another separate round (#4) or was it a skull fragment that also was "magical" in that it broke off the head, flew over the chrome, and changed directions to strike the windshield from the front?

Mike, Even though I thoroughly disagree with everything you have written here, let me ask you a question and "pretend" that there were no shots from the front. If there were no shots from the front, then all shots came from the rear according to you. If true, how many shots did LHO get off? Sounds like 5 to me. Let's count them, shall we? According to your own count, but in no particular order: 1) One shot hit Kennedy in the head; 2) One shot (the Magic Bullet) wounded both Kennedy and Connally (several times); 3) One shot missed the occupants and struck the curb wounding James Tague; 4) One shot caused a dent in the chrome of the limo; 5) One shot struck the windshield; So, even if all shots came from the rear how did LHO do THAT?

Oliver Stone on "JFK" -- Part One: Part Two: .

Robert I own every one of those books. They are right here on my book case--along with nearly 130 more. I read all of them.

Seriously? No... surely you jest, Dean! He really said that stuff? I had no idea.

Question: "Why in the world would anyone believe Jim Garrison?" Answer: "Because they are well informed, intelligent people who bothered to do their homework."

Robert, Your position is indefensible, IMO. This is a good opportunity for you to admit: "You're right, I will remove the books (not just Fetzer's)--that I have not actually read and/or not thoroughly studied--from my Best & Worst lists. Until I actually read and thoroughly study the subjects in those books I am not competent to render a well informed opinion as to their worth. Nobody--handicapped by ignorance of the issues--would be competent to make relevant judgments under conditions similar to mine." Such an admission might go farther than you think in the rebuilding of your reputation. FWIW .

Yes, Robert. But, you did something parallel (not equivalent) to writing a review on the books you placed on the "Worst Of" list. The only problem is that you failed to study the specific subject adequately enough (by your own admission) to reach a "well informed" opinion. I didn't say that these experts (Mantik, Costella, et al) are necessarily correct (although I personally believe that to be the case). My point was that I have formed a well researched, informed opinion on the subject. You, on the other hand, haven't even read what they wrote at all! You are unable to refute their claims due to lack of familiarity--yet that didn't stop you from categorizing these books as "worst of" on your list. If you insist on characterizing these important contributions as "worst" -- I would hope you would familiarize yourself with their contents so that in the future you will be able to make a cogent case for your summary rejection of them. As it stands now your rejection seems arbitrary and adolescent. I was expecting more from you.

Mr. LIEBELER. Then, you can actually see yourself in this picture, can't you? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, I can't distinguish myself being [there]--I know I was there. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize that this picture was taken at the time you were there? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes; I was there and I would say this couldn't be anybody else, unless---if this is an authentic photograph and it isn't composed now or changed---I would say that's me. That's the first time I have seen that. Were these pictures ever published in a magazine---there were pictures like that I suppose--- actually? Mr. LIEBELER. This picture here is in fact one of a series of pictures that is being sold down here in Dallas by a fellow named Willis, I believe his name is Phil Willis. He has a series of slides that are available and it's picture No. 5 of those slides in which you can see yourself back there. Mr. ZAPRUDER. That must be it because there's another couple back there---I took some from there and I was shooting some of the pictures to start my roll from the beginning. I didn't want to have a blank and I shot some, in fact, they have it--the Federal Bureau of Investigation have those pictures. Mr. LIEBELER. As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not? Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's right. Mr. LIEBELER. And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct? Mr. ZAPRUDER. That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street. Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us what happened as you took these pictures. Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, as the car came in line almost--I believe it was almost in line. I was standing up here and I was shooting through a telephoto lens, which is a zoom lens and as it reached about--I imagine it was around here--I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area). Mr. LIEBELER. Grab himself on the front of his chest? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Right---something like that. In other words, he was sitting like this and waving and then after the shot he just went like that. Mr. LIEBELER. He was sitting upright in the car and you heard the shot and you saw the President slump over? Mr. ZAPRUDER. Leaning--leaning toward the side of Jacqueline. For a moment I thought it was, you know, like you say, "Oh, he got me," when you hear a shot--you've heard these expressions and then I saw---I don't believe the President is going to make jokes like this, but before I had a chance to organize my mind, I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it. [emphasis added on parts that of his testimony that are "odd" or are inconsistent with the extant Z-film]

Ok, Robert--why don't we apply *critical thinking* to a researcher's credibility by evaluating their METHODOLOGY? How did you "evaluate people's statements one by one...etc" if you didn't read those statements thoroughly? How did you come to the conclusion that Zapruder Film alteration was false? Was it based on a "gut feeling"? Was it based ONLY on the work of others (like Groden) or did you conduct your own separate research? If you conducted your own separate research, was it "to the EXCLUSION" of the work conducted by every SCIENTIST with an opposing view to that of your preconceived ideas? If you failed to study the work of David Mantik, MD (Oncological Radiology), PhD (Physics), and the work of John Costella, PhD (Physics, with a specialty in the properties of light and optics), then you dismissed their conclusion without considering their arguments, indeed, without considering the evidence! Yes, that seems reasonable--except that you didn't do it yourself! Why would you apply a double-standard to evidence evaluation, Robert? Is that really what you consider to be *critical thinking*? Apparently, by you own admission, the method you employed to reach your conclusions about the value of the books regarding Zapruder film fakery, is NOT sophisticated nor accurate. After all, if you fail to study the testimony of witnesses whose evidence opposes your already predetermined mindset, you are holding yourself to a much lower standard than that to which you are holding everyone else.

Robert Morrow Said: Question Robert: How would you regard a "researcher" who claimed the following: What could you determine, if anything, about the value of such a researcher's methodology? Keep in mind, this is NOT about "the researcher's ultimate conclusion" at this stage. Rather, it is first about the soundness of the means employed to reach said conclusion. Moreover, how would you regard a researcher who further placed a book on the "best or worst of list" even though, by their own admission, they have not thoroughly studied the issue sufficiently enough to offer any rebuttal to the salient points raised in that book?

What about it, Robert?

Keep up the good work, Cliff! I always appreciate your contributions...FWIW Thank you, Don. When the evidence is so lop-sided as the case with JFK's T3 back wound there is no actual controversy, the noisy non sequiturs of "bunch" fallacies aside. A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of slack. This is an unchallenged fact. Normal body movements such as JFK's in the motorcade cause clothes to move in fractions of an inch, invariably. These are iron-clad facts of clothing design and fit. While a handful of major researchers have pressed this point in the past -- Salandria, Marrs, Fonzi, Twyman, Groden all come to mind -- these unchallenged facts are quite unpopular in the JFK Assassination Research Community. The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is prima facie evidence of 4 plus shots. Period. That fact renders lots of discussions and research of secondary import. Much of the 2003 Wecht Conference was utterly moot in light of the clothing evidence, which is why it was never mentioned there (to the best of my knowledge). Why should we give a fig about the acoustics evidence, the NAA, or CE399 when there is unchallenged, prima facie evidence of 4+ shots? Or the head wounds? I mean, there is an entry in the FBI report on the autopsy concerning pre-autopsy surgery to the head. That's the end of the head wounds as a topic worthy of speculation, imo. All we have is a pile of highly conflicted evidence upon which even allies cannot agree. For instance, James Fetzer says JFK was hit the head twice -- doesn't Doug Horne say it was three? Who knows? We'll never know. The topic is ridiculous! But don't let me be a bummer, let the Parlor Game play on...

Hi Richard, I don't recall exactly the distance between the two vehicles--except to say that they were much farther apart than what we see in the extant Z-film. My best estimate is that the distance between the two appeared to be more than twice as far as what we see depicted in the Z-film. Keep in mind, however, that such a "measurement" is completely relative to camera position and visual frames of reference. Under those conditions, I don't think that it would be prudent to conclude that the REAL distance between the two was, in fact, more than twice the distance seen in the extant film based solely on my memory of a visual. I don't think we can determine that from here. While it is true that a major visual discrepancy such as this is enough to impeach one or both of these films, it is not enough to determine the exact (or perhaps not even ball park) measurements. Suffice to say, if the "other film" and my memory of it are true and accurate, respectively, then there is no question the Z-film has problems.

deleted

Jack, I know what you're saying, but it came out a bit awkwardly. I think your point is this: The legitimate refutation of the Big Lie is seldom recognized for what it is as a result of the power of the Big Lie. When people consider that the OFFICIAL ACCOUNT might be the BIG LIE it is, indeed, mind boggling. It is much easier, more comforting, and safer (in the short term) to simply accept the less disturbing than it is to challenge the status quo.