Greg Burnham

Essentially, that is correct.

Jim,

The short answer is:

In the film that I saw the limo came into view on Houston Street and the entire turn onto Elm was visible. There was no "splice" or point where the limo suddenly appeared on Elm out of nowhere. The limo made an extremely wide turn onto Elm and was moving very slowly at the corner. The limo "drifted" to the left of center (driver's POV) on Elm St. I don't recall if it actually made a complete lane change or if it was simply "pointed" more or less "left of center" -- My best recollection

is that it was partially in the left lane and partially in the center lane by the time it reached the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll next to the so-called Zapruder pedestal. Similar to what is seen in the extant film, JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign, elbows raised up, his torso apparently frozen, his "protection" inexplicably absent...a sitting duck.

There is absolutely no question as to whether or not the limo came to a complete and FULL stop. The car stopped. Completely. No motion whatsoever. The limo remained motionless for approximately 2 seconds. I'm surprised the Queen Mary didn't rear-end it.

Greg,

If I interpret you correctly, what you are recollecting from memory is that the above sequence - where the limo came to a full stop - occurred prior to where the extant film first displays the presidential limousine?

Is this correctly understood?

Hi Glenn,

No, that's not correct. Sorry if I was unclear. The car may have actually come to 2 stops, though. I don't mention the first possible stop (near the corner of Houston and Elm) because I'm not sure if it fully stopped or if it just almost stopped.

Suffice to say, the car was crawling, at best, around the corner. The absolute stop occurred very near the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll, just west of the so-called Zapruder Pedestal. JFK was at a complete stand still during the head shot.

Another detail that's worth mentioning: there appeared to be a much larger distance between the X-100 and the Queen Mary after the limo emerged

from behind the Stemmon's sign than there had previously been immediately after the turn onto, and as they initially travelled down, Elm Street. The

gap between the two vehicles increased (became wider) as they moved toward the "kill zone" -- and then decreased again just before and during the

head shot. I assume that was the result of the abrupt braking by Greer which brought the X-100 to a stop thus closing the distance.

FWIW

Hi Greg,

Your description of the widening gap between the two vehicles at some point is very important.

Blaine's comments support this. Start listening a little before 39:15 of the video:

http://booktv.org/Program/12061/The+Kennedy+Detail+JFKs+Secret+Service+Agents+Break+Their+Silence.aspx

85 foot separation between the cars, speed of the limo 11 mph according to Blaine and Clint running 15 mph to catch it.

chris

Thanks Chris. I'm listening to it now. -- Ok, I just got done. Wow. What a bunch of bull crap. JFK was more aware of the

dangers to him in Dealey Plaza than were the trained Secret Service Detail according to Blaine. He quotes the untrained

(in matters of protection) JFK's own words about how easy it would be for an assassin to shoot him from an open window

in a tall building. Yet, the trained Secret Service personnel didn't "get it" apparently, since they failed to provide the kind

of protection that was obviously necessary. The claim that they were under staffed is so weak as to be laughable.

Additionally, it is a bold face lie when Blaine claims that there was no protocol for speed and/or severe turns in a motorcade

route. There is no question that when the "client's" vehicle slows down agents are required to shield him/her from potential

danger with their own bodies. I don't think that there is any question about this--it is obvious. I wonder "how slow" Blaine

would say is slow enough to warrant a protective response from the agents? The turn onto Elm was so slow as to invite

an assault--and it never even sped up sufficiently (until it was too late)--yet no response from the PPD.

Mack is in fine f**king form...as usual.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, Josiah. The art of persuasion is surely lacking in many of the posts that we read here. It is also true that individuals have

unique experiences and, many times, base their own beliefs about the world, their life, what all this means, and what it true--upon those experiences. Yet,

because many of these experiences are not shared in common with others the information which is used to determine what is true beyond doubt is not, in

and of itself, enough to persuade those who have no experiential frame of reference in which to make a similar judgment call. In other words, the "experience"

of one is simply the "tall story" of another unless and until it is proven to the skeptic.

Healthy skepticism is a necessary tool. It helps to keep us on track, keep us focused, and keep us honest--not only with each other but with ourselves. It's

good to know where you stand today. I have vehemently disagreed with you over the past decade or so on several issues. It's good to know that we don't

disagree about the most fundamental aspects of this case.

Having said that, I remain skeptical of much of what you have written above regarding the authenticity of the photographic/film record. But, I will leave that

topic for another day.

--

I'd still prefer to hear from Josiah. This is not a challenge, Jim. I am truly mystified by some of the exchanges that are posted. Please allow him to

either answer or not. It is his choice. I know what he wrote in Six Seconds. I was confirming his current stance. If it was an inappropriate question,

my apologies.

A question or three for Tink:

1) Do you believe the Warren Report is essentially accurate or do you believe it is essentially flawed?

2) Are your current beliefs essentially unchanged from what they were when you wrote Six Seconds? Are they contrary? Is this a gray area?

3) Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?

I'm not being as facetious as it might appear. I just haven't heard or read what you currently hold to be true about this subject in a vey long time.

Thanks--

http://blutube.policeone.com/Clip.aspx?key=8E7AF35948367905

Sorry Greg,

I was under the impression that you might have seen a different film.

My misunderstanding.

Michael,

You didn't misunderstand. I'll try to be more precise. My apologies for digressing too far before getting back to your question. I can't determine (and neither could Rich dellaRosa) from

what EXACT position the "other film" was made. It is VERY similar to the ZAPRUDER position and, POSSIBLY, identical. I wasn't even thinking about this aspect at the time of viewing as I

had no idea it would ever become an issue.

As a review:

1) it "could be" an unaltered version of the Zapruder film

2) it "could be" a separate film taken from a very similar angle

However, since my attention was focused elsewhere in the film, I don't recall the immediate surroundings.

Jim,

It is SOP to drive in tight formation like that under certain circumstances. One reason for such a formation is to allow the agents in the follow up car to be within a close enough proximity to

the "client" to enable them to respond instantly to a threat by shielding the "client" with their own bodies. In such a case, "distance from the client" is your enemy. However, in Dealey Plaza that

day, things actually worked in reverse. As the "client" became more exposed to danger (as evidenced by the slow, impotent, but visible recognition of the SS) the proximity between protective

detail and "client" INCREASED, creating an irreconcilable deficit in the ability of any willing agent to adequately perform his duty--assuming such a willingness existed that day. I

remember when we viewed this "training film" for the first time. It was in 1974, before Groden and Geraldo made the extant version public. To those of us who were familiar with protocol, it

was ANATHEMA. Obviously a very, very big problem was about to happen. Everything was wrong. The agents were being isolated from their own client as he travelled SLOWLY in an OPEN CAR...

And then, just like that: BANG...he was down.

Monk,

This discussion brings to mind an odd event in Dallas at the Hilton(?) on the occasion of the 30th observance, when David Mantik and Bob Livingston presented their findings about the alteration of the X-rays and the substitution of another person's brain for that of JFK. Robert Groden, as I recall, invited a group of us--about a dozen in all--to a special viewing of the Nix film, which astonished me because the Queen Mary was butt-on the Lincoln! I even blurted out, "That's stunning!" and suggested it was extremely peculiar, although I seem to recall someone saying that that was how they (the Secret Service) were taught to drive. Someone I took to be a military intelligence officer in civilian clothes (given his deportment, manner, and haircut, as a former Marine Corps officer myself) was sitting at the back of the room relatively inconspicuously taking in what we had to say about it. Among those with me at the time was David Mantik. I have never mentioned this before and he and I have not discussed it, but it was very strange. That version, to the best of my knowledge, has not surfaced since, which has led me to infer that it was a "trial balloon" or "pilot study" to measure the plausibility of its depiction, which is completely at odds with what you have described, which seems to me to be more authentic. The hard part in figuring out what has been changed in a film is not knowing what was there to begin with that posed problems to be solved.

Jim

Another detail that's worth mentioning: there appeared to be a much larger distance between the X-100 and the Queen Mary after the limo emerged

from behind the Stemmon's sign than there had previously been immediately after the turn onto, and as they initially travelled down, Elm Street. The

gap between the two vehicles increased (became wider) as they moved toward the "kill zone" -- and then decreased again just before and during the

head shot. I assume that was the result of the abrupt braking by Greer which brought the X-100 to a stop thus closing the distance.

FWIW

Hi Greg,

Your description of the widening gap between the two vehicles at some point is very important.

Blaine's comments support this. Start listening a little before 39:15 of the video:

http://booktv.org/Program/12061/The+Kennedy+Detail+JFKs+Secret+Service+Agents+Break+Their+Silence.aspx

85 foot separation between the cars, speed of the limo 11 mph according to Blaine and Clint running 15 mph to catch it.

chris

I find it refreshing that we have a member such as Greg who has seen a different copy of the film.I would just like to ask you Greg is how close would you estimate

that the person filming the motorcade was to Abraham Zapruder?

I have no idea. I have no faith that Zapruder was even filming from there that day! I believe I was the first person to point out that there is no clear photo available

that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zapruder was where he said he was. Jack White and I are very close friends. Back in 1998, Jack and I butted heads due

to my insistence that the Moorman polaroid was suspect. Back then, Jack was convinced of its authenticity. Yet, if Gary Mack can claim to have "found" Badge Man

amongst the visual obstructions in that alleged location--and was able to "clarify" his presence photographically through enhancements performed at his request

by Jack, then you would think that Zapruder should be very clearly seen by comparison since he was standing in the open (not hiding behind anything) in broad

daylight. Yet, his face is completely unidentifiable. Of course, one could argue that that is because the camera was in front of his face while he was filming. Fine...

except that you can't even tell he is holding a camera! If you look at the men on the steps--you can tell that THEY ARE MEN ON THE STEPS and you can make out

a few more details, such as, their clothing, etc. But, if you didn't already "know" that a man was allegedly standing on the pedestal holding a camera to his face with

his secretary behind (or in front of him--The Sitzman Waltz) --be honest--would you have ever guessed it? I definitely wouldn't have dreamed it. Possible? Yes.

But, even after enhancement it is far too obscure to conclude that it is Zappy or anyone "holding a camera". Moreover, as seen in the BRONSON slide, even if Zappy

(or whoever) was on the pedestal with a movie camera with their secretary (SITZMAN) standing DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF HIM, blocking the camera's view--to the

subject--well, you get the picture (no pun intended) -- but Zappy and Sitzy couldn't have "gotten the picture" under those conditions.

How in the world did Mack find "little old BM" almost in shadows, camouflaged by surrounding foliage to some degree (remember it's in Black & White), and fairly

TINY...itsy-bitsy...as it were--yet cannot "enhance" Zapruder and Sitzman so that we can be sure they are where they claimed to have been? Mack "found" the BM

image on a "hunch" I suppose, even WITHOUT the help of enhancement? Wow.

But, back to your question... I don't know if this film was an unaltered version of the so-called original Zapruder film. That is a possibility. The angle was very similar,

if not identical, to that of the extant film. But--with the introduction of a "new and improved" Stemmon's sign--we may never know.

Extremely high quality by comparison to the extant film. Additionally, the camera was vertically centered on the target--it did not allow the limo to drop down to the bottom

of the frame cutting off the lower portion as in the extant film.

Greg, I know you had limited time and opportunity, but did it seem as if JFK was uninjured immediately after he emerged from behind the sign? In the extant Z-film this would be frame 225, with the throat wounded and the fists rising at 226.

You may like to listen to last night's Black Op Radio, as the John Costella interview went into discrepancies between the extant Z and the eyewitness reports.

David,

Your question raises another interesting point. The position of the camera from which the "other film" was shot is different from the position of the extant film -- OR -- this is an illusion due to the

differences in the qualities of the "real" Stemmon's sign as opposed to the "pseudo" Stemmon's sign in the extant film. In the other film, the Stemmon's sign is not as wide, tall, nor "flat" relative to

the camera's angle. So, when I said "JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign..." -- it's difficult to nail down "when and where" that emerging

took place due to either an alternate camera position or the superimposition of a fake Stemmon's sign -- or perhaps both. In the "other film" the view to Kennedy was not obstructed by the Stemmon's

sign nearly as much as in the extant film. I didn't find that the sign obscured very much at all--and then, only briefly. Keeping that in mind, it is difficult to answer your question because I truly don't

know. I find it counter-intuitive to rely on the extant Zapruder film's "frame count" to make relative determinations that are, by definition, inaccurate due to the inauthenticity of the control source.

Another detail that's worth mentioning: there appeared to be a much larger distance between the X-100 and the Queen Mary after the limo emerged

from behind the Stemmon's sign than there had previously been immediately after the turn onto, and as they initially travelled down, Elm Street. The

gap between the two vehicles increased (became wider) as they moved toward the "kill zone" -- and then decreased again just before and during the

head shot. I assume that was the result of the abrupt braking by Greer which brought the X-100 to a stop thus closing the distance.

FWIW

Jim,

The short answer is:

In the film that I saw the limo came into view on Houston Street and the entire turn onto Elm was visible. There was no "splice" or point where the limo suddenly

appeared on Elm out of nowhere. The limo made an extremely wide turn onto Elm and was moving very slowly at the corner. The limo "drifted" to the left of center

(driver's POV) on Elm St. I don't recall if it actually made a complete lane change or if it was simply "pointed" more or less "left of center" -- My best recollection

is that it was partially in the left lane and partially in the center lane by the time it reached the steps leading up the Grassy Knoll next to the so-called Zapruder

pedestal. Similar to what is seen in the extant film, JFK had been hit at least once by the time the limo emerged from behind the Stemmon's sign, elbows raised

up, his torso apparently frozen, his "protection" inexplicably absent...a sitting duck.

There is absolutely no question as to whether or not the limo came to a complete and FULL stop. The car stopped. Completely. No motion whatsoever. The limo

remained motionless for approximately 2 seconds. I'm surprised the Queen Mary didn't rear-end it. The head shot most obviously came from the right front. A

detail that is missing from the motion of JFK in the extant film has to do with the difference between: "back and to the left" --and--"up, then fall to the left".

My recollection is that he was "lifted up" from his seat to a discernible degree before falling to his left. This "body motion" appeared to be much slower than the jerky,

abrupt, "snap" seen in the extant film.

Rich had a few items that I didn't recall and vice versa. For instance, unlike what Rich reported, I don't recall a shot from behind that caused JFK's head to move forward

initially just before the fatal head shot from the front. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just may not have registered that for whatever reason. I also recall that

several Secret Service Agents climbed out of the Queen Mary with (what appeared to be) automatic weapons drawn apparently looking to return fire. They appeared to

be very disoriented. Then they climbed back in and sped off. There was a considerable gap between the time the X-100 sped off and the Queen Mary sped off. Rich

did not recall the agents climbing out of the limo.

==============================

I am not at liberty to discuss the circumstances under which I viewed this film.

Jim Fetzer said:

The original appears to exist, but is difficult to locate. Rich DellaRosa, as it happens, had the opportunity to view it on three different occasions, as he explained in Appendix E of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).

Jim,

As a point of clarity, Rich and I both have maintained that, so far, it has not been possible to determine if the film that we (and others) saw:

1) was the unaltered "original" Zapruder film (both of us tend to believe that it was NOT) -- or

2) was a separate film taken that day from a similar location (both of us tend to believe that it WAS) -- and/or

3) was the same film that each other saw (no way of knowing for sure, but the similarities of our respective recollections are sufficient enough to accept that as highly probable);

As a result, we refer to what we saw as the "other film" as opposed to a copy of the unaltered "original" Zapruder Film. The quality of the "other film" was extremely high--by quite a margin--in comparison to that of the extant Zapruder film.

Robert,

As a point of personal reference, let me just point out why there's a difference. There are derogatory labels that some feel are best left unsaid. The words slave or

slavery are not "labels" at all. They are sometimes the only words that can be used to describe a person's actual state or the system that provides for such a state

of being. The "N" word is disrespectful when used as if it is "legitimate" and/or accepted terminology.

On the other hand, for example, when those from the North and/or the West regularly refer to a down trodden Southern group of white people as "White Trash, Trailer

Trash, or Hillbillies" after a history of this same group of "labeled" people having been mercilessly oppressed--even by other whites-- I refrain from using those words,

as well. In fact, I refrain from using those words now in speech, although I am more likely to actually spell them all the way out. For me, it's a matter of being sensitive

to the feelings of those for whom such language can be hurtful, not merely offensive. The "N" word has been misused so often over the years that we can identify it by

its "abbreviation" only. But, if I referred to the "H" word (Hillbilly), nobody would even know what I meant.

.

I find it curious that Reagan not only bombed Gadaffi's military infrastructure and his personal residence, but also bombed the French embassy in Tripoli (oops)

allegedly because France refused us permission to utilize their air space for the attack (unconfirmed). This time around, the French really began leading the way

against Gadaffi or at least they did their best to make sure it appeared so. They still fear Reagan...even from the grave, I suppose.

.

That's spooky, Harry--

It has been claimed that LBJ did more to move along civil rights legislation than JFK would have had the latter

survived Dallas to serve another term. During the intervening years since the assassination a lot has been

written to indicate that JFK was "slow" to pursue civil rights. I don't agree at all. I don't care that some of those

making the claim are African Americans. I think that JFK was going about this task as fast as possible. It was

a very difficult and dangerous task, but one that I believe he would have seen through to fruition. As it is, we

can never know for sure...

However, here's something that I can't even IMAGINE coming from the mouth of JFK! The word is: "N****rs"!

Yet, it did come from the mouth of LBJ, which speaks volumes, IMO.

"The more hatred is superficial...the more it runs deep." -- FAREWELL AMERICA (1968)

.

You're welcome, Dean.

It's an amazing phenomenon how so many myths have been created to obscure the truth. For instance, a lot of the business "models" that were adopted by

the Japanese post WWII were created in America, but attributed to the ingenuity of the Japanese. That is not meant to disparage the Japanese culture, work

ethic, ingenuity, creativity, or ability. However, there were numerous studies conducted by American "think-tanks" regarding how to best extract superior

effort from employees. These experiments were conducted for selfish purposes in order to help businesses determine how to become more efficient. The

cost of employees is far and away the biggest expense businesses bear, so finding out how to extract from employees the most "bang for the buck" was a very

worthwhile endeavor. The "model" that emerged from the study was so far removed from the "old school" methodology as to appear to be counter-intuitive

to everything that American Big Business had heretofore been established upon--in terms of employee treatment. Remember, part of our heritage includes

slavery--which is diametrically opposed to employee rights. So, these "employee friendly" work models were rejected in America in the immediate aftermath

of WWII, despite the evidence that adopting such practices would produce a more efficient work force and incidentally yield "more satisfied" (happier) employees.

Due to the models' having been too far removed from the then current school of thought, the "model" was exported to Japan as an experiment. The belief was

that it could never work, but maybe...since the studies said it would. However, why take the chance ourselves? We have a "control group" in the US and a host

of subjects in Japan on which we can impose this new standard to see if it really will work.

Well, it apparently worked after all and it continues to work to this very day.

You're welcome, Bernice. There were gems in literally everything Fletch ever told me...without exception.

Greg, are you sure about this?

Mike,

It comes from a very good source. This is an excerpt from a letter I received from Prouty who was replying to a

letter from me. Both were subsequently placed on his website:

"BURNHAM has introduced another interesting subject with his statement:

===>'The founder of SONY Corporation, Akio Morita, a man I highly respect, commented that following the defeat of Japan he made several trips to America...

Upon return home he noted that "Cheap" things were labeled "Made in Japan" in stores in America. He went home determined to change that image. Hence,

the SONY Corp, which has since evolved from its humble beginnings as a manufacturer of stereos and T.V. to be recognized a leader in that industry.'<==

(That's not quite an accurate copy of Burnham's words; but I'll stop here for another purpose.)

It just happens that I was ordered to Tokyo during the early days of the Korean War period, and was assigned the job of "Military Manager of Tokyo International

Airport" during the period of the U.S. military occupation of Japan. At that time it was the third busiest airport in the world, not only because of the Korean War

activity; but because of just such business activity as Burnham describes on the part of Mr. Morita. Many other Japanese entrepreneurs were doing their best to

revive from the losses and damage of WWII; but even more important was another enormous business phenomenon.

I began to notice that day after day the few Japanese transport aircraft available, and countless large commercial aircraft from USA Charter Companies began to

jam the parking ramp on Tokyo Airport. They were loaded with items from the States.

US money and manufactured material was flooding the place. Have you ever really thought why Mr. Morita, a fine Japanese businessman, would name his company

SONY? That is not a Japanese word, nor is it a Japanese acronym.

The name SONY began to appear at the airport after the flood of post-war recovery money, and one of the meanings of those four letters is "STANDARD OIL OF NEW YORK".

That has always been SONY or SOCONY. (The Standard Oil Company of New York)

THE ROCKEFELLERS had arrived to re-finance Japan.

What this meant was that during those "MacArthur" days Rockefeller money was flooding Japan; and money such as that (Yes, I'm using the term MONEY) kind of "money"

began the amazing job of rebuilding Japan.

We should all note that these phenomena took place in what we called the Korean War and the Vietnam War eras. These conflicts carefully orchestrated and planned during

the Cairo and Teheran Conference days in Nov/Dec 1944 had been ably designed to pour hundreds of billions of dollars/money into those activities. The Vietnam cost ran

well over $500 billion... and this was not Maria Theresa "Dollars".

Your good letter has caused me to go back through some of my dog-earred records to rediscover and to confirm much of what you have written. It is my belief today that

this High cabal is going to increase around the world rather than to have itself modified.

Thank you for your good letter,

L. Fletcher Prouty"

.

Robert,

This year, during the "question & answer" section of my presentation in Dallas at COPA, you asked several

questions about my opinion of Rockefeller and his possible involvement in the assassination. Another person

followed up your question by asking if I thought that NSAM 273 was part of the beginning of the "Rockefeller-

ization" of American Foreign Policy.

The "Rockefeller-ization" of American Foreign Policy started decades prior to 1963. A huge indication of how

far it had already advanced by 1963 is seen in the immediate aftermath of WWII. We occupied Japan following

their surrender and we began the long process of "re-building" Japan with/for the Japanese. This re-building

included, not only replacing their physical losses, but it also included the re-building of their economy, as well.

Rockefeller has/had myriad financial interests and many of them were/are disguised by clever devices in order

to obscure their true source. One such "obscured" interest is seen in a company most all of us take for granted

is/was a Japanese company from its inception, but which was not. SONY is one such example.

SONY is not a Japanese word nor is it a Japanese acronym. It is an American acronym that has become a Japanese

"brand" and has been "positioned" in the market in such a manner as to give the impression that it is a product

of superior (Japanese) quality available for a reasonable price (due to its having been manufactured in Japan).

That impression is false.

SONY stands for: STANDARD OIL of NEW YORK -- Yes, Rockefeller! An American company manufactured ALL of

the parts that were to comprise a piece of "SONY" equipment and manufactured those parts in the US. Then,

those components were shipped to Japan where Ford's "assembly line" production model was introduced. In the

end, the highly misleading stamp "Made in Japan" was placed on the now fully assembled (American technology)

stereos, TV's, and other electronic devices and re-shipped back to the US where it was marketed as "Japanese"

technology and re-sold to the American consumer at a premium. So, not only did Rockefeller profit from this

new venture in electronics, but profited more than if he had kept everything "Made in the US". By exploiting both

the Japanese plight and American gullibility, Rockefeller lined several pockets handsomely.

Hi David,

I sent John your post link and images about 15 minutes ago and I see he has already replied. Thanks John.

Under certain conditions, the contrails spread out; it all depends upon the environment. I have to question something here: how did you know it was the same aircraft?

I didn't say that it was the same aircraft. Go back and read it again. I said that it was either the same or additional aircraft. I have no way of knowing which it was--but it was one, or the other, OR both. I don't know.