Greg Burnham

Great job, Bill! And great page, Joe!

Good stuff, so far...I need to read it all, but so far so good, IMO!

I have no idea whether or not these "clouds" contain chemicals. However, I can say with 100% certainty that there have been many days in San Diego--particularly in East County--that began with

absolutely blue skies and literally NO CLOUD cover whatsoever from horizon to horizon. It's San Diego (inland) County--so clear skies are not uncommon. I recall witnessing and pointing out to fellow

officers, (I was a Police Motorcycle Escort Officer back then) while we were in between motorcade details, the odd patterns that were being made in the sky by aircraft. I am NOT exaggerating. The patterns

were obvious and definitely not random. They resembled a "checker board" across the entire sky. We counted as many as 6 to 8 nearly straight lines running parallel to each other across the otherwise

completely clear, blue sky and an additional 5 or 6 lines intersecting those perpendicularly at 90 degrees.

Eventually those well defined lines mutated into what appeared to be cirrus clouds and dissipated--but they did NOT disappear. They hung around in a different form. Then we would observe additional

"lines" being laid out by either the same or additional aircraft, which subsequently dissipated--without disappearing--building up cloud cover over a period of hours. Now, the sky was no longer "clear"

at all. It was filled with "whispy" clouds. But, there is absolutely no question as to how these "clouds" were formed--in terms of their source. The source was definitely the aircraft.

I have observed this same phenomenon for more than 10 years. I have witnessed it more than 30 times, conservatively speaking.

I do not claim to know what it is, what it means, nor do I claim to know what these "clouds" might contain.

However, it is NOT easily dismissed, as it is NOT as "obviously explainable" as some here suggest.

...

Thanks for sending me a link to this thread, Greg.

And thanks, Don, for the mention. It's good to hear from you and that you're still active in this. I'm still around and doing work little by little. Greg and I were doing a few things in November and I'm working a little with Mark Oakes now helping him with something.

Scott

You're welcome, Scott.

Scott has done a lot of very good work on several subjects relevant to this topic. My favorite things about Scott include his dedication to the truth and his resistance to making claims that

he has yet to prove--even when they are "almost proven" and even when they support his own position.

I have rarely met anyone with your attention to detail and your commitment to honesty, my friend.

...

It's all supposition, at this point. But, I do miss those "good old days" -- I miss fighting the "good fight" back-to-back with my Compadre, Don Riccardo.

There were a few knockdown drag-outs weren't there? I remember one interesting tidbit, from the first JFKResearch forum, just before the letter incident...I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, there were over well 700,000 total posts at that particular time to Rich DellaRosa's JFKResearch forum.

Lot of familiar names showing up in the thread.....

Oh yeah, we had some doozies back then. But, wow--it was dynamic. You felt like you were actually "getting somewhere" with all of the work.

All right John! We've already been through this in Melbourne.

I was on a mission in my own mind!

Call me sentimental, but only a few weeks ago I removed from my desktop the quick bookmark link to Rich's forum.

It just did not seem right unless it was there, even though the forum was long gone. For many years it

was my HOME PAGE, which opened up when I opened the internet.

Jack

Here it is, Jack. It's new: JFKresearch Assassination Archive

You see, I'm sentimental, too. It's still my homepage...I just can't post there anymore.

Hey Don,

Those truly were "the good old days" indeed! I remember that Anthony Marsh was the first person ever banned from the forum! Paul Burke was the second...ahhh--the memories. We don't need to mention the

names of EF moderators on the list... (LOL, you know who you are...)

The culture was different then. The obstacles, while formidable, were both ill defined and illusive; the disingenuous were not easily discerned from the sincere; the genuine "revolutionary" was not easily distinguished

from the anarchist; but, the WARREN COMMISSION APOLOGIST was all too transparent, similar to the present day. Rich allowed the free expression of "Lone Nuts" [my terminology, not his] on the forum irrespective of

his own personal revulsion to their presence. Like JFK, Rich tolerated--indeed, he encouraged--diversity and freedom of speech.

I remember about 18 months before he died we exchanged some emails. He asked: "My main Monk, why do you think so many of the past regular participants no longer post here?"

Wow. That was interesting because I had stopped posting for quite a while myself due to changing personal circumstances, i.e., I got re-married, and my daughter was married to an Australian, and 2 years later had a baby, etc.

-- and so I was unsure how to answer.

Finally, I said:

"Unfortunately, perhaps people just NEED to argue this "JFK Subject" out. Sometimes they NEED to make it "bloody" (figuratively speaking, of course). After the forum became "civilized" the "need" for confrontation was perhaps

not met there anymore."

It's all supposition, at this point. But, I do miss those "good old days" -- I miss fighting the "good fight" back-to-back with my Compadre, Don Riccardo.

Wouldn't Rich be surprised to know you and I are friends now? He was like a rocket through my life. I miss him very much, but I'm glad he's not suffering anymore.

Kathy C

He wouldn't even believe it! He'd sooner believe the "magic bullet theory" was true...? NOT -- But, still he would be very surprised...and very pleased.

Thanks Mike. To be associated with a man of such great character is truly an honor...

It was one year ago today, March 8th, 2010 that we first learned of the passing of Rich DellaRosa. The website was

maintained since then by his wife and daughter, until it finally found a home on the DPF a number of weeks ago as

an archive. All of the information has been preserved in a manner consistent with the same "look and feel" as the

original.

This is not an advertisement for the DPF. It is a reminder that a lot of good work was accomplished at Rich's site

and much of it is available for inspection due to its having been archived.

RIP, Don Riccardo.

JFKresearch Assassination Archive[/url

I didn't know him for that long a period of time, but for the time I did now him, he always had time to answer a question or send a link or help you out in some way. He was a class act in the true sense of the word and I owe him a debt of gratitude for the help he gave to me.

RIP, Rich. Your work continues.

Gil is right, Rich DellaRosa was a class act. And his work lives on and continues.

When Greg posts here, I often think of Rich's forum. And I see the good influence that Greg has chosen to take from his friendship with Rich.

I understand, my friend. Bottoms up, Mate!

It was one year ago today, March 8th, 2010 that we first learned of the passing of Rich DellaRosa. The website was

maintained since then by his wife and daughter, until it finally found a home on the DPF a number of weeks ago as

an archive. All of the information has been preserved in a manner consistent with the same "look and feel" as the

original.

This is not an advertisement for the DPF. It is a reminder that a lot of good work was accomplished at Rich's site

and much of it is available for inspection due to its having been archived.

RIP, Don Riccardo.

JFKresearch Assassination Archive

...

Thank you, Mike.

Probably just a coincidence, but I was walking down Haight Street a few moments ago and some guy from Brazil threw a Snickers bar at me!

No coincidence. You probably batted a home run with it...

Chris...you really seem to have it all figured out...but you are not doing very well telling us

what it all means. You have done all the numbers and math and to me it SEEMS to show

how certain things were done to the film...but you have not presented any CONCLUSIONS

that math dunces like me can understand. Please take a stab at telling us what it all means.

Jack

Jack,

Just for info, I spoke with Chris last week on the phone for quite a while. I agree with you: IMHO he

really is on to something here. It was easier to get my head around it over the phone. Sometimes

the spoken exchange is preferable to the written--or perhaps a combination of both.

... I mean if the discoveries of the ARRB

ever were adequately presented to a national audience, it would be almost like they saw the Zapruder film for the first time.

Well, that would be very disappointing indeed! The actual showing of the Zapruder Film by Geraldo Rivera in 1975(?) yielded little, if anything, of merit

to this cause. The findings of the HSCA were barely better than the findings of the WC. The Zapruder Film has, ironically, provided very little "traction"

for us. Rather, it was used as a basis for the conclusions reached by the Official Lone Nutters' (The Warren Commission) Theory.

Now, THAT is whacko...

But, I do get your point, Jim.

Give yourself a break, my friend. Survivor's guilt serves no purpose.

Mike,

It's good to be seen.

I'm not being trite either. I really mean, "It's good to be seen..." because there have been times when that wasn't always guaranteed...if you get my drift.

I agree 100% that it is very possible he was not aware shots were being fired. The majority, including Secret Service and Dallas PD, never claimed they were

aware of that either. Most said they thought it was fire crackers and/or motorcycle backfires--at least at first. I also agree that it's very possible that there

was a general bewilderment on JFK's part even after he was hit. It's very common.

My partner was murdered while he was off duty because he walked into a drug deal going down in a public restroom. Instead of leaving and calling it in, he

chose to "badge" the perps and hopefully detain them until the proprietor of the business could call 911 and PD could arrive. Poor judgment. However, the

coroner determined that even after he had been shot in the throat at point blank range, he managed to break the thumb on the shooting hand of his assailant

and secure possession of the weapon before dying. He was still clutching the murder weapon that was used against him when his body was found.

But, I digress. Your point is well taken.

I've been shot at. I agree, "the appearance of being reserved" was the last thing on my mind. However, I was shot at during a normal function of my job and, correct me if I'm wrong,

Mike, so were you. JFK had a very different "job" indeed. Due to the uniqueness of the office, the president shouldn't be held to the same expectation of reactive behavior as are others.

The above notwithstanding, JFK was also restricted from normal physical reaction due to the back brace that he wore. Although the restriction it offered is not nearly as severe as some

have claimed, still it explains JFK's "reserved appearance" [read: restricted motion] observed by Andrew.

The official story relies upon the "film" to make its case * . Therefore studying it is not a waste of time at all.

* even as counter-intuitive as that apparently is: "Back... and to the left; Back... and to the left; Back... and to the left..."

Unfortunately...

"Due to unforseen issues relating to some of the key speakers for this event, we have had to postpone the Black Op Radio Conference for April 2011.

Jesse Ventura will not fly due to legal issue with TSA, Virtual JFK team not available at this time, Bob Tanenbaum, Ed Lopez not available. I have decided

to hold off the conference. Black Op Radio will do some live broadcast from Hawaii but for now a conference is on hold.

Thanks,

Len Osanic"

A conspiracy, by definition, need only involve more than one in the perpetration of a crime. Your "strawman" is quite transparent, David.

So-called "conspiracy theorists" are a dime a dozen. They are of no consequence whatsoever. They are as damaging to the discovery of the truth as are the

lone nutters with their penchant for idiotic thinking based in a deep need to cling to the illusion that they live in the best of all possible worlds. At least the

CT's have no such illusion. Unfortunately, they believe the opposite and equally inaccurate scenario is true.

However, sincere historians, scholars, and students of this case do not theorize irresponsibly.

LOL this from someone who reported the claim of an anonymous source as fact then refused to admit error when proven to be wrong. And yes I'm referring

to your false claim that Zapruder worked at Nardis till 1959.

Len,

There is a difference between irresponsible speculation and an honest factual error or typo. At the time of the writing, it was my belief that the correct year

was 1959. As it turns out, the correct year was more likely 1954 because that's the year he co-founded Jennifer Junior's. Unfortunately, my original source

is deceased now, so I can't go back and get a clarification from him. As I said to you before, the article was written more than a decade ago and I had not re-

visited it in quite some time. That area of my research has concluded and I don't plan on reviving it.

Jesus Horacio Christ, what a bunch of convoluted, totally unimportant crap Tom Scully posted above.

Pot meet kettle.

(PS: No offense, Tom)

All we needed to do--and have done--is prove that one theory (the official theory of the WCR) was false.

You and your fellow conspiracy buffs have proved no such thing.

From now and for the rest of time, the Warren Commission's conclusions will stand as the best and most accurate representation of the assassination, and Lee Harvey Oswald will forever be stamped as JFK's murderer in most history books (despite the hobby of conspiracists who insist on ignoring every last piece of evidence that points toward LHO).

And the WC's conclusions will live on forever because those conclusions are accurate ones -- i.e., Oswald killed Kennedy. Period. And no one on the globe has ever proved otherwise.

In American jurisprudence it is NOT necessary to prove innocence, rather it is necessary to prove guilt. Lee Harvey Oswald never stood trial, never faced his accusers, never was he judged by a jury of his own peers. The Warren Commission proved nothing.

So-called "conspiracy theorists" are a dime a dozen. They are of no consequence whatsoever. They are as damaging to the discovery of the truth as are the

lone nutters with their penchant for idiotic thinking based in a deep need to cling to the illusion that they live in the best of all possible worlds. At least the

CT's have no such illusion. Unfortunately, they believe the opposite and equally inaccurate scenario is true.

However, sincere historians, scholars, and students of this case do not theorize irresponsibly. Although there is no "theory" of conspiracy in the JFK assassination

that is without flaw, still there was, in fact, a conspiracy.

It is not necessary for us to prove that all of the conspiracy theories ever postulated are true in order for us to demonstrate that there was a conspiracy. All we

needed to do--and have done--is prove that one theory (the official theory of the WCR) was false.

And that was easy.

...Likewise, even though a hollow-point will slightly flatten and distort upon impact with soft flesh of the rabbit/squirrell, it still will not destruct to the extent as did the head-shot bullet of the Z313 impact to the head of JFK... (emphasis added)

Hmmm...

Greg...

unless you're just funning with us...

I tried to stay away from ce399 cause we'd all agree, well most of us, that that bullet passed thru no one - so to use it to compare to what happened to the bullet hitting JFK in the head - apples and oranges

Would have loved to hear an answer to the question, "So CE399 passed thru JFK, smashed JC's rib and wrist without so much as a scratch and the same type of bullet hit JFK on a boney substance and basically disintegrated..... what up? " and the beat goes on....

Arlen? where's Arlen to answer this one?

Good to see you, David.