Greg Burnham

Thanks, Bill. Great work on this stuff.

I do not subscribe to any theory that RFK had anthing to do, before the fact, with Marilyn Monroe's death. At all. What I am saying is that RFK apparently was down here, in L.A., that evening, and was stopped on Sunset Boulevard. The officer's account is a matter of public record in the Don Wolfe book, and the late law partner of the attorney I know well was in the automobile. I learned of all this many years ago, and all three of us--the attorney I know well, and his law partner, and I-- were supposed to meet, so he could relate all this personally to me. I understood its significance, and intended to record or film that meeting, and then send it to Don Wolfe, whom I had recently met (over the phone). Unfortunately, the attorney died of a heart attack just a few days before our scheduled meeting. Believe what you will. If you wish to pursue the matter, you are free to. Making glib statements about what you will or not "buy" is not research; nor does it represent a proper approach to the appraisal of evidence which, for whatever reason, you may find disagreeable, or even disturbing. Of course, I'm assuming you are aware, from the phone records unearthed by Anthony Summers, that Marilyn Monroe was clearly a very serious thorn in the side of the Kennedy brothers, so RFK's presence down here, in the aftermath of his hearing about her overdose, would not surprise me at all. That in no way implies a belief, on my part, that he had anything to do with her death. DSL 1/30/11; 4:15 PM PST Los Angeles, CA Fair enough. However, my comments and objections need to be considered in the context of this entire thread. Indeed, they need to be considered in the context of David Andrews' (not David Lifton's) post above, including this sentence: "Anecdotally, RFK is placed suspiciously close to the Marilyn Monroe death scene, by wiretappers and Teamster sources and a food chain of opportunistic authors." There is an entirely different--and much less innocuous--claim being alluded to by cryptic implication in the above.

This from Treefrog today: ================ Blakey and Billings were quoting Asst FBI Director William Sullivan who wrote [this] in his book: "Although Hoover was desperately trying to catch Bobby...red handed at anything, he never did......Kennedy was almost a Puritan. We used to watch him at parties, where he would order one glass of Scotch and still be sipping from the same glass two hours later. The stories about Bobby and Marilyn Monroe were just stories.The original story was invented by a so called journalist, a right wing zealot who had a history of spinning wild yarns. It spread like wildfire, of course, and J Edgar Hoover was right there, gleefully fanning the flames"........... page 427 paperback..."Fatal Hour" Frog

...and the plot thickens: "As the Attorney General of the United States, Robert F Kennedy, was making his escape after having murdered movie star legend, Marilyn Monroe, with a poison suppository--his escape vehicle was pulled over on a routine traffic stop. In their haste, the accomplices--particularly the driver of the escape vehicle--were careless. The driver was speeding from the scene of the crime due to anxiety created from his participation in the crime. However, the Los Angeles Police Department's patrolman who pulled them over noticed that one of the occupants was the US Attorney General. Since the LAPD all loved and respected RFK so much--as evidenced by the thorough investigation they did into his murder in 1968--the officer let the driver go with only a warning." Sorry, for the dripping sarcasm, David. No offense intended, but I'm not buying it at all.

Bill, I agree that as a matter of course the documents rightfully belong to the People of the United States and need to be in the National Archives. So, the law needs to be followed (the JFK Act) and the documents must be retrieved and archived. However, I wonder how reliable/authentic these reports might be? Can we verify their provenance or do we have to take Blaine's word for it?

Thanks for sharing that Greg! Zach You're more than welcome, Zach!

"The pastimes of great men are of very little importance. Too intelligent, in too much of a hurry, too hard-working, too enthusiastic, too generous, John Kennedy also had too much vitality and too much heart. The national interest requires that the state be a cold monster. The weakness and the hypocrisy of its citizens demand the same attitude of a Chief of State. Kennedy was treated with cortisone, but he hid this from the public, and he was wrong. Eisenhower had suffered a heart attack and a serious operation, and the details were known to every American. Ordinary men take comfort in the illnesses of the great. Kennedy took several baths a day and slept on a horsehair mattress with a bedboard, but he would have walked if he were half dead. People distrust those who are not like themselves. It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep." -- Farewell America

Very cool stories, Jim. I love Mossbergs, in general. I still own a 12 Guage Mossberg Shotgun to this day. Very reliable. However, it's anything but quiet! One more consideration regarding the 45 grease gun still in use into the 70's: It is quite desirable (operationally speaking, that is) to employ a weapon that will "severely wound" individual soldiers of the enemy, as opposed to blowing them away, because their fellow soldiers will be faced with the choice of either abandoning their fallen comrades or dragging/carrying them out. If the weapon kills the enemy soldier, you've only taken out one guy. However, if it doesn't kill him but only severely wounds him, you've taken out a minimum of 2 or 3.

Hi Jim, Do you mean that you were wondering if the reason ONLY 3 shots were heard by some is that the remaining shots were unheard as a result of the relatively inaudible air gun sound? I think that's what you are asking. IMO, the amount of mass that a projectile would need to possess in order to inflict the kind of damage that JFK suffered exceeds the upper limit of 1963 "air power" technology. IOW: the mass of the bullets required to do the job was too high for "air" alone to power. Again, that is my opinion only. Although I have a fairly good working knowledge of the subject, I'm no expert by any means.

Bingo!

Thanks Chris. Sorry if I distracted from your point, that's not my intention. I'm looking forward to the remainder of it.

Chris I can see You and Tom have put a lot into this and it is appreciated by many. Would this indicate the cut in the towner film to be non_accidental?. And the timing between the shots remains the same Just 30 feet further down Elm?.Would this also tell us why the wound ballistics are so confusing as to the angle of entrance ,with JBC and JFK leaning way over to the left and not in an upright position to recieve the wounds makes a bit more sense of the impact orientations. I wish I paid more attention to math all those years ago. Ian Ian, I didn't mean to shorten you on the rest of your question. If I wanted to hide a shot farther down the street, I might just take part of that frame and implement into the frame up the street. This way, if the 353 shot was from the TSBD, it would appear that 313 was a shot from that location. Very easy 1 frame fix. Would that clear up any of the ballistics mess, I don't know, but it would be a very quick and easy solution. chris Astounding, Chris! I think you've got it! And I think I now remember what Tom Wilson said...it may have been 30 or 40 FRAMES farther west, NOT FEET! Jack That's interesting, Jack. Depending on a couple of variables, such as the speed of the X-100 during that period of time and the number of frames shot per second by "that" camera--we could determine (or at least ball park) the limo's location. Chris?

David, Garrison was pretty much convinced that a shot originated from there and Prouty told me that he hadn't ruled that location out himself, although Prouty avoided theorizing about the details... Garrison speaks about the possibility of a shooter in the storm drain at about the 17:30 mark in this audio clip: http://www.prouty.org/garrison/garrison.ram I did a very rudimentary study about a dozen years ago. Then I did a further--much more in depth--study a few years later assisted by Scott Myers. I took photos from inside the sewer drain and experimented with angles and space for accommodating a weapon. While I don't think that a "standard size" rifle could have been reasonably employed that day from that location, there is plenty of room for various modified or "special" rifles, which were available in 1963...and definitely a handgun could have been used from there. The location of the actual head shot (meaning, the location on Elm St) would have probably necessarily been a distance farther west than the spot marked "X" today on Elm Street. We also investigated the point where the storm drain meets the Trinity River. It isn't just a fanciful contrivance, it is plausible.

Jack, I couldn't remember the exact distance that Tom said either, but I found this: According to "A Deeper, Darker Truth" by Donald Phillips, page 235: "Fatal shot to JFK's head occurred 7' 6" farther down Elm Street than the Zapruder film indicates."

Excellent work, Chris!

No. It would have produced the sound of disappointment from those attempting such folly, such as: "Damn it--I told you it wouldn't work!" There were obviously air guns in 1963. However, none (to my knowledge) were capable of accomplishing what you are talking about. EDIT for clarity: I should have said "in my opinion" regarding the above--and, I didn't intend to be as sarcastic as it sounds...

This is yet another example of your uncommonly rich attraction to employing CIRCULARITY when arguing your point. Your assertion is: "This is a great book." My challenge is: "Provide proof that its content is factual." Your reply is: "I (Robert) have proof of the allegations made in this book--and the proof IS CONTAINED IN THE BOOK!." Fallacious idiocy at its finest...

Greg, with the Kennedy sex maniacs, most of these stories are true. And are relevant both to the JFK assassination AND to the cover up as this post demonstrates. No need to shoot the messenger if you can't handle the message. I get tired of going over to John McAdams web site and seeing this: "He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights . . . . It's — it had to be some silly little Communist." — Jackie Kennedy, on hearing that a leftist had been arrested for her husband's murder. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm Robert Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy were handicapped in speaking the truth of what they knew: that the JFK assassination was a coup d'etat and the result of an elite DOMESTIC conspiracy. One big reason they did not speak up was because RFK and Jackie were having an illicit affair with each other and Robert Kennedy, in particular, did not want to risk having this exposed, which would have killed off his political ambitions for US Senate and the Presidency. After all, Robert Kennedy had TEN kids with Ethel, and here he was spending all this emotional energy, time, and money on Jackie. It is one thing to be a good uncle to John John and Caroline and a close friend to Jackie, it is entirely another to be hopping in the bed with the widow Jackie Kennedy and carrying on with her like 2 teenagers in love. So Jack Kennedy was not the only Kennedy who was BLACKMAILABLE - Robert Kennedy was and he lived in fear of having his affair with Jackie exposed. I have read almost the whole book "Bobby and Jackie" and it convinced me, with countless anecdotes from close Kennedy friends, that the RFK/Jackie affair was quite the reality and an "open secret" among the Kennedy clan. Back to John Kennedy: the ONLY reason Lyndon Johnson got on that Democratic ticket in 1960 was through the use of sexual blackmail and other threats on John Kennedy. In sum, I am researcher in the 1963 Coup d'Etat. I am not some sort of Kennedy groupie or a PR flack along the lines of Karl Rove (Bushes), James Carville (Clintons) or Jack Valenti (Johnson). I try to find the truth whether it is good, bad or ugly. One more thing: save your "disgust" for the character suicide that the Kennedys committed... such as running around on a wife that gave you 10 children. Produce the PROOF of this illicit love affair! PRODUCE THE PROOF! instead of parroting what you have read elsewhere. The entire idea that they, including Joseph Kennedy, Sr., JFK & RFK, were all ultimately "black-mailable" due to their alleged sexual exploits is a claim beyond the pale; it's an unsupported assertion, and is absurd!

I find your penchant for accepting every racey story involving the sex lives of the Kennedy brothers revelatory of the irrelevance of your research. I am profoundly disappointed...and quite honestly, disgusted.

On second glance, I find this to be one of the more remarkable things I've ever read. Greg is suggesting that evidence suggestive of more than one shooter--such as a 14cm measurement on the autopsy face sheet and a back wound at T1 on the autopsy photos--could be faked evidence to make us think there was only one shooter. Fascinating. I suppose by this same token we can suspect that the unidentified prints in the sniper's nest were added just to, y'know, make sure we believed Oswald pulled the trigger. I am not intending to change the subject with this post and I respect thread integrity, so please consider what I am about to post in the context of my reply directly to Pat's post: Have you ever wondered why the Zapruder film has been used by both LN and CT advocates to demonstrate their respective positions? For those who believe that there was a shot from the front, it is quite obvious why they believe that the Zapruder film supports their position, as it apparently demonstrates what anyone would expect to see on a film of such an event -- that is, an event in which the head shot results in a motion best described as: "back and to the left" -- consistent with a shot from the right/front of JFK. However, the Warren Commission also relied on the Zapruder film and yet came to an idiotically contrived interpretation of what it apparently does NOT depict, namely, that all shots originated from the right rear of JFK at a downward trajectory. So, when considering the case for Zappy film alteration, the argument of Z-film apologists has been (and seems logical) that the evidence of a frontal shot most certainly would have been removed if alteration had been accomplished. If not, why alter the film in the first place? Now, the above is NOT meant to start a discussion about the Zapruder film here. It is meant to suggest yet another example of the effectiveness of producing a "muddy water" environment...at the very least. If there were "elements" of the film that MUST be removed (such as a complete stop, etc) that is one thing, but there perhaps were elements of the film that could NOT be removed (read:hidden) OR there was a reason to leave them intact for "other" purposes. Never under-estimate these guys. They will do ANYTHING.

First of all, I note the "fake tan" applied to your photo! Just kidding, of course--but I couldn't resist.

I beg your pardon? It says NOTHING about either of you! I thought that this discussion/argument was about ideas, concepts, and conclusions -- and I'd expect that you, as a moderator, should know that it is NOT about "the persons" involved in the debate-- IMHO. Wow. Now that says a lot about... -- never mind, I don't want to be a hypocrite considering my above statement. However, sometimes the truth isn't found in the most popular or simplistic argument. The truth exists irrespective of the perceived obscurity of the argument which identifies its location. The nature of obstruction of justice in a capital crime involving the complicity of Intelligence Agencies pre-supposes that the perpetrators are quite capable of comprehending the fact that obfuscation is as useful a tool as is out right deceit; that the act of "muddying the waters" serves more to slow down the process of justice than does perjury; that throwing a "curve ball barely missing the outside corner of the plate" is more effective than deliberately hitting the batter in the face with the ball. That is inappropriate ad hominem especially for a moderator. Wow.

Check out page 107 of the February 1962 issue of Popular Mechanics. Bizarre Weapons for the Little Wars by S. David Pursglove http://books.google.com/books?id=reEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA7-IA2&lpg=PA7-IA2&dq=popular+mechanics+february+1962&source=bl&ots=f61QAOeU_Y&sig=hMYw6FZ7Pu0xq5PupV-SHIE-ufc&hl=en&ei=Sz44Tci3M8H68AazgKWrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20february%201962&f=false John Armstrong mentioned this on page 364 of Harvey & Lee. Good stuff, Mike. Thanks for the Popular Mechanics link. Below are images of the dart from Prouty.

That is a very clever (although I'm sure that was not your intent) interpretation of my meaning. However, it is wanting for context. First, like I said, I remain convinced that the information you posted is inadequate to the task of providing any sound rationale for Bundy's having written a reversal of JFK's policy in Vietnam. Second, I don't find the need to defend my credentials as a researcher. Third, suggesting that it is unreasonable for a researcher to ask unanswered questions out loud is a shallow yardstick by which to measure his or her "reputation". Fourth, like I said before, thanks for thinking...

Robert, Is this subject really going to be your claim to fame? Is it your area of pseudo-expertise really going to be: "JFK's Sex Life and How the Rockefeller-ization of America's Military/Industrial Complex Exploited It" ??