Greg Burnham

Although I'm not arguing for or against the "theory" that a Flechette Dart was used in Dealey Plaza that day, it does not seem out of the question, IMO. The medical evidence suggests that the throat wound was definitely a wound of entrance. This is perhaps the ONLY case in modern history wherein the observations made by the qualified attending physicians--who were immediately in a position to render a judgment as to the nature of the wound--have been rejected out of hand! I find no merit in even arguing the point with those denying the throat wound was a wound of entrance. But, for those who accept the expert opinions of the attending physicians at Parkland, I will offer some insight as to the nature of the flechette dart weapon. Again, this is not to say it was employed that day--only that it had been developed to a degree of competent utility by that time. As you all know, Fletcher Prouty was Chief of Special Operations (aka: Chief of Team "B") in the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time. He also remained the liaison for military support of all clandestine operations in which the Central Intelligence Agency was engaged globally. As a regular function of his work there, members of the clandestine services, among others, would visit him and "(sales) pitch" their latest (but, not always greatest) ideas hoping to win his support. If he deemed the project worthy he would take the idea up the chain of command and present it to those in a position to budget its development further. There are times when an idea is too big or too expensive to by-pass congressional oversight and, in those cases, the "pitch" is actually made to a congressional sub-committee. The Agency developed a means to insure 100% funding of all of their projects by congress. It really is quite clever, and is a nice insight into how the mind of Allen Dulles worked. Congress does not like to "fully fund" projects that are seen as sketchy. Indeed, they only like to fund sure things. And, if they fund a project which eventually fails, they begin to lose faith in the agency (or The Agency) that persuaded them to allocate the money. So, the CIA began to funnel money from their "slush fund" (money generated illegally through drug & arms sales, etc.) into R&D for their pet projects. Once these projects were developed to the point of virtual certainty of their success--in other words, the R&D stage was already completed, they would then approach Prouty with it. If the magnitude of the project required congressional sub-committee oversight or budget approval, the "pitch" would be made to congress. The amount of funding requested would initially be very modest, as it was for R&D only, which makes it easier for congress to approve and raises fewer red flags. The brilliance lies in the fact that the Agency had already proven the viability of the project by this time and were therefore 100% sure that the congressional funds would be seen as having been very well spent. Next, they request funding to actually complete the project--a considerably higher sum--and they receive it based on the earlier "success" of the R&D funds. The final project is also a 100% success (which was already a known in advance of even involving congress). This process worked so well that eventually ALL projects ran this same course until congress began to routinely approve CIA budgets because the Agency appeared to have a 100% success rate. In reality, they didn't. They just kept their failures secret from congress, which was easy enough to do since they weren't using congressional funding for those failures. In effect, the Agency was totally un-accountable for failures and totally accountable for successes. One day General Ed Lansdale came to Fletcher's office and he was all excited about something. He began to "pitch" this new flechette dart weapon system and was beside himself with glee, according to Prouty. He was accompanied by another man who demonstrated how it worked. It could be fired from a fountain pen, a book, an umbrella, a walking stick (cane), a modified Colt .45, and perhaps other delivery systems that had yet to be developed. The demonstration was impressive as the dart, powered by solid rocket fuel, instantly accelerated to a very high speed and embedded into the wall of his office. Prouty told me: "Lansdale was like a kid in a candy store." Lansdale convinced Prouty to fly with him in a chopper that he had waiting outside in order for it to be demonstrated at a more suitable location. The next demonstration convinced Prouty that this was, indeed, one of the most effective weapons he'd seen. An "operator" fired the dart (I don't remember the delivery system used) at a goat that was approximately 50 yards away and it literally blew the entire hind quarter (including leg and hip) off--obliterating it. Needless to say the Agency got their funding to ostensibly "develop a system" that, in reality, they already had proved was 100% successful before they had even requested the money.

Looks like Frank Church to me. With John Tower sitting beside him. I stand corrected, Ron. It's past my bedtime.

This was not "drawing-board weapons science" David! This was a device imagined by the CIA and developed by the NSA through funds provided by the US Military. Its effectiveness is without dispute. That said, still we have no concrete proof that it was employed in Dallas. However, even if it wasn't, the reason had nothing to do with it being an unknown or untested product. It was tested, tweaked, and perfected...and it worked very effectively within limited scenarios.

Yes. It's the same one I posted earlier. The man holding it is Charles Sensensey of the NSA during his testimony.

Interesting. It was my impression from the Church testimony that exotic or innocent-looking things like umbrellas were used for delivery of the darts. If there was an actual gun that could be used, so much for the Umbrella Man! Ron, As a matter of logic: that an alternate delivery system to the "umbrella system" existed--does not preclude the "umbrella system" from having been used. I'm not necessarily arguing for or against any "theory" here, but your reasoning in this regard is flawed, IMO.

My short answer is: YES! Even without reviewing the exact or specific content of those particular frames, I must defer to a common instruction issued by judges to juries throughout our country (and many foreign countries). That is [paraphrased]: "If a 'witness' has committed perjury on even ONE occasion then it is wise to seriously question the veracity of the remainder of their testimony". Indeed it is permissible to REJECT the remainder of the testimony especially if same is being used to defeat otherwise undisputed independent testimony to the contrary. Now, all things being equal, you know my stance on the Zapruder Film. However, you also know my stance on the Flechette dart. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that the Zapruder film "evidence" supports the use of such technology, but such evidence is rightly inadmissible due to internal inconsistencies (perjury). Sometimes a perjurious testimony can still contain elements of the truth. The frames you sited may well indeed reveal evidence that is truthful. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing for sure. *I should clarify my last statement: If there is scientific PROOF--provided by a qualified expert, such as Costella, for instance, and verified by other experts--that those frames are indisputably authentic, then I would be more inclined to consider the possibility that same are a reliable basis upon which to draw a conclusion. However, in general terms, I believe that relying on the Zapruder film is a slippery-slope. *edit: for clarification

Hey Monk, Were your ears burning? I posted re your COPA presentation same time as you chimed in. Thanks! On fire! No kidding! Yep, partly a sham / partly a confession / partly a series of (non-sexual) Freudian-like slips...to be sure. When questioned as to whether the purpose of developing such a weapon was intended for use on humans, I particularly find Sensensey's reply (about a chemical and delivery agent being designed to defeat the scrutiny of an autopsy) very telling since autopsies are not generally ever performed on DOGS!

Cliff, I don't want to break thread integrity here, but I look forward to your thoughts and observations about that subject.

There was indeed a modified Colt .45 (1911-A) employed by the agency to fire Flechette darts that carried 46-40 to instantaneously paralyze the target. Originally, we used this to render attack/guard dogs immobile BEFORE they could sound an alarm (bark). The chemical and the delivery agent (dart) are both soluble within the body and leave no discernible trace without intense forensic examination. The dart was later modified to carry an extremely high explosive. The dart was powered by "solid rocket fuel" and was initiated by an ignition, as opposed to an explosion (such as a firing cap).

Hi Duke, When I said that "I've looked where it purportedly is and it is extremely inadequate" -- I am again referring to the FRUS Volume, where it "should" have been memorialized, IMO--but, what is there, is extremely inadequate. I was also throwing in some self denigrating sarcasm. As for the resemblance between the CABLE and the text from the FRUS, you can research the verbiage yourself, but suffice to say, it is verbatim, in a couple spots. As for the verbiage itself, note that this is what is said in the CABLE of 13 November: (2) MILITARY, INCLUDING REPORT ON PROGRESS IN ACCOMPLISHMENT OF TASKS ASSIGNED AS A RESULT OF THE MCNAMARA, TAYLOR MISSION, AND OUTLINING PLANS FOR CONTROL OF INFILTRATION AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE DELTA CAMPAIGN. And that this is what is said on page 618 of the FRUS: Item B 2--Prospects and measures proposed by Country Team for improved prosecution of the war under the new government (Military, including a report on progress in accomplishment of tasks assigned as a result of the McNamara-Taylor Mission, and outlining plans for control of infiltration and special requirements for the Delta Campaign) In the CABLE it says: D. OUTLINE IN TERMS OF FORCES, TIMING, AND NUMBER INVOLVED, THE PROJECTED PROGRAM FOR REDUCTION OF US MILITARY FORCES BY END OF CY 1965. And on page 624 of the FRUS, it says: Here follows discussions of Item C 1, "Revision of Military Comprehensive Plan;" Item C 2, "Status Report of FY 64 MAP;" Item D, "Outline in terms of forces, timing and numbers involved, the projected program for reduction U.S. military forces by end FY 65;" and Item E, "Country Team suggestions for revision of current reports to develop a consolidated country team reporting system." Also note the ONLY words changed in that sentence is "Calendar" Year 1965 becomes "FISCAL" YEAR 1965, inexplicably.

Agreed. Just like anthropomorphic global warming claims are unproven for the same reasons you cite above. Of course, independent corroboration cannot occur if the data--that was used in the experiments--and the methodology employed which led to the conclusions reached--remains unavailable. But that is a different topic.

Will listen Greg. Thank you for the hint. Martin, The interview took place last night (the 13th). It was archived at this link: Burnham on BOR Take care.

I'll be a guest on Black Op Radio tonight.

I won't quibble with the 'shame on all involved.' No one took the high road in this. The answer to the rhetorical question: "Is there some reason the DPF foodfight has to play out here?" is-- of course it doesn't have to play out here. And I think it's done playing out here. The answer to a related question that was not explicitly asked: 'Why is anybody posting on this subject here?'--is that someone else started the thread "Deep Politics Forum": http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17126. The existing thread evolved into a discussion on what happened to DPF.com. There was a lot of discussion and speculation. People were actually contacting me via email to ask what happened and then discretely reporting back via that thread. And so it was reasonable for me, as a member of this forum, to join the existing thread. After three DPF folks sent concurrent letters to John that some took as blackmail attempts and John went public with it on the forum, I felt it was relevant that they next tried to blackmail me. The blackmail thread is the only one I started. And the mods can close any thread they like, and/or ask people to stop posting in them, though as I said I think it's done playing out here. My only quibble with your remarks Robert is the implication that starting another forum is an automatic declaration of war. Folks that started DPF did have issues here. And we certainly vented to each other privately. But we had a rule against bashing other forums at DPF, and we even locked threads when people refused to stop bashing EF. I think we need more such discussion forums, not fewer. When the mod of another JFK forum died recently, I and a former colleague at DPF were concerned about the loss of the material on the forum, and the colleague told me they extended an offer to host the material from that forum on DPF. I was told that the offer was declined. And the material is now gone I believe. And that's a shame. So as far as forums go, IMO the more the better. The material is not gone. Stay tuned.

Well said.

Jim D, Show us CLEAR photographic EVIDENCE that indisputably establishes the presence of Zapruder in Dealey Plaza. The cleverly "veiled" ad hominem attacks in which you are engaged are beneath you. That a position can be characterized as "extreme" is not evidence that the position is erroneous. That an individual investigates "extreme" evidence (as in the case of JFK research) should be the obvious pre-cursor to that individual reaching "extreme" conclusions. However, if the conclusion reached is consistent with sound critical thinking--no matter how apparently "extreme" it may appear--it is not indicative of the researcher's penchant for "extremes" or taking extreme positions. It may well be a valid conclusion NO MATTER YOUR PERSONAL rejection of it. That Fetz endorses both Horne and Lifton is evidence of his open mind, not evidence of hypocrisy, nor is it evidence of inconsistency. It could be cumulatively indicative of those things, but ONLY if there was independent evidence that had actual merit. This drivel is non-sense.

Jack!!!!!!!! This is perhaps the VERY BEST presentation I have ever seen that is "internet available" (or anywhere) on the subject.

Jack, I can't help to mention the importance of the "historical record" that this presentation memorializes. I was particularly impressed with the LHO coverage. It is very important, IMO. It reveals so much as to the innocence of the man. Very much appreciated, Jack.

If you watched it, you see that in every speech, he emphasized the word PEACE. The MilIndComp needs WARS to keep them in business. Jack Yes. The danger of allowing the Military-Industrial Complex to create/promulgate the illusion justifying the "necessity for war" is what Eisenhower only "hinted at" in his farewell address. But, IMO, Ike had already gone past the point of no return...he'd been compromised to a degree by then. He nonetheless warned us in advance. By contrast, JFK was set on peace going into it. Why not? War hadn't worked so far... John Lennon: "All we are saying, is give peace a chance..." -- and they killed him too...

Thanks Jack!

The determination of what is false and what is truth in a post is a task rightly the responsibility of the members themselves. Allowing an authority to make such a determination is a slippery slope, IMO. There exist black & white areas--as well as, areas containing all shades of gray. It is difficult to determine what is true or false, but even more difficult is it to determine the INTENT of the member who may have posted something less than truthful. One man's truth may, in fact, exist in another man's "sphere of denial". For the first man, it is truth, for the other it is a "lie" -- quite subjective.

I think that the general expectations of members would include the reasonable assumption that personal or PRIVATE MESSAGING would, in fact, be PRIVATE. The same with email. If that is NOT the case, I would appreciate being told immediately. Thanks.

Thanks Jim. You raise an interesting point about this "peculiar" (as you so aptly referred to it) paragraph. Paragraph 4 from NSAM 273 DRAFT: If, on November 20th and 21st, the concerns raised in this paragraph were as dire as they appear to be, it is highly unlikely that JFK would have even gone to Texas (or anywhere outside Washington) at that time! It appears clear that this paragraph could not have been the result of any discussions conducted at the Honolulu Conference. In other words, minus the context of the pending assassination, this portion has, literally, no meaning at all.

Hey Robert, Let me ask you a question: "Do you think that Rockefeller is responsible for Groden being arrested? Ditto question for Henry Cabot Lodge?" (Sorry folks, I couldn't resist!!!)