Greg Burnham

Hello Greg, I think we can agree that JFK was shot and killed only once as he rode down Elm Street, thus any film showing that one event as it happened would be the true film. My point is that multiple names were on a list once as if there was strength in numbers when talking about all the people who allegedly had seen the Zapruder film in its alleged totality. Any variances would then mean that not everyone can be talking about seeing the real deal and must be mistaken as to what film they actually saw so many years ago. For instance if one witness said the limo stopped for half of a second while another said it stopped on their film for 4 to 5 seconds, then one or both must not be the true event or the actual film of the assassination. The same can be said about such a film showing JFK shot up as the car turned onto Elm Street while another so-called 'other film' witness says that the shooting didn't start until the President was further west on Elm Street and having already completed the turn from Houston Street. I think it important that we keep it straight and not lump the different versions together as testimonial to everyone seeing the same film. Bill This is perhaps the first time I've agreed with you about anything. However, I disagree with the way you have characterized the statements of the "other film's" witnesses. To my knowledge, none have claimed to have seen "the Zapruder Film in its totality". Rather, the claim is that: "The film I saw impeaches the authenticity of the Zapruder Film because it (the "other film") shows events that are absent from the extant Zapruder film." I have yet to meet anyone who claims that they saw the "un-edited version" of the Zapruder Film. A decade ago, some might have referred to the "other film" in such a manner, but that too would be a misnomer.

The title: "Other Film" is, first of all, a mis-nomer. There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that there is ONLY one "other film" to begin with. Second, assuming that there is more than one "other film", -- those who claim that they saw "it" -- may have, in fact, all seen the same film...or not. Some may have seen another film. Again, there is no way of knowing. However, in general terms, the "other film" is not a hoax. It was a TRAINING FILM.

Great article, Bernice. Thanks for posting it!

Sorry, Jim. Still not buying it. I don't think Bundy can credibly claim ignorance about a policy that was defined by the document that HE AUTHORED himself -- NSAM 263! Unless one intends to engage in specious supposition about what "might have happened" to cause Bundy to be IN THE DARK--irrespective of his POSITION as the National Security Advisor--I find such meanderings less than useful. I will not rely upon his own self-serving claims to confirm his version (in this case, his alleged "ignorance") of the facts. Bundy knew something.

Hi Martin, I disagree (I think) with Jim on this issue. I don't buy the idea that Bundy was "out of the loop" on JFK's real Vietnam (withdrawal) policy. Not for a second. NSAM 263 was authored and signed (on behalf of JFK) by Bundy! NSAM 263 is unequivocal. Again, it was the result of the McNamara-Taylor Mission Report. The ONLY part of the ENTIRE report that was approved by JFK was the portion placing a time limit on completing the "military campaign in Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965." McGeorge Bundy, as the president's Special Advisor on National Security, was definitely IN THE LOOP on this issue. How could he NOT be? He wrote the National Security Action Memorandum 263 that ordered the withdrawal of the bulk of all US personnel by the end of 1965! If we claim that Bundy didn't know what the policy was, I really don't know how we can "get there from here" -- ?? -- After all, he wrote the damn official documents! Again, I think you raise very good points here. I don't think that he was "in the dark" at all. He was the President's Special Advisor on National Security for God's sake! He was definitely privy to the most sensitive material without question. That is why he was given tasks such as writing NSAM's. However, the fact that any NSAM was spawned from the Honolulu Conference is possibly the smoking gun. There doesn't appear to be any reason to expect a new NSAM would have come from that meeting at all, let alone an NSAM that reversed the direction of a very recently implemented policy. Moreover, there is NOTHING in the JOINT "STATE DEPT / DEFENSE DEPT" Cable indicating that the agenda would include discussions about a change in Vietnam policy. In fact, the opposite is true! There is also NOTHING in the Honolulu Conference memorandum (FRUS Volume IV) that indicates ANY discussions took place that would have spawned the content of the DRAFT of NSAM 273--NOT ONE THING...

Welcome to the forum, Martin! I agree with much of what you have written here. Unfortunately, due to the lack of reliable records and "reportage" from the STATE Dept., et al, we are unable to reach definitive conclusions in this regard. However, even though I tend to defer to the judgment of my good friend (the late) L. Fletcher Prouty, I still prefer to suspend judgment on that particular portion of this document. Make no mistake, "push come to shove" (absent any further proof otherwise) I would bet on Prouty's judgment without question. However, my interest concerns other items of this [DRAFT] document. Many very intelligent and scholarly individuals have written extensively on the FINAL VERSION of NSAM 273. Some have indicated their belief that it wasn't a big departure from the DRAFT--I agree with that. However, where they cite that fact as an exculpatory indicator, I take exception. The problem is that the DRAFT document was no more a KENNEDY document than is the subsequent FINAL version. Neither document is consistent with Kennedy policies or intentions. There exists NO documentation to even suggest otherwise and the existing documentation refutes such a claim. My thesis deals with how (NSAM 273 DRAFT) the prima facie evidence--BEFORE the FACT--relates to the apparent perfidy during and after the fact...which is a subject that has not been adequately addressed.

Perhaps. Would you like to head one up?

As in the UK the people of the US seem disillusioned with mainstream politicians. The Tea Party candidates seem both politically and economically, illiterate. You've got it right, John. In my opinion, The T-Party is a "shot in the dark" at best...at least the "Palin-nite" version is. God help us if they ever come to power! The Rand Paul wing of the T-Party is much more promising. There exists little, if any, distinction between the "Republicans and the Democrats" these days. It's become a lot of "smoke and mirrors" between them--a ruse, of sorts--to keep the masses placated. And it goes on, and on, and on, and on.... It's not the donkey who gets f*&%^ed in the arse--it's the rest of us...

Jim, Has Glenn become "teacher's pet" or something? You gave him the answers to the FINAL EXAM! GO_SECURE monk

Glenn, You've posted a quote (presumably accurately represented here) without citing the published source from which it was attained. For those unfamiliar with Jim's work, it places them at a disadvantage when attempting to evaluate the validity of the claim. Can you cite the publication wherein this appears, so that it can be considered within context? I know you cited Jim Fetzer, but alone, that is insufficient to represent the argument upon which the assertion is based. Many thanks.

...

I received a very encouraging email from Paris Flammonde this evening after his having reviewed my thesis on NSAM 273. He wrote: "It was with dubiety that I approached the "report" by Greg Burnham, having, during the past near half-century remarked the torrent of ill-informed "analyses" (much drawn from astonishing ignorance of the subject), misunderstanding and misinterpretation of speculative if not wholly specious postulations regarding the assassination and concomitant conjecture, consummately wearied by the density and dubiety of all but a limited effort by a handful of genuine experts and scholars of the subject. Yet, I was not surprised that a few words, recognized by a remarkably astute perception, carried more convincing intimation of the prelude to the perfidy than volumes of self-important fictionalizing."

Good stuff, Bill. As usual, I don't find myself disagreeing with you--just approaching the same truth from a different direction. Indeed, Bundy was not in charge--but, he was apparently "dancing to the beat of the drum" of someone other than his boss, JFK--and whoever that was (or they were) did not have the best interest of the POTUS in mind. Still, the fact remains...BUNDY KNEW SOMETHING! I agree with you, and I think that the most significant evidence Mac Bundy knew something was going down - is the fact that Prouty managed to get a copy of the pre-11/22/63 version of this NSAM and it contained the alarming statement that was later removed, that: "4. It is of the highest importance that the United States Government avoid either the appearance or the reality of public recrimination from one part of it against another, and the President expects that all senior officers of the Government will take energetic steps to insure that they and their subordinates go out of their way to maintain and to defend the unity of the United States Government both here and abroad." PROUTY: Read that carefully! This draft places the "highest importance" on the fact that the "U.S. Government avoid either the appearance or the reality of public recrimination (FOR WHAT?) from one part of it ("it" is a singular pronoun and limits this subject to the U.S. Government, alone, and does not include Vietnam!) against another." What type of "recrimination" was Bundy expecting on the day before Kennedy died; and what was this "recrimination" by one part of the U.S. Government against another? For some obscure reason did these men believe that there would be some enormous uprising in the United States as a result of "WHAT?" After all, these first draft memos were dated Nov 21, 1963. (Copies of memo to McCone of CIA, and to William Bundy,..... BK: While Bill Bundy, Mac's brother, was at the Honolulu conference, and Mac at the White House Sit Room, the director of the CIA John McCone, at the time of the assassination, was briefing the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, talking mainly about Cuba and Vietnam, with Vietnam taking up most of the minutes of the meeting. McCone complained about the New York Times reporter James Reston's articles blaming the CIA for the Vietnam coup and assassination of the Diems, which he strongly denied and was wondering how he - they could counter these accusations. The meeting was interupted by the news of the assassintion, and Reston became one of the first to suggest that the assassination was the work of a Lone Nut case. Now having read all that about the original wording of the draft, and knowing that it might be an expression of some looming catistrophie, it is also interesting that William Manchester and Teddy White were permitted to read an unedited transcript of the radio communicaitons from AF1 on its return flight from Dallas. And according to Vince Salandria, they quote excerpts that are not on the existing, edited transcript and audio tape currently available from LBJ Library. The original tape and unedited transcript allegedly contains a report emanting from McGeorge Bundy in the Situation Room at the White House that a suspect has been caught and there was no conspiracy. But If you listen to Bundy in the Situation Room talking with Gen. Clifton aboard AF1 on the audio tapes: On Reel 2, Side One - Patch #7, there's a really interesting exchange, with Gen. Clifton giving the orders to Bundy, as to who to invite to the bipartisan meeting with LBJ when they get back to DC, and where in the White House they were to have the very first meeting between LBJ, Mac Bundy, MacNamara and the few key people that were to take over the helm of government. It's quite clear from this tape that it is Clifton who is giving the orders and calling the shots, and not Mac Bundy - who Clifton clearly yells at at one point - http://jfkcountercou...anmissions.html- .......That is correct. For about seven thirty. Over. - Seven thirty at the White House? Over. - Seven thirty in the Cabinet Room. Over. - Tell the Vice President [sic ] the Cabinet Room is under rearrangement, but the Oval Room will be ready. Over. - The Oval Room it will be, you mean the Fish Room? - I mean, both the Fish Room, and the President's Study and we will try to have the Cabinet Room. But that's a detail, we can work that out. Over. - This is Watchman. [Gen. Clifton] HE DOES NOT WANT TO GO IN THE MANSION OR IN THE OVAL ROOM OR THE PRESIDENT'S STUDY OR THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE. (Loud and with emphasis) - Correct. [bundy]. - IF THE CABINET ROOM ISN'T READY PUT IT IN THE FISH ROOM. OVER. - I have you. I understand. Always in the West Wing. Over. - I have nothing further. Over. - This is Watchman, now please brief Duplex about the changes, so we don't confuse it. Duplex is Jerry Behn. Over. - Alright I will. - See you in a little while. Over. - Okay. So while Mac Bundy may be in the Situation Room in the basement of the White House, he is certainly not in charge, or calling the shots, as he was suspected of doing. BK

As I posted elsewhere: My position is that the wording of this DRAFT document is much too CERTAIN. After all, it is a REVERSAL of the then "central object" of the US Government, i.e., WITHDRAWAL, as per NSAM 263. However, Bundy isn't even mildly concerned with the appearance of impropriety. He drafts a document that dramatically altered the focus of the military from total withdrawal to total commitment! If it was true that JFK had just signed a NSAM (263) in a half-baked manner, without all the facts, from a position of ignorance--then maybe--maybe, we could dismiss this as a very macabre coincidence. But, that version of history is contrived. JFK did NOT sign NSAM 263 without knowing exactly what he was doing. After all, he authored the McNamara-Taylor Report himself (through the work of General Victor Krulak and Colonel L Fletcher Prouty). The entire purpose of the McNamara-Taylor Mission was to allow JFK the appearance of having responded to a military recommendation; to order our personnel home, but do it in a manner consistent with his having received a recommendation from the MILITARY to that effect. There is no question as to JFK's intentions to withdraw from Vietnam. That Bundy wrote a NSAM (that's not a "normal" memo--it's a National Security ACTION Memo), which began the REVERSAL of such a well considered withdrawal policy--and worded it so confidently, against all odds that JFK would have EVER signed such a thing, is extremely suspect. Bundy knew something. IMO: It is a "bridge" document. It is meant to deceive. Its purpose was to attempt to link JFK's policy before his assassination to the policy that LBJ adopted 4 days thereafter. It has taken decades to unravel what is perhaps the simplest and most obvious act of treason in the JFK assassination. Why obvious, you ask? Because it's been right under our noses all along...

I might need to "stir the xxxx storm" in a new thread, I guess. It just seems to me that this isn't a NEUTRAL issue, right? Seems to me that this is important. Either I'm on to something here or I'm "on crack" -- but it isn't neutral!

Hey Bernice, I guess this means everyone agrees that, "I got it right" -- since there's been no rebuttal? Cool...

John, How can "American University" possibly be incorrect? It's Barry's topic! The estimation that it was JFK's greatest speech is his opinion and one to which he is entitled! It's typical for some folks to divert attention away from those who killed Kennedy due to his anti-war / pro-peace position by placing the blame on "red necks" instead. So much ignorance in such little minds.

The title of this TOPIC is American University. The American University Speech was delivered on June 10th not June 11th. Barry was commenting on THAT speech. Bill was correcting the error in the "date" of that speech that Barry erroneously cited. You're off topic...again but I agree with you that the June 11th Civil Rights speech is another great one.

Steve, Please forgive my curiosity, but you said that this was the first forum on which you EVER posted? Really? First of all, your inquiry/post wasn't brash nor was it crude. Most "newbies" have never even been exposed to the word "newbie" at all! You're catching on fast... Welcome to the forum.

I was emailed the following and got such a grin out of it, I wanted to post it here. I know it is WAY off topic. If inappropriate, moderators, know that I won't complain if you choose to delete it. Remember Cliff Clavin from the TV show "Cheers"? Well, he had this theory on the benefits of drinking beer that went like this: "Well ya see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

John, The version I reproduced here is the one that is quoted in Buckminster Fuller's book, Critical Path, as I said.

I'm reading an awesome book called: Critical Path -- by author Buckminster Fuller (a book highly recommended to me by Fletcher Prouty). Fuller is one of my favorite authors. He also wrote a book called "Synergetics" that I read many years ago. In this book (Critical Path) he quotes an American Indian Chief (Chief Seattle) who gave a speech in 1854 in response to an offer by the President (Franklin Pierce) to "buy their land" (20 million acres) from them for $150,000! The "Great White Chief" (President) also promised to provide a "reservation" for his people. The chief of the tribe, Chief Seattle, replied eloquently. In fact that is who the city of Seattle is named after! SPEECH: How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man. The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man--all belong to the same family. So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy land, he asks much of us. The Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his children. So... we will consider your offer to buy our land. But it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us. This shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your children that it is sacred and that each ghostly reflection in the clear water of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father. The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes, and feed our children. If we sell you our land, you must remember, and teach your children, that the rivers are our brothers, and yours, and you must henceforth give the rivers the kindness you would give any brother. We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father's graves behind, and he does not care. He kidnaps the earth from his children, and he does not care. His father's grave, and his children's birthright, are forgotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert. I do not know. Our ways are different from your ways. The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the red man. But perhaps it is because the red man is a savage and does not understand. There is no quiet place in the white man's cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring, or the rustle of an insect's wings. But perhaps it is because I am a savage and do not understand. The clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night? I am a red man and do not understand. The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of a pond, and the smell of the wind itself, cleaned by a midday rain, or scented with the pinion pine. The air is precious to the red man, for all things share the same breath--the beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days, he is numb to the stench. But if we sell you our land, you must remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives his last sigh. And if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where even the white man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow's flowers. So we will consider your offer to buy our land. If we decide to accept, I will make one condition: The white man must treat the beasts of this land as his brothers. I am a savage and I do not understand any other way. I've seen a thousand rotting buffaloes on the prairie, left by the white man who shot them from a passing train. I am a savage and I do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to stay alive. What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected. You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of your grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children what we have taught our children: that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. This we know: The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life: he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. Even the white man, whose God walks and talks with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We shall see. One thing we know, which the white man may one day discover, our God is the same God. You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land; but you cannot. He is the God of man, and His compassion is equal for the red man and the white. This earth is precious to Him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator. The whites too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all other tribes. Contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. But in your perishing you will shine brightly, fired by the strength of God who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over this land and over the red man. That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand when the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with scent of many men, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. The end of living and the beginning of survival. ====================================

Huh? What are you rambling about now, Len? The USG is NOT an "organization" in the same sense that Wiki Leaks is an organization. Apples and Oranges. Moreover, you are playing both sides of the fence. In one breath you said that the critics of Wiki Leaks are unlikely to get anyone killed, thus implying that Wiki Leaks' revelations run such a risk-- and in the next breath you said you are unaware of any documented or even alleged cases that Wiki Leaks has caused anyone to be killed. Wow, you said two things which cancelled each other out. And, you outed yourself...AGAIN! Perhaps, you need not worry about enemies like Wiki Leaks... what, with friends like yourself--who needs them?

Very, very funny! Being Jewish is a religious affiliation? I thought it was like being Irish. Everybody knows Jews know how to handle money and the Irish are obnoxious. BK My Lord, this is hilarious! Hey, and what about Sammy Davis Jr.? Huh, what about THAT! Monk, Sammy was really a satanist. I believe he received an award from Anton Levay for his portrayal of the Devil's helper on NBC titled Poor Devil. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCgae6-wBkk