Greg Burnham

It's just that he's been booted from so many venues that he can't remember which ones are which...

Cliff, After JFK was assassinated, why did we fail to even attempt an invasion of Cuba, then? Well, after a decade we better make it a good show... So far so good... I tend to believe that no one was more in shock that Diem was assassinated than JFK. We know that a series of cables were exchanged over the weekend between the WH and Ambassador Lodge in Saigon. We know that these were "ill advised" cables since several of those in Washington, who should have been in "the loop" were away, ostensibly, for the weekend. This led, as incredibly as it may sound, to a "rough draft" actually being sent. Because these cables contained communications whose meaning could be stretched enough to be interpreted as support for an immediate coup, which was the course to which Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge was already inclined, US support for same was communicated to General Big Minh and his co-conspirators in Saigon--and it was off to the races. This is hardly evidence of JFK's complicity, JFK's acquiescence to a Harriman plan against Diem (although Harriman clearly supported such a plan on behalf of the State Department), or a JFK "order" to eliminate Diem. Gareth Porter, The Perils of Dominace, pg. 178 (emphasis added): (quote on) Kennedy's withdrawal strategy was based...on the premise that the Diem regime would not be overthrown by a military coup, and that its repressive character and political weakness probably would provide a convenient rationale for early withdrawal. Immediately after Kennedy had achieved the objective of legitimizing the withdrawal plan (contained in the 10/2/63 McNamara-Taylor Report-cv), the CIA reported on Oct. 5 that Saigon generals were now moving ahead with a coup plan. Kennedy was reluctant to oppose a coup plan that had already been set in motion. Instead, he tried to tread a fine line between not "thwarting" a coup and encouraging such a coup. Once the United State decided to establish liaison with the coup plotters, however, this line was meaningless. Even though Kennedy tried to insist shortly before the coup that Lodge discourage the generals unless it was certain to succeed, the administration was irrevocably compromised by such contacts. (quote off) What I gather from the above is that JFK placed the withdrawal plan at the top of his priorities. Prior to the Oct. 5 CIA report on the So. Vietnam coup moves, JFK had been happy to let his top advisers McNamara and Taylor carry his water for a phased withdrawal. After Oct. 5 JFK "went along" with Harriman and State on the Diem coup -- maintaining a hands-off "fine line" -- in order to more aggressively push for the phased withdrawal. And in pursuit of that, NSAM 263 was issued on Oct. 11. As for back channel talks with Castro...I agree that JFK and Harriman both agreed same was desirable for US interests and "business" interests, respectively. I might add, same was also desirable in the eyes of Kruschev who was fighting his own battles with Soviet hard liners in his own country. If Castro and Kennedy could find a way to rapproachment Kruschev would no longer be faced with the bleak prospect of another "showdown" with the west, which could potentially force another choice between political defeat or global thermo-nuclear war. Agreed. IMO: the main entity that viewed themselves as "losing" from a policy that sought to disengage from further entanglement in Vietnam was the US Military. The main entity that viewed themselves as "losing" from a policy of seeking rapproachment with Cuba was the US Military. The coup in Vietnam, therefore, was designed to "upset" the planned withdrawal of US support from that region. Agreed. But Kennedy looked at the coup as a means to establish a withdrawal timetable as official US policy. IMO: it was an Operation Northwoods type action that suffered from a public relations guffaw. It was never credibly "blamed" on the North--in fact, no such credible attempt was ever made. However, had JFK survived Dallas, it would have been packaged that way. Note that as soon as JFK was dead, CUBA was no longer even a small concern for the military. Not for lack of trying to make Cuba of supreme importance on 11/22/63! I'm convinced the killers of JFK fully intended to blame the assassination on agents of Fidel Castro, one of whom would have been Lee Harvey Oswald had he not been captured. There is your measure of spook incompetence, Monk -- they failed to kill the patsy who'd carefully been sheep-dipped as a pro-Castro Commie. It was ALL Vietnam, which was a much preferred "theater" of action than was Cuba. And LBJ was their perfect little "Pork Chop" to go along with the program. The assassination was a failure in regards to Cuba, the ultimate target. But, IT DID HAPPEN! The first 1,000 troops that JFK ordered out of Vietnam by the end of 1963 were, in fact, withdrawn. This was AFTER LBJ had signed NSAM 273--the 1,000 were STILL withdrawn. But these troop movements did not occur in the context of a phased withdrawal, but happened in the midst of renewed US escalation, and thus did not present a political problem going into the 1964 election campaign. I disagree. I think this is backwards from the way that things actually work. I don't see the State Department as cynically as others do, perhaps. The Secretry of State "serves at the pleasure" of the POTUS. Unlike many of the "old guard" in the Intelligence Community (DULLES, BISSEL, ANGLETON--even HOOVER), who were all "in place" before JFK took office, the Cabinet members, including Rusk at State and Bobby in the Justice Department, were selected because they were his own personal preferences. JFK's withdrawal policy (NSAM 263 of October 11, 1963) went into place BEFORE the Diem's were assassinated (3 weeks later on November 1, 1963). But as we see inThe Perils of Dominance NSAM 263 was issued after the rebel generals had begun to make their move toward coup. Kennedy tried to keep a distance from the push for the coup but he did in fact "go along" with the US support for the Diem overthrow. I agree with this part. But even though Diem was negotiating with the North on his own, again: JFK's withdrawal policy (NSAM 263 of October 11, 1963) went into place BEFORE the Diem's were assassinated (3 weeks later on November 1, 1963). So, there was NO NEED to assassinate Diem since JFK had already enacted the policy BEFORE Diem requested it! I think the record is clear that Kennedy didn't expect Diem to be assassinated in the overthrow. Harriman and the hawks felt the need to get rid of Diem because his talks with the North had certain "anti-American" implications Kennedy was willing to ignore. Moreover, I am not convinced that this "evidence" proves that JFK ordered, approved, or caved into pressure--to have Diem murdered. Quite the contrary. I believe it was a message being sent to JFK: "We will have our war in Vietnam with or without Diem, his brother, or you--or else..." I believe the view of Harriman was this: "On November 2, 1963, one of two guys is going to be dead: Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon, or John F. Kennedy in Chicago." I think the view of Kennedy's killers was this: "We're going to have an invasion of Cuba and an end to Vietnam withdrawal by killing two birds with one ambush." And they were going to perform this task with or without Harriman. Now, Cliff, there you go being "entertaining" again! The toilet paper story is the funniest thing I've ever heard about that--indeed about ANY--NSAM in my life! Which pooch, Barney or Miss Beazley? I shouldn't need to ask, but I've heard rumors he was... But, seriously, I have real trouble with this concept of "abort teams" being placed. By whom? In my view the ruling elites and the institutions and agencies they control are not monolithic entities. The military high command and the people running the CIA were/are not all of like mind. They serve different masters. In that context I cite the following by Tosh Plumlee: (quote on -- 'William Plumlee' date='Feb 25 2010, 04:37 PM) As I have said, I was never at the level, or in the loop to really know the planning stages of the Abort Team and how or who put it together. However, the following are my thoughts and calculated assumptions based on the connections I had from the JM/WAVE, CIA Miami Station and the Pentagon in Washington D.C., at the time. I believe a group operating out of the Pentagon intercepted Intel information from south Florida concerning a hit to be made on the President around November 17 th. The Special Group (not the 5412th) working MI, then took this information and started their own independent investigations. This was not a CIA, per say team or investigation; nor did the CIA dispatch this team. At the last minute they (Military Intell, Pentagon) put together a "specialized", top secret.., (undercover) team to be dispatched to Dallas. The Secret Service knew of this team but did not work with them, because they (MI) did not have enough information to support their evidence. (quote off) A pro-Kennedy and/or pro-Harriman faction within military intel dispatched Tosh Plumlee's abort team. By those who are going to relay a "pardon" at the last minute that was granted by the "top" co-conspirator? Bush was Harriman's man in Texas. Under what POSSIBLE conditions would such a "stop" order be issued? The Chicago plot was aborted, after all. The plots in Tampa and Miami fell through. There was the teletype to FBI HQ warning of a plot to kill JFK in Dallas. There were all those hot and heavy rumors in Houston that Kennedy was definitely going to be killed in Dallas...All of this activity on behalf of saving Kennedy's life is largely over-looked, imo. I really don't think the following (invented) scenario or any similar version is likely: "Before JFK left AF 1 at Love Field he sent a memo to McGeorge Bundy reversing his withdrawal from Vietnam policy. We intercepted the communication and have, therefore, "changed our minds" about killing him. Get this abort order to George H W Bush who is on the ground in Dallas immediately." I really think this scenario is likely: Harriman: "We have everything going for us in Vietnam (Diem out), in Laos (the commies have the Ho Trail and we've got the opium fields), and in Cuba (our back-channel to Castro will enable us to cut our own dope smuggling deals.) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our reach extends to Chicago, Tampa, Miami and Los Angeles. Dallas is a problem." Nah... I really don't think so. If it was true, then the military/intelligence/National Security apparatus was already in control of the executive branch of the government even BEFORE Dallas. Since the end of WW2, more than likely. All Presidents are ultimately hired hands. Those who forget this are shot or set up in third-rate burglaries and removed. If JFK had caved in on Vietnam before the assassination to save himself, then he was never (or no longer) the commander-in-chief, and thus there would have been NO NEED to assassinate him. Agreed! Which is why I argue that the ultimate goal of the plot was to provide a rationale for the invasion of Cuba. But they did. I don't buy the idea that it wouldn't have happened but for a "failed abort" signal. For the Yankee blue-bloods it was a contingency plan that they attempted to postpone. For the Texas boys and their military allies it was the last shot at Castro. Cowboys killed JFK, and their Yankee accessories covered it up.

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!

Not authoritarian demands--just "authoritarianisms" in general. But, that's just "my opinion" too. Not so far. See my opening comment in which I acknowledged the obvious... That is your opinion, and it is also a possible violation of forum rules! Why not stick to the arguments, the evidence, and the assertions--and avoid resorting to expressions of vitriolic bloviations that are tantamount to ad hominem fallacious babbling? There are "numerous examples" of this throughout the forum, as well, IMHO. Sorry, but you sound just like Craig Lamson who claims similar intents but rarely, if ever, delivers. That is just my opinion...no offense intended.

Ian, Your's is a simplistic view--but NOT that far off base at all, IMHO. Very good post...

Sheesh Evan--that's a bit harsh...to put it mildly. I would expect a much more neutral attitude from you (as a moderator) than you display. Don't misunderstand, I know you are entitled to your opinion and have a right to express it. But, as a moderator it seems inappropriate to me that you would insert your opinion in any type of authoritarian manner. As a moderator one might best avoid confrontations with those with whom one disagrees--after all, by virtue of your position ALONE and NOT necessarily by THE MERITS OF YOUR ARGUMENTS--you will always "win" such encounters. It just seems such a hollow and meaningless victory...a pity.

Relax, dude. Get over yourself. Your behavior is bordering on "harassment" me thinks.

Just for information for those who might be unaware: Milicent Cranor is another individual who has seen an assassination film that is wholly inconsistent with what is seen in the Zapruder Film.

What makes you think it was hi-jacked by a "little person" Lee? What, with all that fried chicken diet and s***? Stands to figure...

How many shots were fired--and by how many persons--to kill Kennedy? As many as it took to do the job. If the number fired hadn't been sufficient, then more would have been fired. If there had been a need for more snipers than were employed that day, then more would have been supplied. The real difficult "trick" to pull off is--and was--the cover-up. That required a lot of personnel--to this day. Right Dave? You betcha it did and still does. As for the "Secret Service on the ground" that day, Bernice is spot on as far as the official reports are concerned.

I spoke with Len about this a few months ago and it is a great opportunity to meet face-to-face with other researchers in a very "hospitable" environment--after all it IS Hawaii!! I'll be there.

Ok Frankie--should I believe you? LOL -- OMG -- not in a hundred years! Why do you really do this? Huh? Are we really to believe it is because you are the "guardian of American Truth" ??? Is that right? [Moderators please note: He "opened the door to this line of inquiry" -- and therefore, just like in a court room, he can't claim these questions are inappropriate]. Frankie, Just like I asked John (Paul Nolan) McAdams when I debated him a decade ago: "Why do you really do this?" Frankie, are you really claiming that the reason you spend any of your precious time on this subject is because you want to make sure that the official version remains the official version? Is your French interest in American History sufficient to justify your almost obsessive preoccupation with preserving our government's official story? WHY WOULD YOU EVEN CARE TO PROMOTE A THEORY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN NEARLY SET IN STONE? After all, it's already the "official history" so -- WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE? Answer:There is no innocuous justification for such behavior. Perhaps you simply have no hobbies, no interests, no friends, no integrity, or no life? I don't know the answer...nor do I care.

Excellent, although somewhat obscure, reply! Kudos...

Thanks for giving me a better way to say that old phrase. Let's try another - didn't I "draw a line in the sand?" or say that you "used up all your bullets? I am not sure if these work either, but It was not my intention to be condescending, nor do I see it that way looking back at my post. Ok, I misinterpreted your meaning. No problem.

I received an email last week from a forum member who claimed that I have changed my story regarding Judyth in the intervening years since I met her. My friend, Scott Myers, archives EVERYTHING. See the discussion concerning Judyth from 2002 below and my post. [emphasis added] ============================== Gmail Calendar Documents Web Reader more ▼ Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in alt.assassination.jfk Discussions + new post About this group Subscribe to this group This is a Usenet group - learn more Sponsored links Google Message Filtering Block spam & viruses before they reach your enterprise. Sign up now. www.google.com/postini Google Wave Alternative Project Collaboration Cloud App Project Management Free To Try www.mavenlink.com Message from discussion Judyth & Hemming (corrected) Debra Conway View profile More options Oct 29 2002, 3:34 pm To Newsgroup readers and any other forum: JUDYTH BAKER WILL NEVER BE A SPEAKER AT ANY JFK LANCER FUNCTION. EVER. NEVER. Debra Conway -- JFK Lancer Productions & Publications http://jfklancer.com "Serving the research community, educating a new generation." (We are an all volunteer company.) Join JFK Lancer News and Forum for the latest research and updates: http://jfklancer.com/Groups2.html > From: john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) > Organization: Marquette University > Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk > Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 06:35:14 GMT > Subject: Judyth & Hemming > > From the Dalla Rosa board: > > <Quote on> > > RE:: Oswald's mistress at Lancer? -- jack white > Posted by Gregory Burnham ¨ , 10/28/2002, 00:30:30 Top > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > -- > > I met with Judith over a year ago, at her request, > here in Southern California. She had just visited > HEMMING on the east coast. She has provided very > compelling evidence to both me and Hemming, among > others, that tends to substantiate her claims. > Very compelling evidence, indeed. > > That said, I don't agree with her conclusions, for > the most part, but it appears that there is enough > to her story to warrant a hard look. I don't believe > she is lying, but I also don't think she knows how > potentially important what she has actually is. Or, > perhaps a better way to phrase it would be: > > "What she thinks is important about the information > may not be the case..." > > However, it IS important, IMHO. > > I have never disclosed any of this information here or > elsewhere. I've never even mentioned her existence, > at her request. Now that it is "in the open" I will > comment further but only after I first speak with her. > > I'm not convinced that her story's important, but I > don't believe she is lying, either. If my instinct is > serving me well, her documentation is definitely important. > > GO_SECURE > > monk > > > > > The Kennedy Assassination Home Page > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm Forward Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy

The link didn't work because you forgot the "H" (in http) Joe... http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/16th_Issue/arrb_zfilm2.html

Thanks Martin. I agree that our eyes are more used to viewing a different frame rate. Perhaps that might explain some of it. Well, it sounds like you have your work cut out for you. Martin, I think that there are many sincere researchers who believe as you do. I appreciate your sincerity and your civil tone. Thanks for that...

Thank you Greg. Sure, some motions seem to very fast in particular when examining special areas in just two frames. Foster's feet, Apron Man hand clapping, Greers head turn and also "fast clapping man" in this GIF behind the white concrete pergola at Houston. I like to draw you attention to Zframes 327-339. Here you can see a crop stable in motion in realtime. The focus is on Jackies right arm on Jack's right shoulder. This GIF covers just 13 frames and runs 7/10 of a second. Thats really fast. I think we can witness this phenomenon also in other films taken that day. best to you Martin What do you think this "phenomenon" (as you called it) means?

Nice work, Martin! I don't claim to know what the following observation means, if anything, but earlier in the thread a few people commented on the unusually rapid pace of Apron Man clapping his hands. But, when compared to the maneuver of the "paper" in the top of the clip--the latter really seems fast to me.

Like I said, Craig, "You know who you are..." Don't you hate it Burnham, when you get your hat handed to you....like you did in this tread. One would think you might learn from your mistakes..... Why not end this tread with this wonderful quote from Healy's hero, Dean Fielding: You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and the time line involved, (2 in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in the document you sent me, are technically naïve." What was the title of this tread again? Oh yea, "Was 1963 Film Alteration Technology Adequate? No problem--not even in 1928!" Burnham turned to dust again LOL!

IMHO: LBJ was deeply involved (perhaps the most essential element) in the cover-up and, no doubt, had foreknowledge of the plot against JFK. However, he did not orchestrate the "hit" on the POTUS! Wanna know why? Because he was NOT competent enough to do such a thing! Oh sure, he was brazen enough, he was amoral enough--even immoral enough--to do it, but NOT "operationally" competent enough to do it. Additionally, he lacked the financial resources to pull it off with absolute certainty; he was incapable of employing the "talent" to do the job--this job--because he couldn't afford it. Moreover, he didn't need to "dirty his hands" on that level AT ALL--in order to accomplish his goals! He didn't need a Malcolm Wallace amateur to "attempt" the crime of the century. After all, the BEST were available through "other channels" to do the deed--and none were in any way traceable to LBJ. He was essentially a coward. Let's not give him too much credit...

If you need only to "watch the Z-film to determine this" as you claim, then why do you need to cite an animation of the crime by Dale Myers to bolster your assertion? Your statements are blatantly self-impeaching, contradictory, and borderline psychotic.

I would like to thank all who have contributed in a meaningful way to this thread. I would also like to thank all (you know who you are) who "chose to agitate" those who subsequently contributed in a meaningful way to this thread, but did so as a direct result of having been so agitated.

Please pardon the intrusion, Jim, and not to break the integrity of your thread, but Matthew's position, as stated in the above sentence, reminds me of Lamson's position regarding JFK. Neither of them care about the core issues contained within the TOPIC of the threads! Lamson has stated that he doesn't care about JFK and Lewis doesn't "really" care about most of 911. Yet both post and argue their respective points with vigor...indeed even argue at times quite passionately--to advance positions on subjects that neither of them care about. Fascinating...

That's the opposite effect though, isn't it Craig? Chris was inquiring about how a background image (fender) appears to be eating away a foreground image (sign). Not the other way around. I suppose if you could show us the TIRE (background) eating away at the RIM (foreground) that would be different. I think you chose a very poor example.