Greg Burnham
-
Posts
2,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Burnham
-
-
Bobby was coming apart at the seams after the death of his brother.But rallied later on when going for the presidency.this being cut short by the same horror .Teddy had his hands tied by chappaquidick(which I think was an attempt on him)Then just to put a cap on it John Junior dies in a suspicious way .I believe the family that was left made a decision to accept defeat and leave things well alone .Here in the U.K. we have the Guinness family another very rich but unforunate family who suffered tragedy after tragedy they now seem to just shrunk back into the countryside and live peacefully .Our own royal family has suffered through terrorism but as they are the face of the country they maintain the stiff upper lip and carry on I guess this is what dynasties do they survive maybe one day to attempt to put right the wrongs of the past.
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.
No, anyone can post... as long as they abide by the rules. Both you and Jim can still post. Duane can post under moderation. Steven Gaal can post.
I think your trouble is you dislike anyone pointing out your mistakes. For instance, as soon as John Dolva disagreed with your assessments, you became belligerent towards him. It's quite typical behaviour from you.
Now more people are pointing out your glaring errors, and so you - again as usual - throw accusations at other people as an excuse for you to not face your critics or admit your errors.
-
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.
-
Nothing like seeing your thread highjacked by little people.
The good news is that this type of setting, speaking personally, propels me into action - simply cannot stand the bs. So, I will make some inquiries and make some progress; after the intermittent fashion to which I am accustomed.
Chairs and a bigtime Felix Unger. Got a few calls to make - and all thanks to this rubbish.
- lee
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.
-
"First of all, I want to make something very clear. I came to this forum with only one goal : to defend the official version. Yes, I am convinced that Lee Oswald killed Kennedy. I think all the available evidence shows it beyond any doubt. So why did I want to come here? Because I have the feeling that people who say that there was a conspiracy to eliminate President Kennedy are wrong, or, to be more blunt, spread disinformation and lie to the American public. Which is bad.
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.
-
Have you ever met Donald Segretti?
Were you ever disbarred from practicing law?
Did you ever manage a hotel in Key West?
Excellent, although somewhat obscure, reply! Kudos...
-
We call it "talking past the close..."
Huh? Don't be so condescending. That won't work with me.
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
-
Greg, i hope to use the right attitude and do not offend you when i say it's quite possible our eyes are trained to watch movies at 25fps than at 18 or 16 fps. The amateur movie cameras used that day were running mostly at 16 or 18 frames per second. There is a longer time gap between the frames taken than today. When motions getting quick, it's just natural that movements are missing in that captured frames on old standard cameras.
Thanks Martin. I agree that our eyes are more used to viewing a different frame rate. Perhaps that might explain some of it.
I was suspicious as many others as i observered some fast turns. The photographic evidence is my hobby horse in the JFK assassination research. I'am online since almost 2 years on forums and until now i've never seen any contradiction of the Zapruder film with other Movies and still photographs taken that day. They are all in harmonic sync.Well, it sounds like you have your work cut out for you.
I have great doubts of a Zapruder film alteration cause this film is in perfect harmony with all the other footages taken on november 22, 1963. Don't get me wrong. I'am not saying alteration supporter having an agenda or like to mislead. I know that you're a friend of the late Rich DellaRosa (god bless him) believed in the alteration of this fim too, but you should consider that (i hope so) that some of us see it otherwise. I believe the Zapruder film, as it is, is the key of the proof of conspiracy in the JFK assassination.Martin, I think that there are many sincere researchers who believe as you do. I appreciate your sincerity and your civil tone.
This original film ( please allow me that statement) is the proof that John F. Kennedy was under cross firein Dealey Plaza on november 22, 1963.
My very best to you
Martin
Ps: Don't expect at any time that i might insult you or call you names. I believe in a friendly way of communication.
Thanks for that...
-
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.
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..."
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.
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...
-
I believe that Dale Meyers presents a very representative graphic of the shooting in his 3D animation, the SBT is a fact in my eyes also though I only need to watch the Z film to determine this.
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.
-
Honestly, most of 911 I don't really care about and most of 911 I don't comment on.
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...
-
Just to complete this....notice the specular on the rim eating away the tire....
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.
-
Absence of the specific evidence you seek to substantiate a claim of alteration is not evidence of absence of alteration.
-
BK: Well, if we ever get Congressional Hearings on the JFK Act or a grand jury investigation of the assassination, Wayne Smith and Brad Ayers would certainly be high on the witness list, but not for their false identification of Joannides and Campbell at the Ambassador, but for what they know about David Atlee Phillips in Havana, and Phillips, Campbell, Joannides, Shackley, Morales, Fernandez and Spfora at JMWAVE and their association with Dealey Plaza.
Bill, if ANYONE is "high on the witness list" it is inappropriate to turn them into "suspects" -- suspects in the crime of perjury, among other things. For instance, I'm quite inclined to be in favor (at this late date) of granting immunity to Ayers (for example) in order to extract the truth from him (assuming he is still witholding information). Such inflammatory remarks hardly encourage the cooperation of a witness whose testimony is potentially valuable, IMO.
Of course, both Smith and Ayers have been compromised by the whole Ambassador schmeile, which I think was a set up to discredit them and others in the first place, and Morley and Talbott, two of the most respected journalists on this case, were also almost dragged into the gutter with them but pulled themselves out before they got too muddy.
Their mission in the first place, the assignment from the mainstream media publication in NYC, was misdirected, and should not have been to uncover Joannides, Campbell and Morales at the Ambassador, as Shane and the photos seemed to indicate to some people who knew them, their assignment should have been to uncover what Joannides, Campbell and Morales were doing at JMWAVE and how it is connected to Dealey Plaza - THAT is the story no one now is even looking into because everybody got sidetracked to the Ambassador.
Maybe, but not necessarily.
Also, the discussion on the Tramps and the controversary over their photo ID illustrates how difficult it is to base an identification of anyone on photographs. BYW, I interviewed Holt on the record on tape at his home in San Diego in 1992 and wrote an article for Jerry Rose's Fourth Decade - Meet Chauncey Holt, that may have influenced Rose's thinking on the matter.Yeah, I know. Chauncey told me about it. But, Jerry concluded Holt was not the third tramp as a result of the encounter. Go figure?
But that discussion should be held under the appropriate threads that have been started previously - and not here - a thread that should be dedicated to Gordon Campbell, who he was, what became of him, and how his operations at JMWAVE need to be understood in order to figure out what happened at Dealey Plaza.Agreed.
What happened to him, the subject of this thread? Did he sail off into the sunset with his bikini clad wife and martinis?Bill Kelly
I hope so...and that she killed him in his sleep perhaps? Just one more witness...
-
Bill,
How odd that your following post (time stamped 7:48am) includes my post (time stamped 7:07pm)? Is that because you edited this post at 10:55pm and then "copied and pasted" my post from way later? I think so. And that's OK by me--really, but I almost missed your reply to what I wrote as a result!
Quoting BK [quoting me]:
Monk: It is, in my opinion, unnecessary for a researcher to discount evidence. All evidence needs to be weighed and measured irrespective of how it impacts one's own pre-existing beliefs. So, dismissing "supporting" evidence because we have "other evidence" is not productive. That is partly the reason some CT researchers deny Zapruder film alteration or remain agnostic about it.BK: Well, if we ever get Congressional Hearings on the JFK Act or a grand jury investigation of the assassination, Wayne Smith and Brad Ayers would certainly be high on the witness list, but not for their false identification of Joannides and Campbell at the Ambassador, but for what they know about David Atlee Phillips in Havana, and Phillips, Campbell, Joannides, Shackley, Morales, Fernandez and Spfora at JMWAVE and their association with Dealey Plaza.
Of course, both Smith and Ayers have been compromised by the whole Ambassador schmeile, which I think was a set up to discredit them and others in the first place, and Morley and Talbott, two of the most respected journalists on this case, were also almost dragged into the gutter with them but pulled themselves out before they got too muddy.
Their mission in the first place, the assignment from the mainstream media publication in NYC, was misdirected, and should not have been to uncover Joannides, Campbell and Morales at the Ambassador, as Shane and the photos seemed to indicate to some people who knew them, their assignment should have been to uncover what Joannides, Campbell and Morales were doing at JMWAVE and how it is connected to Dealey Plaza - THAT is the story no one now is even looking into because everybody got sidetracked to the Ambassador.
Also, the discussion on the Tramps and the controversary over their photo ID illustrates how difficult it is to base an identification of anyone on photographs. BYW, I interviewed Holt on the record on tape at his home in San Diego in 1992 and wrote an article for Jerry Rose's Fourth Decade - Meet Chauncey Holt, that may have influenced Rose's thinking on the matter.
But that discussion should be held under the appropriate threads that have been started previously - and not here - a thread that should be dedicated to Gordon Campbell, who he was, what became of him, and how his operations at JMWAVE need to be understood in order to figure out what happened at Dealey Plaza.
What happened to him, the subject of this thread? Did he sail off into the sunset with his bikini clad wife and martinis?
Bill Kelly
I am truly confused by your post...
The coup is nearly complete...
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
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.