Greg Burnham

Excerpt from a letter to Jim Garrison from Colonel Prouty: "At about 1957 Lansdale was brought back to Washington and assigned to Air Force Headquarters in a Plans office near mine. He was a fish out of water. He didn't know Air Force people and Air Force ways. After about six months of that, Dulles got the Office of Special Operations under General Erskine to ask for Lansdale to work for the Secretary of Defense. Erskine was man enough to control him. By 1960 Erskine had me head the Air Force shop there. He had an Army shop and a Navy shop and we were responsible for all CIA relationships as well as for the National Security Agency. Ed was still out of his element because he did not know the services; but the CIA sent work his way. Then in the Fall of 1960 something happened that fired him up. Kennedy was elected over Nixon. Right away Lansdale figured out what he was going to do with the new President. Overnight he left for Saigon to see Diem and to set up a deal that would make him, Lansdale, Ambassador to Vietnam. He had me buy a "Father of his Country" gift for Diem...$700.00. I can't repeat all of this but you should get a copy of the Gravel edition, 5 Vol.'s, of the Pentagon Papers and read it. The Lansdale accounts are quite good and reasonably accurate. Ed came back just before the Inauguration and was brought into the White House for a long presentation to Kennedy about Vietnam. Kennedy was taken by it and promised he would have Lansdale back in Vietnam "in a high office". Ed told us in OSO he had the Ambassadorship sewed up. He lived for that job. He had not reckoned with some of JFK's inner staff, George Ball, etc. Finally the whole thing turned around and month by month Lansdale's star sank over the horizon. Erskine retired and his whole shop was scattered. The Navy men went back to the navy as did the Army folks. Gen Wheeler in the JCS asked to have me assigned to the Joint Staff. This wiped out the whole Erskine (Office of Special Operations) office. It was comical. There was Lansdale up there all by himself with no office and no one else. He boiled and he blamed it on Kennedy for not giving him the "promised" Ambassadorship to let him "save" Vietnam. Then with the failure of the Bay of Pigs, caused by that phone call to cancel the air strikes by McGeorge Bundy, the military was given the job of reconstituting some sort of Anti-Castro operation. It was headed by an Army Colonel; but somehow Lansdale (most likely CIA influence) got put into the plans for Operation Mongoose...to get Castro...ostensibly. The U.S. Army has a think-tank at American University. It was called "Operation Camelot". This is where the "Camelot" concept came from. It was anti-JFK's Vietnam strategy. The men running it were Lansdale types, Special Forces background. "Camelot" was King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table: not JFK...then. Through 1962 and 1963 Mongoose and "Camelot" became strong and silent organizations dedicated to countering JFK. Mongoose had access to the CIA's best "hit men" in the business and a lot of "strike" capability. Lansdale had many old friends in the media business such as Joe Alsop, Henry Luce among others. With this background and with his poisoned motivation I am positive that he got collateral orders to manage the Dallas event under the guise of "getting" Castro. It is so simple at that level. A nod from the right place, source immaterial, and the job's done. The "hit" is the easy part. The "escape" must be quick and professional. The cover-up and the scenario are the big jobs. They more than anything else prove the Lansdale mastery. Lansdale was a master writer and planner. He was a great "scenario" guy. It still have a lot of his personally typed material in my files. I am certain that he was behind the elaborate plan and mostly the intricate and enduring cover-up. Given a little help from friends at PEPSICO he could easily have gotten Nixon into Dallas, for "orientation': and LBJ in the cavalcade at the same time, contrary to Secret Service policy. He knew the "Protection" units and the "Secret Service", who was needed and who wasn't. Those were routine calls for him, and they would have believed him. Cabell could handle the police. The "hit men" were from CIA overseas sources, for instance, from the "Camp near Athena, Greece. They are trained, stateless, and ready to go at any time. They ask no questions: speak to no one. They are simply told what to do, when and where. Then they are told how they will be removed and protected. After all, they work for the U.S. Government. The "Tramps" were actors doing the job of cover-up. The hit men are just pros. They do the job for the CIA anywhere. They are impersonal. They get paid. They get protected, and they have enough experience to "blackmail" anyone, if anyone ever turns on them...just like Drug agents. The job was clean, quick and neat. No ripples. The whole story of the POWER of the Cover-up comes down to a few points. There has never been a Grand Jury and trial in Texas. Without a trial there can be nothing. Without a trial it does no good for researchers to dig up data. It has no place to go and what the researchers reveal just helps make the cover-up tighter, or they eliminate that evidence and the researcher. The first man LBJ met with on Nov 29th, after he had cleared the foreign dignitaries out of Washington was Waggoner Carr, Atty Gen'l, Texas to tell him, "No trial in Texas...ever." The next man he met, also on Nov 29th, was J. Edgar Hoover. The first question LBJ asked his old "19 year" neighbor in DC was "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ thought that THEY had been shooting at him also as they shot at his friend John Connally. Note that he asked, "Were THEY shooting at me?" LBJ knew there were several hitmen. That's the ultimate clue...THEY. The Connallys said the same thing...THEY. Not Oswald. Then came the heavily loaded press releases about Oswald all written before the deal and released actually before LHO had ever been charged with the crime. I bought the first newspaper EXTRA on the streets of Christchurch, New Zealand with the whole LHO story in that first news...photos and columns of it before the police in Dallas had yet to charge him with that crime. All this canned material about LHO was flashed around the world. Lansdale and his Time-Life and other media friends, with Valenti in Hollywood, have been doing that cover-up since Nov 1963. Even the deMorenschildt story enhances all of this. In deM's personal telephone/address notebook he had the name of an Air Force Colonel friend of mine, Howard Burrus. Burrus was always deep in intelligence. He had been in one of the most sensitive Attache spots in Europe...Switzerland. He was a close friend of another Air Force Colonel and Attache, Godfrey McHugh, who used to date Jackie Bouvier. DeM had Burrus listed under a DC telephone number and on that same telephone number he had "L.B.Johnson, Congressman." Quite a connection. Why...from the Fifties yet.? Godfrey McHugh was the Air Force Attache in Paris. Another most important job. I knew him well, and I transferred his former Ass't Attache to my office in the Pentagon. This gave me access to a lot of information I wanted in the Fifties. This is how I learned that McHugh's long-time special "date" was the fair Jacqueline...yes, the same Jackie Bouvier. Sen. Kennedy met Jackie in Paris when he was on a trip. At that time JFK was dating a beautiful SAS Airline Stewardess who was the date of that Ass't Attache who came to my office. JFK dumped her and stole Jackie away from McHugh. Leaves McHugh happy???? At the JFK Inaugural Ball who should be there but the SAS stewardess, Jackie--of course, and Col Godfrey McHugh. JFK made McHugh a General and made him his "Military Advisor" in the White House where he was near Jackie while JFK was doing all that official travelling connected with his office AND other special interests. Who recommended McHugh for the job? General McHugh was in Dallas and was on Air Force One, with Jackie, on the flight back to Washington..as was Jack Valenti. Why was LBJ's old cohort there at that time and why was he on Air Force One? He is now the Movie Czar. Why in Dallas? See how carefully all of this is interwoven. Burrus is now a very wealthy man in Washington. I have lost track of McHugh. And Jackie is doing well. All in the Lansdale--deM shadows. One of Lansdale's special "black" intelligence associates in the Pentagon was Dorothy Matlack of U.S. Army Intelligence. How does it happen that when deM. flew from Haiti to testify, he was met at the National Airport by Dorothy? The Lansdale story is endless. What people do not do is study the entire environment of his strange career. For example: the most important part of my book, "The Secret Team", is not something that I wrote. It is Appendix III under the title, "Training Under The Mutual Security Program". This is a most important bit of material. It tells more about the period 1963 to 1990 than anything. I fought to have it included verbatim in the book. This material was the work of Lansdale and his crony General Dick Stillwell. Anyone interested in the "JFK Coup d'Etat" ought to know it by heart. I believe this document tells why the Coup took place. It was to reverse the sudden JFK re-orientation of the U.S. Government from Asia to Europe, in keeping with plans made in 1943 at Cairo and Teheran by T.V. Soong and his Asian masterminds. Lansdale and Stillwell were long-time "Asia hands" as were Gen Erskine, Adm Radford, Cardinal Spellman, Henry Luce and so many others. In October 1963, JFK had just signalled this reversal, to Europe, when he published National Security Action Memorandum #263 saying...among other things...that he was taking 1000 troops home from Vietnam by Christmas 1963 and ALL AMERICANS out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. That cost him his life. JFK came to that "Pro-Europe" conclusion in the Summer of 1963 and sent Gen Krulak to Vietnam for advance work. Kurlak and I (with others) wrote that long "Taylor-McNamara" Report of their "Visit to Vietnam" (obviously they did not write, illustrate and bind it as they traveled). Krulak got his information daily in the White House. We simply wrote it. That led to NSAM #263. This same Trip Report is Document #142 and appears on page 751 to 766 of Vol. II of the Gravel Edition of the Pentagon Papers. NSAM #263 appears on pages 769-770 (It makes the Report official). This major Report and NSAM indicated an enormous shift in the orientation of U.S. Foreign Policy from Asia back to Europe. JFK was much more Europe- oriented, as was his father, than pro-Asia. This position was anathema to the Asia-born Luces, etc. There is the story from an insider. I sat in the same office with Lansdale, (OSO of OSD) for years. I listened to him in Manila and read his flurry of notes from 1952 to 1964. I know all this stuff, and much more. I could write ten books. I send this to you because I believe you are one of the most sincere of the "true researchers". You may do with it as you please. I know you will do it right. I may give copies of this to certain other people of our persuasion. (Years ago I told this to Mae Brussell on the promise she would hold it. She did.) Now you can see why I have always said that identification of the "Tramps" was unnecessary, i.e. they are actors. The first time I saw that picture I saw the man I knew and I realized why he was there. He caused the political world to spin on its axis. Now, back to recuperating."

Those are the technical specs of that film "FYI" -- in case "inquiring minds" wanted to know.

I know this will be made invisible, but, in a different thread Jack said: So, it seems we have a discussion, no?

FYI: Film negative format 35 mm Printed film format: 35 mm Cinematographic process: Spherical Film length 499 meters (2 reels) Aspect ratio: 1.33 : 1

Good question , Greg. I believe that we know a lot more than is detailed here. But John Simkin is very objective and careful about what he writes about a man. Peter, I don't doubt John Simkin. But, I didn't know who wrote the piece. So, is John Simkin the source, then? I'm sorry if I'm asking a question whose answer might be a "given" -- but I don't know who wrote the original information that you posted. Are you saying John wrote it--or is it just something that was written on Spartacus? Thanks--

Jim, Please take this reply in the spirit it is meant... How do you answer similar questions when they're posed to you? As an example, when people learn that I'm a JFK researcher many will often ask me: "Who do you think did it?" or "How many shots do you think were fired?" -- etc. -- My answer to the first question (who done it?) is honest: I DON'T KNOW. My answer to the second question is more obvious: "AS MANY AS IT TOOK" -- So, I don't know. However, I suspect that the VAST MAJORITY of it was redone. Hawkeye and NPIC, both EXTREMELY state of the art facilities, with different functions, were quite capable of "anything" on film or still photos. Anything.

Peter, I know that this came from SPARTACUS, but who or what is the original source? Thanks.

Lamson is a joker. The point of this thread is to demonstrate (one thing), that: the technology to create EXTREME effects by altering original film footage was in use as early as 1928, and therefore, such technology was available in 1963. The type of technologies that were employed to create the extant Zapruder Film remain a focus of research. However, the claim that has been advanced by alteration deniers, namely: that the necessary technology to accomplish Z-film alteration did not exist in 1963--is inaccurate. Granted, my example is not perfect. However, it would be encouraging if those on the other side of this debate would at least concede that "it was possible from a technical stand point" ONLY--without conceding that it was, in fact, done to that film. The latter debate can wait for another day. But, such an admission would go a long way toward promoting a positive perception of their intellectual honesty.

John, Nice work this. I know you put a lot of thought and effort into it. I also appreciate all you do to keep the forum afloat...but, I do not agree that JFK was a Cold Warrior, nor do I believe he was elected based on such a perception. Moreover, the Cuban Missile Crisis had absolutely nothing to do with his predisposition against war, except perhaps to confirm that of which he was already convinced. Joseph Kennedy was an isolationist, by nature. JFK was a pragmatist--a very bright, quick learning, pragmatist. In his view, any political policy that included "war" in its planning was fundamentally flawed. And he was right. "Planning for war" is, far and away, a different animal than is being "prepared for war". JFK subscribed NOT to the former, but to the latter--from the very beginning.

Sorry I misspelled your name, but this is NOT about your name; it is not about JFK's jacket; it is not about who can or cannot become a Supreme Court Justice; it is not about any other "side show attractions" -- !!! Are there ANY moderators reading this stuff? Are you kidding me right now? Do you not pay attention to deliberate THREAD DISRUPTION or DERAILMENT at all? I don't believe in censorship either, but...it is one thing to disagree with a post, it is another thing to deliberately disrupt a thread! Censorship can come in many forms, including DISRUPTION of thread topics by detractors, agents provocateurs, and hackers. When you fail to enforce boundaries, then whatever happens to your forum...you probably unwittingly invited.

My God ! My name is François Carlier. It is written everywhere. That's just two words. And you are not even able to remember it. Two words. No wonder you have proved totally unable to weigh evidence and reach a sane conclusion in the JFK case ! /François Carlier/ So, back on topic: The technology to alter film in 1963 was far and away adequate to the task of manipulating the Zapruder film. The techniques displayed in the 1928 film clip that I posted are much more advanced than "anti-alterationists" have claimed were available in 1963. I am NOT claiming that "the same techniques" were used in both films--because by 1963 the techniques were much more advanced than they were in 1928! -- This is NOT about "your name" --

So, once again, true to form, François Carlier jumps in with idiotic personal attacks; he is then joined by Viklund who has nothing to offer; Lamson chimes in to engage (in this case) Dean Hagerman for no other purpose than to DERAIL the point of this thread by changing the discussion to JFK's jacket/coat and then bringing up the SCOTUS (are you kidding me right now?); Harris chimes in with a depth of misunderstanding of this part of the conspiracy equivalent to that of a "distant cousin you're required to respect, but who has a second nose attached to his shoulder, which forces you to disclaim him even though you privately like him"...sheesh. But, back on topic: The technology to alter film in 1963 was far and away adequate to the task of manipulating the Zapruder film. The techniques displayed in the 1928 film clip that I posted are much more advanced than "anti-alterationists" have claimed were available in 1963. I am NOT claiming that "the same techniques" were used in both films--because by 1963 the techniques were much more advanced than they were in 1928! That said: Dean Hagerman held his own; David Healey is, of course, an expert on the subject; and Chris Davidson made a very good point--to be sure.

We shall see... TrineDay

Are you really that immunte to clear thinking ? The point is : whether the technology existed or not, IT WAS NOT USED ON THE ZAPRUDER FILM. So anybody who claims (like you) that the Zapruder film is altered go against all evidence. /François Carlier/ DO NOT TELL ME WHAT THE POINT OF MY OWN THREAD IS!!!! The point of MY THREAD is this: The technology existed to alter the Zapruder Film long BEFORE 1963, which contradicts many "anti-alterationists'" claims. THAT's what this thread is about!

You are not lying. I edited my post BEFORE (or perhaps simultaneously) you posted your reply. It was a coincidence. But, your reply was a non sequitar--AGAIN. You come out of the wood work to launch personal attacks. You have nothing to offer here. Please insult me further...as it is the ONLY thing you know how to do. You made a fool of yourself with your lame claim about Elvis! You are more delusional than you claim Jim Fetzer, Jack White, and even I am-- COMBINED -- with that one! Oh, and now you will claim that you were "just kidding about Elvis" or that you substituted my words with Elvis--or something??? Have you lost your mind? You got caught disrupting MY THREAD you dweeb! Don't claim to be the virgin you are NOT--else everyone will believe it!

But that was not the point!(even though you're still WRONG about all of that, too). The point, as stated in the topic / subject line, is this: In 1963, THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTED TO ACCOMPLISH THE TASK -- period.

Welcome to "The New America" John! Sorry for being so blunt, but "it is what it is" -- and sometimes it sucks. So, just "keep on--keeping on"--and it'll be better in the morning...or so they say.

Well, it wasn't. I am direct. If that's what I had meant to do (accuse you) I would have--with no ambiguity.

Hey, no big deal. It's late here. I'm going to sleep now. Sorry for the rant, it just seemed odd...but, no worries.

Huh? So delusional...so misguided. Wow. A pity. You set up a (very weak) "strawman" argument and expected me to CAVE??? Are you, perhaps, truly a Paul Nolan idiot clone. Please don't try to speak or you will convince us of the obvious.

Evan, Now, less than ONE HOUR later, using the SAME "new topics" feature, I just got the following "screen shot" showing 23 NEW ENTRIES in the past 24 hours! Wow. So, I guess "It fixed itself?" -- or someone did... Sorry for being so cryptic, but I know something about this stuff. This is NOT random. I don't know what it means, but it is deliberate. ====================== Now I can't upload the screen shot because I exceeded my limit? WTF? I have uploaded almost NOTHING--seriously, I don't get it.

Figures. Why am I NOT surprised?

I subscribe to nothing here! I've been using the "New Content" feature since I joined. It's always functioned as expected and consistently. Sorry if I sound "accusatory" -- but it really is weird...

"You might have Mad Cow, Denny?"

Note the time of this post...it is 12:13am (wee hours of the morning in California), AND note the time of the screen shot I am posting... Why??? 15 minutes ago there were 23 new posts? Now there are only two??? Right after I posted something about the Zapruder film? Additionally, THE POST I MADE ABOUT THE ZAPRUDER FILM DOES NOT SHOW UP AS A NEW TOPIC AT ALL...EVEN THOUGH I JUST POSTED IT A FEW MINUTES BEFORE I POSTED THIS?? Wow. I hope this isn't turning into the McAdams NUT HOUSE after all...