Greg Burnham

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

Peter,

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

From right here on Spartacus:

In 1963 Kennedy asked Lansdale to concentrate on the situation in Vietnam. However, it was not long before Lansdale was in conflict with General Maxwell Taylor, who was the military representative to the president. Taylor took the view that the war could be won by military power. He argued in the summer of 1963 that 40,000 US troops could clean up the Vietminh threat in Vietnam and another 120,000 would be sufficient to cope with any possible North Vietnamese or Chinese intervention.

Lansdale disagreed with this viewpoint. He had spent years studying the way Mao Zedong had taken power in China. He often quoted Mao of telling his guerrillas: “Buy and sell fairly. Return everything borrowed. Indemnify everything damaged. Do not bathe in view of women. Do not rob personal belongings of captives.” The purpose of such rules, according to Mao, was to create a good relationship between the army and its people. This was a strategy that had been adopted by the National Liberation Front. Lansdale believed that the US Army should adopt a similar approach. As Cecil B. Currey, the author of Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American pointed out: “Lansdale was a dedicated anticommunist, conservative in his thoughts. Many people of like persuasion were neither as willing to study their enemy nor as open to adopting communist ideas to use a countervailing force. If for no other reason, the fact makes Lansdale stand out in bold relief to the majority of fellow military men who struggled on behalf of America in those intense years of the cold war.”

Lansdale also argued against the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem. He told Robert McNamara that: “There's a constitution in place… Please don't destroy that when you're trying to change the government. Remember there's a vice president (Nguyen Ngoc Tho) who's been elected and is now holding office. If anything happens to the president, he should replace him. Try to keep something sustained.”

It was these views that got him removed from office.

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--

Greg:

DO you think the whole film was redone?

THat is, what is there is mostly special effects?

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.

From right here on Spartacus:

In 1963 Kennedy asked Lansdale to concentrate on the situation in Vietnam. However, it was not long before Lansdale was in conflict with General Maxwell Taylor, who was the military representative to the president. Taylor took the view that the war could be won by military power. He argued in the summer of 1963 that 40,000 US troops could clean up the Vietminh threat in Vietnam and another 120,000 would be sufficient to cope with any possible North Vietnamese or Chinese intervention.

Lansdale disagreed with this viewpoint. He had spent years studying the way Mao Zedong had taken power in China. He often quoted Mao of telling his guerrillas: “Buy and sell fairly. Return everything borrowed. Indemnify everything damaged. Do not bathe in view of women. Do not rob personal belongings of captives.” The purpose of such rules, according to Mao, was to create a good relationship between the army and its people. This was a strategy that had been adopted by the National Liberation Front. Lansdale believed that the US Army should adopt a similar approach. As Cecil B. Currey, the author of Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American pointed out: “Lansdale was a dedicated anticommunist, conservative in his thoughts. Many people of like persuasion were neither as willing to study their enemy nor as open to adopting communist ideas to use a countervailing force. If for no other reason, the fact makes Lansdale stand out in bold relief to the majority of fellow military men who struggled on behalf of America in those intense years of the cold war.”

Lansdale also argued against the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem. He told Robert McNamara that: “There's a constitution in place… Please don't destroy that when you're trying to change the government. Remember there's a vice president (Nguyen Ngoc Tho) who's been elected and is now holding office. If anything happens to the president, he should replace him. Try to keep something sustained.”

It was these views that got him removed from office.

Burnham is a "cartooner"

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.

You changed your original message, but this time I had copied it. Too bad for you.

/F.C./

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.

So, once again, true to form, Frances Colt(?)--whatever his name is-- ... bla bla bla [nonsense skipped]

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.

The book is being published by TrineDay Publishers. The owner has been a friend of mine for many years and has worked very hard on getting the book in print as soon as he can. But his operation is quite small, publishing "suppressed" books.

Bill, I respectfully disagree with this statement: "I think Will Weston, Duke Lane, Greg Parker, Gilbride and others who focus on what's really happening in the TSBD before, during and after the assassination, are getting closer to the truth than anyone who follows the Patsy, who was, after all, set up as the Fall Guy and Framed for the assassination weeks and months before it happened."

I think both are equally important. Would the event have taken place if the patsy had not shown up? Whose job was it to make sure he was there?

What I have been slowly researching, with Judyth's help, as time permits, is the financing of INCA and who the players involved were. Just working up the background of each of these individuals is an education in itself. It furnishes a context for the philosophical mindset of the plotters for a decade prior to hit. The actual details of the shooting, in my opinion, is worthless from an historical standpoint without having an understanding of this context.

We shall see... TrineDay

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.

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!

Mister Burnham,

I am accusing you of being a xxxx.

I am calling on the Forum moderators to find your original message and prove that I am telling the truth and you are trying to hide and lie.

/François Carlier/

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!

What a stupid thing to say (which, coming from Burnham, doesn't surprise me a bit)!

What he fails to understand is this :

Apart from the fact that his would-be conspirators NEVER HAD THE TIME NOR THE OPPORTUNITY to alter the Zapruder film, which is still the same as it was on November 22, 1963, when seen by several people about two hours (or a bit more ?) after the shots had been fired in Dealey Plaza, his example fails to take a crucial aspect into account.

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.

Over the last couple of years I have added YouTube videos on the JFK assassination to my pages on Spartacus. I see a lot of them have been removed for "copyright violation". I have used the work of Gil Jesus a lot. It seems that all his videos have been removed for this offence. However, people like David Von Pein, seem to have been left alone. As he seems to use the same "copyright" sources, can anyone explain what is happening?

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.

Greg, I do take it as an accusation.

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.

Incredible !

I copied/pasted YOUR OWN MESSAGE, to make you see it was bad.

You realized that indeed it was bad, and you decided to erase it, so that people won't see it.

Your erasing your own message proves you are now ashamed of having written it.

But I'm sorry for you, I won't erase my copy of your message so everybody can still see it. All they have to do is trade "I know that Elvis Presley is still alive and preparing his come-back" for "I know that the Zapruder film is a fabrication", and they'll know what you had dare to write !

Indeed, Greg Burnham had written : "I do NOT care what you believe. I know that the Zapruder film is a fabrication. Period. I have the luxury of KNOWING for sure, so I cannot fault anyone for doubting me because they have no reason to believe I am telling the truth since they didn't see for themselves. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to elaborate. This is more difficult for me than it is for you--by a long shot..."

I should have quoted you in the first place : you would have been unable to hide you own message, in the hope that nobody had seen it. I shall do that in the future. But your acting cowardly will be known, all the same.

/François Carlier/

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.

Good for you !

By the way, I do NOT care what you believe. I know that Elvis Presley is still alive and preparing his come-back. Period. I have the luxury of KNOWING for sure, so I cannot fault anyone for doubting me because they have no reason to believe I am telling the truth since they didn't see for themselves. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to elaborate. This is more difficult for me than it is for you--by a long shot...

/François Carlier/

Figures. Why am I NOT surprised?

I'm guessing that they are subscribed threads?

I don't subscribe to any myself, nor do I use the 'new content' feature.

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...

The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film, "There It Is" -- Starring Mac (George Bundy?) and TUM (The Umbrella Man?)...

Many thanks to my friend, Scott Myers, for the clip...

Film clip posted for research purposes ONLY:

I agree with you, Terry, about LBJ. Some of the other suppositions, however, I find to be dubious.

It was unfortunate that I was "lumped in" with those who implicated LBJ on the History Channel's TMWKK. When Nigel Turner interviewed and filmed me (over several days), I really didn't suspect that my research would have been represented in that way. Don't misunderstand, however: I have a lot of respect for Nigel and a lot of respect for those researchers who DID implicate LBJ. But, my research did not lead me to the same conclusion--and unfortunately, it was misrepresented. I don't believe it was a deliberate act of misrepresentation. I think it was just due to expediency.

GO_SECURE

monk

Why do you think LBJ was behind the Kennedy assassination? For the life of me I don't understand this thinking.

LBJ made his announcement on national television- March 31, 1968 - that he would not "accept" his party's nomination,nor would he "seek" another term as President. So if his motive was to acquire Kennedy's position as President he sure didnt keep it very long.

Johnson describes that event that made him President as something that "fell upon me".

Some say that his motive in the conspiracy to kill JFK was so he could get into a position to start a war in Vietnam, something JFK refused to do. But if you listen to his conversation with McGeorge Bundy in May 1964 it suggests that LBJ had no interest in expanding the war in Vietnam. In fact his arguments against an expanded war in Asia seems to be the same as his former boss John F. Kennedy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itQdn8Fbs-E&feature=related

If you read Donald Gibson's book "The Kennedy Assassination Cover up" you learn that the creation of the Warren Commission was not LBJ's idea, but instead it was created by wealthy members of the eastern establishment. John F. Kennedy's real enemies. Gibson also focuses on the international aspect of the Kennedy murder conspiracy with a focus on certain British interests.

Lastly it was Lyndon Johnson who made the ominous and cryptic remark to Walter Cronkite while discussing the JFK assassination "we were running a damn Murder Inc. in the Carribean". Just exactly who and what is this Murder Inc.? Permindex? INTERTEL?

I believe LBJ suffered a fatal heart attack right after this interview.

The source of power and wealth for the Kennedy political dynasty resides with some of the nastiest British oligarchical families, like the Cecil's. Joe Kennedy was such a rabid anglophile that he married his daughter off to William John Robert Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington.

QUOTE: Referring to Kathleen Kennedy's marriage to Lord Harrington.

If Lord Hartington succeeds to the title, becomes the 11th Duke of Devon shire, his Duchess will find herself the Mistress of the Royal Robes, first lady In waiting to the Queen. The Queen may well be Princess Elizabeth.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850493-2,00.html#ixzz0uziRwnAw

It is this kind of power that can successfully assassinate a US President (See Lincoln, Garfield, McKinnley)and cover it up.

Name a single one of my FAKE APOLLO MOON PHOTO studies which has been refuted. Here, try refuting this one:

Just my luck. I was about to "rate this post" positively, Jack, but that feature is no longer available! (Crap)