Greg Burnham

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

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

If Brad Ayers (or anyone else) claims to have witnessed a murder, and if he failed to report that murder in a timely manner to the proper authorities, then where I come from he would be considered an accessory to murder. But maybe you and I come from different kinds of places. [by that I mean that, where I come from, anyone who tried to cite a guy like Brad Ayers as a reliable witness would be laughed out of town] In my opinion, (not a legal opinion), in most states within the United States, if you fail to report a crime that you witnessed, it could potentially be "Misprison of a Felony" and it is a crime if you actively conceal the fact, as opposed to only "failing to report" the crime. By contrast, "an accessory to a crime" knowingly, actively, and voluntarily participated in the commission of the crime before, during, or after the fact by providing ANY type of support. If a person provides any type of aid, support, shelter, financing, etc. to the perpetrator after the crime is committed they may be an accessory after the fact.

Sheesh. I didn't say that there are no "specialists or specialties" in the SS, nor did I say that there is no "cross training" --but, that wasn't the point. Sorry, but--errr, no, he didn't. Sure, that's true. However, there are limits to EVERY person's capability, no matter your quote. The point is, multi-tasking is undesirable. It's the reason "spotters" are employed by snipers. Second, you are assuming that Greer had the necessary "mind-set" to commit, not only cold blooded murder, (which is a stretch) but also the psychological ability to overcome the specific training and conditioning he underwent in direct conflict with such an act. Nowt to do with supposition. It's there in the statements and observations of some of the closest eyewitnesses: I'm not buying it at all. In your scenario, these witnesses were alert enough to say where they thought the sound "might have" seemd to come from, but NONE of them were alert enough to see where it came from? C'mon! None of them said they saw Greer shoot JFK. Not one! I think you are correct to weigh the witness testimony, and even heavily rely on it, but you are incorrect to irresponsibly interpret what that testimony means just to support your theory.

The contrary is true: It was an elegant, if brutal, schema which boasted powerful advantages over any other alternative plan for a public assassination using guns. Your sweeping generalization does not hold up under scrutiny. If, as I've already mentioned, the SS involvement need only include relaxation of protection protocol for the deed to be done, then the "portability" to which you refer remains for they are constantly with the "client". Effective assassins don't multi-task during an operation. I suppose, if after turning off of Main, Greer had "floored it" accelerating down Houston Street at 60+ mph and intentionally slammed into the TSBD in order to kill Kennedy, then I could buy him as the assassin. As it is, I don't, not for a second. Let me say this first, I hope that the "written word" in my reply does not sound more harsh than I intend. But, where do you get the idea that the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail's protocol includes the DRIVER RETURNING FIRE even if an attacker(s) was or were identified and located??? That is a serious misconception on your part. SERIOUS. The PPD are trained to avoid "potential danger zones" first and TAKE the bullet intended for the "client" second. Returning "fire" is not an option for MOST SS agents--particularly for the driver in such a circumstance--nor is it even necessary if the first two have been properly done. So, such an "excuse" is totally ludicrous and any suggesting of it is laughable on its face. No, that's not true. Assassins are a unique breed. It requires a unique "skill set" to be sure, but not one for which Greer was trained to utilize. I tend to consider this "theory" to be a rather irresponsible stretch based on little more than supposition.

Answer: Absolutely NOT! [emphasis added]That is the ONLY explantion--if they are both, indeed, REAL cops...

Lansdale retired on November 1. The story was that he was on his way to Arizona to visit family (a son, as I recall) on 11/22/63. Apparently he couldn't afford to fly and had to drive the whole way, and happened to stop in Fort Worth on 11/21. Or maybe he drove because he just wanted to see the country that he would serving so well. Yeah. He was probably meeting with Barry Goldwater and David Morales...

I'm not getting into that discussion, David. I haven't done sufficient research to render an intelligent, well informed, opinion. I certainly "want to believe" that we went, but my desire does not make it so. Besides, that's not the point of this thread. But, as an example of something that is the point, for instance, I have personally interviewed Judyth Baker and found her to appear credible. However, beyond that initial "gut" feeling, I have seen no compelling evidence to convince me of her veracity. I haven't had the time nor the resources to pursue indepth investigtion of her claims either. Moreover, I lack the motivation, for even if what she has said is true, IMO, it has no value to my JFK research whatsoever! This is obviously in direct conflict with Jim's view. However, Jim has respected my position as one that is consistent with my priciples, i.e., "I'm not going to claim her case has been proven based only upon my own 'gut level' and your [Jim's] assurances." And he wouldn't want me to do that either. Now, I have been critical of his "method of persuasion" in that matter, both publically and privately. But again, his lack of skill in the "Art of Rhetoric" is not evidence of insincerity, although it tends to make him a target of criticism; a scapegoat used to dismiss his claims, if you will, which is perhaps even more illogical than all the rest.

Never said you did, Greg. I simply drew attention to a faulty distinction you'd drawn. What puzzles me, quite genuinely, is why those who embrace the abundant evidence of SS treason find it so unimaginable that that involvement should extend to the actual shooting. It's particularly perplexing in the case of those such as you who have seen through the Z-fake. Clear this CIA-constructed impediment out of the road, and we transform the case into a standard murder inquiry - one dependent upon witnesses, not a lot of junk celluloid. Well, I guess we just disagree. I don't believe the distinction I drew was at all "faulty" --not in the least, and I have some background in these matters. But, let me elaborate further on why I reject Greer as a shooter. There are numerous reasons, but I should start by correcting an assumption you made about me: I do not find it "unimaginable that SS involvement should extend to the actual shooting..." [parphrased] However, I find it operationally flawed. It is a bad plan. It involves unnecessary risk. It requires too many unknowns to be controlled. It does not account for the improbability of either 1) every witness NOT seeing what really happened nor does it account for 2) insuring that every potential witness could be forced to remain silent about what they saw or end up dead, including Jackie Kennedy, Nellie Connally, each and every Secret Service agent on the PPD who was there, over one hundred witnesses, in all. The risk factors involved in employing Greer beyond a reasonably arguable "normal" (mal) function of his regular work are not only too great, but quite unnecessary.

[emphasis added]Ok, I think I understand your point better now. I agree with some of that, especially the part about "the argument advanced is every bit as applicable to all other alternatives to Greer" -- So, that argument is not helpful, in your opinion--and I agree. The distinction is NOT bogus. I did not suggest that "relaxation of protection protocol" is any less inculpatory of the Secret Service. They are FULLY at fault--just s much as a shooter. However, the roles of the various "operators" are distinct. And Greer's role was not a shooter, IMO. Anyone who participated in this crime in any way: from pulling triggers to stopping the vehicle; from planting evidence to neglecting witness testimony; from signalling shooters to allowing Ruby into the garage; and all the rest, up to and completely including anyone who contributed to the ensuing and ongoing cover-up (obstruction of justice) are ALL guilty of crimes that are not limited by statute. I do not give the SS a break in this, not at all.

I purchased a Bell & Howell camera just like Zapruder's that is in perfect condition. I also have a source for Kodachrome film that has been stored (frozen) as proscribed by Kodak and is also in perfect condition. However, it is highly unlikely that I will be able to get to Dallas and film this year. Beyond this year processing the film will be impossible, so it's not going to happen by me. Even if I could get there it would not be a very good test--especially on the pertinent date and time, 12:30pm, November 22nd of this year--because there would be too many people either blocking the shot or crowding the pedestal due to the anniversary. I suppose a day or two before or after might be adequate (similar solar position?) and there would be fewer people in the way. I also am not claiming to have enough knowledge to perform the proper tests, however, I have friends who do. Still, the ARRB had the ability to properly conduct tests long ago--minus the Stemmons Sign--and failed to acquire the camera.

Great questions. First: The reason the actual Zapruder camera (not the same model) needed to be used is that either side of the debate could argue that the test was inadequate on the grounds that the results were tainted by the differences between the test camera and Zapruder's. Right or wrong, such an argument would be advanced by the side of the debate whose position was disproved. Since the ARRB failed to acquire the camera, strike one. Second: Regarding Kodachrome film...it is far and away a unique product, as you well know. However, even if substitute film was actually adequate to test the Zapruder camera for the purposes stated, (and Ektachrome may well be), the same problems could and, no doubt, WOULD be argued regarding the "substitute film" being different, and therefore inadequate to the task. My point isn't to say that these arguments would or would not be legitimate (by either side), just that these arguments would be advanced in such a case making resolution of the debate no closer than it is today. Strike 2. As to "what tests" are needed. That's not the point of this thread, but you can read IARRB for starters. The point of this thread (since I started it, I know what it is) was already stated several times. The ARRB blew an opportunity to conduct tests that potentially could have laid the debate to rest as long as they did the tests in a manner that eliminates, as much as possible, obvious objections to the results, such as, "It was not the actual Zappy camera" -- or -- "Not the right film" -- or "Not shot in similar conditions, i.e., incorrect day of year, incorrect time of day, incorrect weather conditions, etc." -- Since the Zapruder camera could potentially be made available in the future (or not, but maybe) the tests could have been possible--except that Kodachrome processing will be unavailable. Strike 3 for the ARRB.

Well, that's just not true, Craig. You don't know what I would have done, and neither do I. It would all depend on the testing itself. But, at the very least, if the test was designed to "solve for" Zapruder film authentication, it would be a good start. Well, that's not true either, Craig. I don't think anything of the sort. I don't think a government "of, by, and for, WE THE PEOPLE" is evil at all. I just would like to see it remain that way. Well, the failure of the ARRB makes that impossible to know, which is the point of this thread. Again, that statement is simply untrue, as it is unknowable by you or anyone. I am not dismissing it out of hand. I am identifying it for "what it is" -- and it was not shot to "solve for" Zapruder film authentication.

So, you're saying what in your above sentence? It's not perfectly clear to me, and I'm trying real hard. Are you saying that nearly identical arguments can be used to refute the existence of assassins who are "not Oswald" no matter who the alleged assassins might be? If that's what you're saying, so far, I'm still not understanding your point. Your next sentence is still a bit hard for me to understand. Let me re-phrase my position. The Secret Service are not assassins. However, assassins do exist--not lone nuts--but the real deal "mechanics" or whatever label for them that suits your fancy. The Secret Service only needs to "relax" its protection protocol in a pre-arranged "window of opportunity" for the deed to be done. Their complicity is passive. An assassin's complicity is more than active. It is direct.

Agreed, Jack. The statement by Robert: "The limo does NOT stop, it just slows down to a crawl..." is technically accurate in the altered film. In reality it also came to a complete stop.

Why take this so personally, Craig? I didn't say "Craig Lamson failed..." -- I said, IMO, the ARRB failed, a pity. You're still "talking way past the close."

What a bunch of bullcrap.... Checkmate.

It is I who am in your debt Sir, so do not worry. If you ever need a bed in New York, I do hope you will call on me. (And be sure to bring your lovely wife) I feel like I'm in an American Express Commercial! "My wife...I never leave home without her!"

Thanks Greg, I was about to write something to this effect but you have done so. I daresay that most of the people I know well I could recognize from behind. I found Prouty's id compelling when I first read it, while looking at the picture. Krulak's id just makes the case for it being Lansdale all that stronger. Dawn Nice to See Jim DiEugenio here. He will make mincemeat of many a fool. Thanks Dawn. Perhaps Jim and I can take turns? I had first crack at McAdams 10 years ago, Jim had second crack, perhaps it's my turn again?

The purpose of my having started this thread was simple. I was pointing out that it was unfortunate that the ARRB failed to conduct their own test with the actual Zapruder Camera (not the same "model" -- the same camera) in order to answer, once and for all, certain questions that remain--or that are claimed to remain about the film. Because Kodachrome (color) film will no longer be processed anywhere beyond December of this year, it would appear that conducting such a test is an impossibility. The point of the test would include a variety of things to be verified, but, at the very least, in broad terms: first, establish that Zapruder's camera was the actual camera used that day, and second, eliminate the debate about alteration. I have no way of knowing for sure if such tests would, in fact, accomplish those goals, but the attempt certainly seems reasonable. Unlike the tests conducted at the hands of the government (the FBI, SS, et al) to which Lamson refers, whose results are in the National Archives, these new tests would have had a focus on authentication of the Zapruder film. The tests to which he refers do nothing of the sort. The authenticity of the film itself and the certainty that this was the actual camera used were "givens" -- they were assumed. The tests were aiming at something else. They were establishing the frame rate (18.3 frames/second) etc., in order to time the shots, among other things. Unlike the tests conducted earlier, these new tests would have been conducted by, and under the supervision of, non-FBI and non-SS government workers and civilians, thereby avoiding immediate disqualification. The way the old tests were conducted reminds me of the peril in "Allowing Colonel Sanders to baby-sit your chickens!" Moreover, one of the best indicators that examining the archived test films would be inadequate to the task of authenticating the Zapruder film is that they were NOT filmed on any November 22 of any year. In fact, they were not filmed in November of any year. One was filmed in December and another was in February--thus compromising the positional accuracy of the light source (the sun). So, as I said, a pity that the ARRB failed in this respect.

Thank you Greg for the gracious reply. I was way out of line in my earlier comment, and it shows you are a big man to forgive me. On deeper reflection, your lovely wife probably did pretty well, all things considered. Thank you as well, Sir. It is important, IMHO, for all of us to attempt (as best we can) to give each other the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. In so much as I failed to treat you that way, my apologies.

Ron, Obviously Fletch wasn't naive about it else he wouldn't have written about it publically. However, publically claiming "knowledge of what Lansdale was doing there" is not only an unprovable claim, but it is tantamount to an accusation for which there is no substantiation. Additionally, truth be told, Prouty didn't know--he surmised, inferred, drew a logical conclusion, but didn't "know" for sure. As for Krulak's comment, I think it is more telling than it reads. I didn't take it as literally as you did. I took it more as a "question that begs no answer" because Krulak knew that Prouty almost necessarily understood what Lansdale's presence there would mean. They both knew exactly what Lansdale's job had entailed for decades. So, I took the question: "What was he doing there?" to really suggest, "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?" [my emphasis] Fletch had no problem, when at liberty to do so, to reveal the truth. Most people don't realize that he was the person who "blew the cover" of CIA agent, Alexander Butterfield, who was working in the White House, during Watergate. Butterfield had apparently had a lot to do with the secret taping system that had probably illegally recorded conversations that the agency could potentially use to blackmail Nixon et al, if they survived Watergate. Presumably even Nixon, Haldeman, Erlichman, nor Dean knew that the agency had planted an agent in the White House. E Howard Hunt knew though. Prouty had some unrelated business and was directed to meet with E Howard Hunt. In that meeting he casually told Prouty that "Butterfield" was their [CIA's] man in the White House. Prouty contacted Daniel Shore and went on the air to expose Butterfield. I have the audio (video?) clip here somewhere. So, even though it is illegal to blow a CIA agent's cover, it changes the rules of engagement if they are operating domestically and spying on the president. Since the Patriot Act, that might have changed. But, that's another story...

You are quite correct Greg. I owe you an apology, and I hereby humbly tender same. But please forgive me if I still harbor the suspicion that your gorgeous wife could easily have found a handsomer guy. About the first thing, apology accepted. And about the second, you are no doubt quite right. My wonderful wife could have done much better than me. I am truly grateful that she will have me at all...

No. The challenge raised by both Robert Harris and Martin Hay was to post proof that 1963 technology was capable of film alteration to the degree claimed to be present in the Zapruder film. Since you are a "nay-sayer" on Zappy alteration, and a self proclaimed "expert" on the subject, your statement that the technology was available, speaks volumes and answers their question for me. Checkmate.