Greg Burnham
-
Posts
2,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Burnham
-
-
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.
That's a fairly radical take on the necessity for specialization within the SS, Greg, one thoroughly repudiated, moreover, in the publicly available literature that I've come across; and common sense would suggest.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.
Greer wouldn't always be driving when on duty with the SS; presidential limos occasionally stopped and were momentarily engulfed in well-wishers; and he didn't need to "multi-task" when delivering the fatal shot to his President's left-temple: He stopped the car against the south curb of Elm, turned round, and fired.Sorry, but--errr, no, he didn't.
Footnote from chapter 4, The Filmed Assassination, of Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams’ Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974)“…the Secret Service agent…must be able to hit the target under any and all conditions…”
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.
I tend to consider this "theory" to be a rather irresponsible stretch based on little more than supposition.Nowt to do with supposition. It's there in the statements and observations of some of the closest eyewitnesses:
Bobby Hargis:Mr. Stern: Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the shots?
Hargis: “Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me,” 6WCH294.
Austin Miller:
Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?”
Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,” 6WCH225.
Charles Brehm: “Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if [sic] he would have after being shot from the rear,” “President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.]
Officer E. L. Boone:" I heard three shots coming from the vicinity of where the President's car was,” 19WCH508.
Jack Franzen: “He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and ...small fragments flying inside the vehicle and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile,” 22WCH840.
Mrs. Jack Franzen: “Shortly after the President’s automobile passed by…she heard a noise which sounded as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile…at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile,” 24WCH525.
James Altgens: “The last shot sounded like it came from the left side of the car, if it was close range because, if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy," 7WCH518.
Hugh Betzner, Jr.: “I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following: I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air,” 19WCH467
Mary Moorman: “The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in that car,” Jay Hogan interview with Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, KRLD Radio (Dallas), 15:30hrs (CST), 22 November 1963, Tape 5B and 6A (NARA) – see
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.
-
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..." [paraphrased]
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.
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.
1. Any plan predicated upon the SS not merely facilitating, but firing, the fatal shots, gave it a portability which no other alternative could match: The assassins would be with their target on all relevant occasions, ready to go at any opportune moment.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".
2. The selection of the driver as the assassin fixed the distance between target and shooter; and ensured that the shooter controlled the speed of his target: No alternative can match this plan for economy and efficiency.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.
3. The selection of the driver as assassin offered element of surprise (for both target and observers); a natural alibi (I was merely returning fire, guvnor, honest); and more control over external factors an excited spectator, a wandering motorcycle outrider, a curious local policeman unwittingly interdicting or merely disturbing a sniper team than any of the alternatives.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.
4. The selection of the driver as assassin utilised a man with an existing skill-set perfect for the task.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.
5. The selection of the driver as assassin guaranteed ready access to incriminating evidence, which could then be made to vanish etc.; and furnished the most powerful motive of all for participation in the subsequent, inevitable, cover-up.And so on and so forth.
I tend to consider this "theory" to be a rather irresponsible stretch based on little more than supposition.
-
Whether it was Landsdale or not... a simple question
Would a policeman allow ANYONE to stroll right past him while armed and escorting these men, or any man/men into custody?
Answer: Absolutely NOT!
[emphasis added]Isn't that the strangest part of that first picture? Let alone the casual manner the rear policeman is carrying his weapon while seeing this man walk up and then past his "partner"... no reponse from either ??!??Unless he was indeed known not to be a threat...
That is the ONLY explantion--if they are both, indeed, REAL cops...
-
BTW - are there any innocent reasons for Lansdale to have been in Ft. Worth on the 21st, so that his appearance in DP on the 22nd might be argued to be a fact-finding mission?
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...
-
All very well, Greg. . "Jim Fetzer is my friend," you write and you also state that "Insincerity is simply beyond his ability."
(So maybe we should rename him "Guileless.")
But let me ask you this: Do you, too, believe we did not go to the moon?
Are you one of those who believe (as Fetzer just wrote in post #18 on this thread) that the numerous round trips to the moon are "events that many may believe occurred but which actually did not?"
Its nice to know that Fetzer "sincerely" holds these bizarre beliefs, but where do YOU stand on the matter?
DSL
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.
-
I do not give the SS a break in this, not at all.
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.
-
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.
[emphasis added]The verb you chose - "refute" - reveals you have missed my point by some distance, quite possibly the length of Elm. No, I am not "refuting" the existence of non-Oswaldian assassins by such arguments, not least because the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald had nothing whatever to do with the shooting. So the facts oblige us to consider the alternatives. I merely pointed out that the particular objection advanced by Jim DisIngenuous is, contrary to the impression he sought to convey, every bit as applicable to all other alternatives to Greer. It thus tells us nothing about the case against Greer, or, indeed, the alternatives, but plenty about DisIngenuous.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 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.Here again, all is confusion. You seek to persuade us of a distinction between active and passive SS involvement which rests upon your belief that as Greer didn't shoot his President, the SS involvement was thus "passive." The distinction is bogus. "Active" complicity is stripping the layers of protection, slowing the limo to a halt etc. The question is then not whether the SS was actively or passively complicit, but whether one of its number pulled the trigger. And judgment on that issue rests with consideration of the eyewitness testimony, the Parkland doctors observations etc.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.
-
De Niro, Brooklyn, India on last Kodachrome roll
By BEN DOBBIN (AP)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jukxInq-nTx6Wl7Ecdm8iWv4tVxgD9HBJQLO0
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.
-
Why don't we start right here and see it your premise actually has merit or if it is simply more silly musings from you.
At the beginning of this thread you state that the demise of Kodachrome will end the opportunity to test the Zapruder camera properly.
You want to "solve" for Zapruder film authentication. Exactly what tests would be needed and why is Kodachrome required?
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.
-
Even IF the ARRB had tested the camera you would have dismissed it out of hand.
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.
The evil government still had it's hands in the soup.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.
And who is to say the tests would have been to your liking or specs...whatever that really is?Well, the failure of the ARRB makes that impossible to know, which is the point of this thread.
The CT's would still find a way to bitch.Again, that statement is simply untrue, as it is unknowable by you or anyone.
The reality of the matter is that film shot with the camera exists, and you dismiss it out of hand...imagine that.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.
-
My point was perfectly clear, Greg. Precisely the same basic objection can be raised against one set of non-Oswaldian assassins as any other.
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.
As for "coercion and manipulation," why are their deployment unthinkable in the case of Greer (and other elements of the SS detail in Dallas), but viewed by you as givens in the case of your preferred alternatives?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.
-
Studying altered films is an exercise that leads nowhere.
Jack
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.
-
LOL! sure it is.... Kinda like last night when you thought you had "checkmate" and then got your head handed to you in a basket.
You really don't have the first clue. but you are quite the easy mark. PLEASE keep it up. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
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."
-
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.
What a bunch of bullcrap....
Checkmate.
-
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.
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!"
-
I knew Fletcher Prouty very well. He did not say "things" in order to draw attention to himself. He did not "make things up" for the hell of it! Why would he? What possible motivation could he have had to do such a thing? General Victor Krulak had NO reason whatsoever to identify Lansdale in Dealey Plaza! NONE...unless it was true. My close friend, Gerry Patrick Hemming (no matter what you think of him) didn't want to believe that Krulak identified Lansdale either, but once he saw the proof, even HEMMING conceded the point.
The idiotic claim that "facial features" are the ONLY definitive determinant in photo-identification is absurd. I can recognize, from a distance, MANY people THAT I KNOW INTIMATELY--and from "behind" without a facial view. I would also gain a very marked advantage if I had the luxury of scrutinizing such in a STILL PHOTO! Both Prouty and Krulak were afforded such an opportunity.
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.
-
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...
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.
-
To those who agree with Prouty's and Krulak's ID of Lansdale in the photo, I wonder if they would also agree that Krulak's question to Prouty, "What in the world was he doing there?", has to be one of the dumbest questions ever asked by mortals.
If people like Prouty and Krulak were that naive, no wonder the conspirators got away with it.
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...
-
I started this thread so I think I know what it is about. It is about the possible presence of Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963. You don't even know me, how can you claim to judge the depth of my knowledge?
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...
-
...The question is NOT the possibility of "movie magic" but rather was it DONE to the Zap film.
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.
-
WRONG AGAIN, AND ANOTHER false assumption on your part. My ass, as it happens is proportionate to my very fine anatomy. But what do you know anyway. (?)
I know enough to place a question mark at the end of a question. I also didn't claim that you have a "fat ass" as you claimed about me. I said you ARE a "fat ass" as a result of your insulting, no count, disrespect for a very close (now deceased) friend of mine.
The question under discussion is the identity of JFK's assassins. As your latest responses demonstrate, this is a subject you know little about, and care less.I started this thread so I think I know what it is about. It is about the possible presence of Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963. You don't even know me, how can you claim to judge the depth of my knowledge?
So Begone Satan! You have nothing to contribute!Huh? Are you an exorcist in your spare time or something? Sheesh--
-
From AlterNet.org
Posted by Stuart Bramhall
July 31, 2010
The Mass Psychology of Partial Disclosure
The Transparent Conspiracy is a collection of essays written between 2006 and 2010, mainly about the 911 and JFK conspiracies and cover up, with a short collection of poems on the same topic. Morrissey’s latest book is a definite departure from other conspiracy literature. Morrissey has no interest in proving or disproving either the 911 or the JFK conspiracy – he feels this territory is well-covered by other authors. The topic of this book is mass psychology. Morrissey believes our government’s propaganda arm (whatever they call it now) is fully aware that a well-managed conspiracy cover-up can have a very intimidating effect, which can be very effective in keeping the public docile and obedient.The Government Wants Us to Know
Specifically he argues there is major value (from the government point of view) in disclosing a limited amount of information concerning government culpability in atrocities such as the JFK assassination and 911. He bases his view on something he calls “Transparency Theory” – thus his title The Transparent Conspiracy. He says the CIA has long recognized that “telling part of the truth is the best way to lie.” They even have a term for it: “white propaganda.” Morrissey argues that for the government to brazenly commit criminal acts can be quite effective in demoralizing and alienating the tuned-in segment of the population that fully comprehends the corrupt nature of our government institutions.He then lays out the hypothetical question: if the reality of the 911 conspiracy were widely accepted by the American public, would they be capable of doing anything about it? Morrissey believes that in this point in history that they would be powerless (that they lack the power to bring the culprits to trial or even impeach them). Which he contends is a powerful basis for demoralization and alienation.Contrasting 911 with the JFK Assassination
He then contrasts the 911 conspiracy cover-up with the cover-up of the JFK assassination, in which years of advanced planning went into creating a fictional identity (as an unstable Marxist) for a US intelligence agent named Lee Harvey Oswald – and in which scores of witnesses were murdered and evidence secretly destroyed and/or fabricated.In the case of 911 there was very limited – a few fictitious cell phone calls from a high altitude that weren’t technologically feasible in 2001 and some clumsily forged bin Laden videotapes. The government made no attempt to conceal that they were destroying evidence at Ground Zero – they simply loaded all the twisted steel onto trucks and shipped it to Long Island to be melted down into something else. The 911 Commission was more of a whitewash than a true cover-up....Full review: http://blogs.alternet.org/refugee/2010/07/31/they-want-us-to-know-on-conspiracies-and-cover-ups/
Morrissey also published this book on his correspondence with Vincent Salandria: http://www.amazon.com/Correspondence-Vincent-Salandria-Michael-Morrissey/dp/1430326646
Excellent post, Mike! This is perhaps one of the most frustrating techniques with which seekers of the truth must deal. The "limited hangout" --even in its adulterated form--is quite effective.
-
In 1963, there was no ability to de-blur frames--none. So, if the blur / non-blur anomalies are not explicable by physics, without de-blurring alteration capabilities in 1963, then what?
Ignorance really becomes you.
You really don't have a clue do you...
UnSharp Mask.....
Without computer technology that came MUCH later, such a task would have been nearly, if not completely, impossible on such a scale. However, even if these de-blurring techniques were available and practical in 1963 as you posit, then that supports the possibility of alteration being available with 1963 technology.
Was Lansdale in Dealey Plaza?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Greg Burnham
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.