Greg Burnham

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. 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? Huh? Are you an exorcist in your spare time or something? Sheesh--

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.

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.

I don't think that's the reason, Len. I think it has more to do with the tremendous contributions that he has made to the dissemination of information in the JFK case, including "leading edge" research by very qualified individuals that may never have had their respective work published within the same volume had Jim not made that happen. As for your comment about LNers... Let me just say this: In sales there is a principle known by wisemen, but often missed by rookies. Namely, "Never talk past the close." In practice, it works like this. Let's say you are a salesman who makes a living by selling jewelry, like engagement rings, etc. -- One day a customer comes into your store inquiring about purchasing a diamond ring for his girl friend as he is planning to propose marriage in the very near future. You begin by explaining the various differences in the stones, the cut, clarity, and in the settings...why one is more costly than the others, and you explain terms of payment and financing. After that you tell him about the exceptional reputation of your store, the skill of the main jeweler there, and explain the guarantee policy. At some point your customer says, "I think I'll go ahead and buy that one" as he points to a diamond ring that is perhaps in the top 20% of your inventory, both in quality and in price. What should you say next? Well, you should say, very casually, "Ok." (pause) "I'll fill out the paper work...blah blah blah" -- But the KEY here is STOP selling it because it has already been sold. Anything the sales person says by way of continuing to "sell it" beyond that point is not only wasted energy, but it has a chance of screwing up an already "done deal" -- mostly because the customer becomes suspicious if the sales person continues to "sell" beyond that point. That's exactly what LNer's are doing. They are talking WAY past the close. The official history shouldn't need any "selling" anymore. The official story became suspect on its own, but that suspicion is amplified by those who continue to re-sell it. I can tell you FOR SURE that if I was a LN...I would have moved on by now. I wouldn't be talking past the close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEmQDhWOQSg&feature=related

Just for clarity, I didn't say that Hemming identified Lansdale from the photo in Dealey Plaza. I said that Gerry did not originally believe that Krulak had identified Lansdale from the photograph. He was adamant that it wasn't true. I sent Gerry copies of Krulak's letter in which he (Krulak) says: "It's Lansdale...etc." Then, he conceded the point that Krulak had, in fact, made the identification. However, Gerry also respected Krulak immensely and in no way could Gerry imagine that Krulak would have made that claim if he wasn't absolutely positive.

I was perhaps too harsh toward Robert. I hope he accepts my sincere apology for that. I shouldn't have made it personal. Thanks for calling me on that Martin. Now, instead of me posting proof of what was possible in 1963, why don't you pick up Volume IV of IARRB by Doug Horne? How about this, instead of me posting proof of what was possible in alteration technology from 1963, why not just explain some of the issues within the Zappy film itself? Such as the impossible BLUR / non-Blur anomalies? In fact, I'll reverse you on this point. 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? Conclusion: According to the laws of physics, some frames are impossibly clear because the moving objects (Limo, motorcycles, etc.) are SHARP at the same time that the stationary objects (both in the foreground AND the background) are SHARP. The blur discussion starts at approximately the 4 1/2 minute mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KVz545Ghts&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ukCWW2QaA&feature=related (Moreover, David Healy has already addressed the question of "what was possible" in 1963 from his own expert knowledge of the subject.)

Agreed. That is perhaps the most "un-persuasive" technique of all. I too can become overly frustrated, at times, and inappropriately lash out. It is not a trait of which I am proud...and, in fact, I find somewhat embarassing.

Nice photo of you and your lovely wife, God Bless her. But it does not make Hemming A CREDIBLE PERSON. Sorry Old Sport. But, it does make you a fat ass...

Let me tell you that your CLOSE FRIEND Gerry Hemming was NEVER KNOWN for his devotion to the TRUTH. In your case that is true. Your fat ass is the giveaway. I beg your pardon? I'm 53 years old. This picture of me and my wife was taken in November of 2009 (8 months ago) in Puerta Vallarta. Do you really want to argue who has a fat ass?

Jim Fetzer is my friend. So, my support of him and his work could easily be characterized as "biased" and such a characterization is probably a legitimate "ghost argument" to be advanced by those who don't know me well. But, Jim himself, and others who know us both, would refute that conclusion (in legal terms) with prejudice! Jim is of a dying breed...a pioneer of sorts. Like Captain Kirk he goes "where no man has gone before" and he goes there in defiance of the politically correct view, in defiance of the safe place, and in defiance of the status quo. For this and many other traits, I am proud to call him my friend. I do NOT always agree with him. His "methods" of persuasion--many times--do NOT persuade. Many times his methods are rather coarse, bitter to the taste, even offensive. But, he is true--true to himself--to the ONLY thing he knows--and he is willing to sacrifice all for the sake of "speaking the truth" even when to do so is possibly the most unpopular undertaking imaginable. However, he is not infallible. He sometimes is in error. Many times...but not because he took the "easy way out" -- quite the contrary. He took the HARD ROAD--the path less followed. For this alone, I call him my friend. There is no doubt that future Fetzer endeavors will result in conflict. There is no doubt that I will remain his friend and support him. There is no doubt that I will, from time to time, disagree vehemently with him...but, NEVER will there come a day when I doubt his sincerity. Insincerity is simply beyond his ability.

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.

Have you lost your mind? Are you so incapable of independent thought that you have failed to grasp the significance of this thread? Did you mis-read the OBVIOUS? Are you so congnitively impaired that the point was completely and utterly lost on you? Do you realize that 1963 technology has already been far and away proved adequate to the task? Even the "non-classified" technology (DISNEY) was capable of what you dismiss. Are you really NEWBIE or just masquerading as one? Have you been studying this case beyond this weekend? Or did you just start? Or are you like GRODEN et al, who have invested so much of their lives into the "ZAPRUDER FILM is a holy cow" belief? You are so out of your depth, beyond your scope, perhaps out of your mind... You waste time with idiotic challenges of which only fools would entertain your mindless suppositions.

If that's the case Craig, what are you doing here? He's doing exactly the same thing here that he did on the JFKresearch Assassination Forum nearly a decade ago before we permanently banned him, namely: disrupting discussions with venomous ad hominem fallacious bloviations.

You have it backwards. We dis-believe. You are the one who is the "believer" -- Really, what is it that I "believe"? Whatever the government tells you.

You have it backwards. We dis-believe. You are the one who is the "believer" --

Stuff it. I really was. But not anymore.

Huh? When was I dishonest? When was I mean to you? It would be different had I called you a "no good, miserable little wannabe French F*** who is lingually and cognitively challenged..." -- But, I didn't do that and I never would. That would be mean...

Excellent observations, IMHO, Peter! Lansdale was definitely an operator in coup's around the globe. He specialized in every aspect of successful government change (with the exception of personally pulling the trigger, rigging the explosive, administering the poison, etc.), including the set up and, most importantly, the cover up.

I remember being alerted by a member of this forum that my friend, Gerry Hemming, had denied that Krulak identified Ed Lansdale from a picture taken in Dallas. I sent him proof. He called me the next day and apologized--well, admitted his error--Gerry never apologized to anyone to my knowledge. Thanks to Len Osanic for uploading this clip:

The weak link...deano BELIEVES! I also believe in finding the truth about who killed JFK Something you care nothing about Really? Or is it all about trying to support your worldview? The funny part is that if I told you my world view you would be shocked to learn how conservative it is I've often said that JFK was the most conservative democrat we'll probably ever see. You're in good company, Dean.

Disproportionate to what numbers, Jack? I don't understand your point. For instance, IMO, generally speaking, AMERICANS as a whole care about truth in the JFK case in disproportionately LOW numbers. Perhaps I missed what you meant... The people I named included nearly ALL of the early authors. All were Jewish. Americans as a whole did not do early research nor write leading early books. I THOUGHT MY MEANING WAS VERY CLEAR. The early authors were disproportionately Jewish. This is merely an observation, not a racist statement. Thanks. Jack Thanks, Jack. I didn't accuse you of anything! I just didn't "get it" -- that's all. You were saying that a disproportiontely HIGH number of the early JFK researchers and/or authors were Jewish. Like I said, maybe I missed your point. Obviously, I did. Thanks for pointing that out...

I'm unsure of your point, Paul. Is the sarcasm aimed at the idea of the existence of "nameless, faceless, assassins without nationality" whose families are already secured away at our "resorts" and will remain safe as long as the assassin plays the game? Or does your sarcasm have more to do with Greer? If you are so naive as to believe that "mechanics" exist only in movies--and that their cooperation is not GUARANTEED by coercion and severe manipulation...you haven't done your homework.

Disproportionate to what numbers, Jack? I don't understand your point. For instance, IMO, generally speaking, AMERICANS as a whole care about truth in the JFK case in disproportionately LOW numbers. Perhaps I missed what you meant...

C'mon, Craig. Let's not start that crap so soon in this thread. Please. Thanks-- Pot ...meet kettle... Post 8 Craig, I'm really asking you nicely. Thanks--