Greg Burnham

I think people here give him a lot of leway because he is CT. How would you respond to a LN who acted like him? What would the response be if the Bug, McAdams or that guy from RI (can't rember his name right now) read from and backed a book like Stranger than Fiction?

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

So we have 1) Prouty 2) Krulak who once had Lansdale fired and 3) Gerry Patrick Hemming ALL identifying Edward Lansdale in a photo taken of him on the sidewalk just 5 feet west of Texas School Book Depository. From other photos, based on Lansdale's rectangular head, it seems to me that it is Edward Lansdale at TSBD, probably supervising the murder of John Kennedy. I think that is a reasonable assumption to make.

In fact, when I show this photo to non-JFK assassination researchers, almost all of them say it seems to look like Edward Lansdale. Amazing!

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.

Greg,

I think you're being a little unfair. There was absolutely nothing "idiotic" about Robert's "challenge." At all.

If 1963 technology has already been proven adequate to the task of creating the highly sophisticated fruad you claim the Zapruder film is, then you should have no problems posting the proof here, right?

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.)

The other problem is his tendency to lash out at those who disagree with him.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Let me tell you that your CLOSE FRIEND Gerry Hemming was NEVER KNOWN for his devotion to the TRUTH.

The idiotic claim that "facial features" are ONLY definitive determinant in photo-identification is absurd.

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.

Well then, time is running out for the alterationists to do what they've never done before. Using the same model camera that Zapruder used, film a car driving down Elm street and then proceed to modify it they way they claim it was modified in 1963.

It would be a bitch of job using 2010 technology. I would like to see somebody do it using purely 1963 technology.

Maybe Mr. Fetzer or Mr. White would like to accept the challenge??

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.

You see, even YOU get it it wrong. I dont expect anyone to BELIEVE anything I put forth. I don't WANT them to BELIEVE it. I want them to prove it for themself.

Gotta love real...hard...facts....

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.

Ya all have a great time "believing"...

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.

Ya all have a great time "believing"...

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

Craig,

I'm really asking you nicely. Thanks--

Stuff it.

I really was. But not anymore.

To Greg Burnham,

You're funny (apart from being dishonest and mean).

Citing people such as Dean Hagerman (who is a nobody, and would believe anything idiotic) won't help your cause, you know.

I still claim that the majority of "big names" in the Kennedy-assassination conspiracy community rejects the Zapruder-fakery silliness.

/F.C./

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.

It seems that Landsdale was involved in a couple "change of government" operations just that Fall. I have had every reason to believe Landsdale was involved in the Kennedy murder since reading Newman's "JFK and Vietnam" in 1994. Landsdale, like Allen Dulles, do not seem like the kind of people that you piss off and live to talk about it; and JFK did just that.

From JFK: The Unspeakable, Saigon and Chicago, page 186:

On Septmember 13, 1963, Lodge sent a letter to Secretary of State Dean Rusk asking him to send longtime CIA operative Edward Landsdale to Saigon "at once to take charge, under my supervision, of all U.S. relationships with a change of government here." Lodge wanted Landsdale's expertise in "changing governments" so as to facilitate, "under my supervision," the stalled coup. For Landsdale to be effective, Lodge wrote, he "must have a staff and I therefore ask that he be put in charge of the CAS ["Controlled American Source," meaning the CIA] station in the Embassy, relieving the present incumbent, Mr. John Richardson."

Although CIA director McCone denied Lodge's request for Landsdale, Richardson, whom Lodge thought too close to Diem, was recalled to Washington, just as Lodge wished. The Ambassador then became in effect his CIA station chief in Saigon. He could now supervise directly Lucien Conein, the CIA's intermediary to the South Vietnamese generals plotting against Diem.

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:

I believe in Z-film alteration 100%

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.

Jim...I think it appropriate to mention that "Jews" care about truth in the JFK case in disproportionate numbers,

beginning with Mark Lane. Then there were Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden (heritage only), and of course

David Lifton. Others include Mae Brussell, Sylvia Meagher (???), Edward Epstein, David Scheim, Bud Fensterwald (???),

Cyril Wecht, and many others I could name but am not sure of. I include Meagher and Fensterwald because I was

once told they were Jewish in a discussion with a leading researcher as we discussed this subject.

Few know that Groden was an adoptive child and raised in a Christian family, but retained his family name,

as I understand it.

Jack

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...

The conversation with the "mechanics"/"sniper teams"/"spotters" etc - choose the fantasy term of one's choice - was so very much different. "Trust us," said the CIA, we'll ship you out of Dallas at a rate of knots, and promise to let you live unmolested for ever and a day." And they sacrificed their lives, their names, their families etc with nary a second thought, secure in the promise Langley had made them. How incredibly different such conversations must have been to those conducted with Greer.

Or perhaps not.

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.

Jim...I think it appropriate to mention that "Jews" care about truth in the JFK case in disproportionate numbers,

beginning with Mark Lane. Then there were Harold Weisberg, Robert Groden (heritage only), and of course

David Lifton. Others include Mae Brussell, Sylvia Meagher (???), Edward Epstein, David Scheim, Bud Fensterwald (???),

Cyril Wecht, and many others I could name but am not sure of. I include Meagher and Fensterwald because I was

once told they were Jewish in a discussion with a leading researcher as we discussed this subject.

Few know that Groden was an adoptive child and raised in a Christian family, but retained his family name,

as I understand it.

Jack

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 weak link...deano BELIEVES!

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--

The weak link...deano BELIEVES!

C'mon, Craig. Let's not start that crap so soon in this thread. Please. Thanks--

I bet Lamson posts next...

Sorry for not adding your name to the list, Dean, but I wasn't sure. I only added the names I was sure about...

No problem Greg

I believe in Z-film alteration 100%

Noted. I'll edit my original post to reflect that.

The test film you want already exists.

Do you know for what purpose this alleged test was conducted? Can you give me the details of the test(s) performed, the date, time of day, conditions, etc.? Also, was this test done in the pursuit of authenticating the Zapruder film or for some other reason? Are the results of "whatever was being tested for" available?

Finally, is the actual test footage available online, or elsewhere?

Thanks.