Greg Burnham

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

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.

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.

I just think that testing the actual camera alleged to have made the film is worthwhile--for BOTH sides. After December of this year NO SUCH TEST will be possible because the film will no longer be able to be processed anywhere. It just seems so negligent and/or short-sighted, at best, for the ARRB to have had the opportunity to perform such a test and yet choose not to pursue it.

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

I bet Lamson posts next...

That's a non sequitur ("it does not follow" in Latin). Your argument's implied conclusion does not follow from its premises. In your original post, you falsely (mistakenly) claimed that the list of Zapruder Film skeptics was extremely limited (Lifton, Fetzer, White, Livingstone). I have added the names of many well known researchers to that list. You were wrong. You reported false information when you claimed that: "So it's fair to say that WE ALL AGREE THAT THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS GENUINE AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER TOPICS." That statement is false as evidenced by the additional names posted. It is of no consequence (other than self incrimination) for you to post a list of Zappy apologists since that does not change the fact that you originally posted disinformation.

We do not agree. The list is much longer than you propose. Add the following names for starters: Rich DellaRosa Greg Burnham Scott Myers Milicent Cranor John Costella Phil Guiliano Rick Janowitz Doug Horne J Harrison Noel Twyman Robert Morningstar Tom Wilson David Healy Rod Ryan David Mantik Richard Martin William Reymond Dean Hagerman ...to name but a few.

As Doug Horne notes in Volume IV of Inside the ARRB, the fact that the ARRB failed to test the actual Bell & Howell camera alleged to have been used by Abraham Zapruder on November 22, 1963, is inexcusable. In 2006, Kodak announced that it will no longer process color Kodachrome film beyond December of 2010. Kodak still owns exclusivity to that process and it is not "for sale" nor is it something that can be reverse engineered (even if legal). So, unless the actual camera can be used in Dealey Plaza this November (highly unlikely/impossible) and the film processed at literally the last remaining facility capable of doing it, there will never be another opportunity to definitively establish certain "camera specific" features that remain in question. Although Ektachrome will still be available it will never be accepted by either side of the debate, as it's not the same, even if the camera was ever tested using it (highly unlikely). A pity.

And now a word of wisdom--

No, there isn't...as far as I know. I spoke with Noel extensively about his conversations with McNamara. Prouty's account is only slightly different, but probably more accurate, IMO. The only officially planned air strike was the initial pre-dawn B-29 run that should have preceded the landing of the brigade. That was all. However, Burke (and probably others on the JCS as well as CIA) knew the plan was doomed to fail without US intervention because of it not being sufficiently over powering. There were way too many "ifs" involved. For instance, they hoped (and actually planned) for a provisional government to be declared shortly after securing the beach and an air strip. Why? So that the US could recognize this provisional government and send in massive support of it, without clearly violating international law. It would be a grey area. IMO, this should have been a huge red flag for JFK. However, he had only been in office for a few months and he didn't realize the depth of their (CIA) treachery.

AMHINT 5; AMHINT 53; or AMHINT 56? Lee, are you saying that these are the most important to your research into the CIA's link to the assassination? Do you think that JFK was murdered by resentful anti-Castro Cuban exiles? If these are the only "CIA secrets" in which you have an interest, well, I guess I'll keep the rest to myself! LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkGzhsm3Exo&feature=related This is an interesting quote and discussion. I am not Jewish, but many of my closest friends are. MLK's statement should be taken within context, IMO. For instance, my Jewish friends don't approve of Zionist alarmism nor extreme or radical rhetoric. However, they fully support Israel. But they don't consider themselves Zionists. I think MLK is correct in this statement...generally speaking. However, it needs to be judged on a case by case basis.

Moreover Jim, ALL of those involved in the operation were fully aware that JFK had unequivocally made it clear that there would be NO DIRECT US MILITARY PERSONNEL OR EQUIPMENT utilized for the operation; that the operation had to succeed on its own strength without US intervention; and that it should be abandoned BEFORE launch if it could not succeed under those rules of engagement. Anything beyond the level of the US maintaining "plausible deniablility" was clearly NOT in the plan--indeed it was PROHIBITED by NSC Directive 54/12. I have documents from approximately one week prior to D-day. In them, Colonel Jack Hawkins (who was inspecting the operational details at the Puerta Cabezas Nicaragua CIA base / rebel head quarters) replied to Washington that [paraphrased]: "We all are aware that the President has ordered NO US MILITARY support for this operation and that if its outcome is uncertain, it should be abandoned" -- He goes on to reassure Washington that the Brigade is well trained, fully prepared, and ready to engage under those conditions. These documents are completely unequivocal--there never was ANY second or third air strike contingency plan--NOT EVER! The first wave of bombers (retired US Aircraft, repainted and outfitted by Colonel Prouty's team) were supposed to have eliminated Castro's remaining "air force" which consisted of only a handful of T-33 Trainers while the T-33's were still on the ground. This had to happen BEFORE the brigade landed on the beach or else the plan would fail. These so-called trainers were "jet" aircraft all the same and quite maneuverable beyond the capability of the B-29 bombers. The bombers carried no bombs, but instead Prouty had EIGHT cannons (50 caliber) placed in their noses, etc.--designed to strafe Castro's runways and eliminate the remaining Castro aircraft. JFK's last standing order the night before the invasion was: If the T-33's are not taken out--the mission is to be aborted. McGeorge Bundy called Ramon Barquin in Peurta Cabezas and told him to delay the air strike until AFTER the brigade landed on the beach. This was NOT a JFK order! It was because Adlai Stevenson had been embarassed previously...but that's another story. However, that "delay order" allowed Castro's air force to get airborne before the B-29's arrived. Once alerted that the anti-Castro Cuban Brigade had landed at the Bay of Pigs they were prepared and they easily downed all of the B-29's upon their arrival, as the element of surprise had been lost. Additionally, they sank the supply ships, strafed the Brigade on the beach, and it was a fiasco. We now know that Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, USN Chief of Naval Operations ordered the aircraft carrier USS Essex to a support position within range of Cuba during the operation and that this was PLANNED prior to the launch of the invasion due to the belief that this "new, young President will cave into the pressure..." and order us to launch air support (as long as we have it available). This is particularly revealing as to the audacity of the US military during that period since the President had specifically ordered that NO US NAVAL vessels be in the vicinity.

There is a channel on our local cable television provider (COX Communications) called The Military Channel. It has various programs; most are about the military, but many focus on the US Intelligence apparatus... and wet, operations. Today, the title was: CIA Secrets. Unfortunately, they got it all wrong. No big surprise that...but disappointing all the same. Well, perhaps I over-stated their poor performance. They didn't get it all wrong. They only blundered on the most controversial parts that would tend to further clarify the true history if reported accurately or obfuscate it if reported inaccurately. In previous decades it was annoying when the facts were mis-reported and the politics misrepresented. The nefarious intent behind such was somewhat camouflaged since the actual clarifying documents had yet to be declassified. But the documents are available. Today there is no innocuous excuse for such mis-reporting. It is either serious negligence on the part of the producers (unlikely), or it is deliberate promotion of false history. If the latter, the producers could be under pressure to comply or completely out of control of their own program. I suppose they just might not care... One of the false statements made in this program has been repeated ad nauseum for nearly 50 years. They said [paraphrased]: "...but not all of Castro's air force had been destroyed prior to D-day. The Bay of Pigs invasion failed because President John F Kennedy refused to provide Brigade 2506 with the promised second and third air strikes..." There were several other examples of revisionist "CIA self-protection" history contained therein. That one just happens to be the most obviously flawed and whose deception is easiest to demonstrate.

I just purchased a Model 414 PD Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera...the same one allegedly used by Zappy. I will conduct my own tests using that camera. My tests will not be conducted immediately for several reasons. However, I will report the results here if and when they are completed.

Last week it was discovered that someone who was impersonating him [presumtive] claimed to be a CIA agent paid to disrupt conspiracy research forums. Now, as it turns out, that ws false. Instead, he's getting "royalties" on nukes? Go figure...

If what she wrote in this new book: 1) contains significantly "new information" --beyond that which she has previously reported AND 2) is clearly relevant to the assassination of JFK (not merely about an extra-marital affair with the accused) AND 3) is verifiable and/or has credible corroberation of the claims ...then it should gain some "traction" within the research community and beyond. If any of the above are absent, it won't, IMO.

Whew! Had me worried there for a minute, Jim. I've never been confused with one of them before--not EVER.

You're preaching to the choir here, Jim! Note that I placed "conspiracy theorists" and "theorists" in quotation marks. Those aren't MY terms--they're the terms of those who tow the party line, maintain the status quo, refuse to rock a ship (even if it's sailing off course), and otherwise mislead the uninformed.

I find it interesting that most of those who vilify “conspiracy theorists” do so by first constructing a straw man argument. For instance, by definition a conspiracy involves more than one person. That’s it. It does not necessarily involve 3 nor 3,000 participants. It only requires more than one. Given that fact, in the case of JFK’s murder, it is in the interest of the guilty parties and in the interest of any party with something to gain from a cover-up, to inappropriately cast the word “conspiracy” in a light that obfuscates its true meaning and cast “theorists” into a category which limits their ranks to those who subscribe to a belief in a massive plot that encompasses not only the individual theorist’s pet scenario, but perhaps even includes every other theory ever postulated by anyone, anywhere, at anytime… It is interesting, albeit tragic, to see the agency’s signature in what I like to call: domestic perception programs. Long before the revelation of the violations of law that are contained in the recently released CIA Family Jewels, we have the agency’s own prescription on “how to” discredit critics of the Warren Report. If you recall, the majority of the recommendations were designed as methods of debunking dissenting arguments without any regard for the validity of the argument being debunked nor the veracity of the facts being offered in rebuttal. Unfortunately, there are times when individuals pick up on those same tactics; individuals who probably have no super sinister interest in further obstructing justice…they just have a micro-management issue with their own personal paranoia; a fear that they may not be living in a world within their neat little vision after all. A pity.

I didn't say that "I don't have a clue" -- However, I'm not a know-it-all, either. He is a PhD in physics. I don't believe you have shown him to be in error. We disgree on that. Fine. Why all the venom, Craig? IMO, your work does not address John's study adequately, and is therefore, irrelevant. That is my opinion. Although I am not an "expert" I'm not stupid and I have an opinion. I did not "admit" anything. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm a man of little faith, Craig. I never "just believe" -- NEVER. I haven't needed to resort to personal attacks or calling you a "clueless LN" to make my point. Why must you resort to personal attacks--calling me a clueless CT--to make your's if your point is, in fact, so strong?

Good for you. Now why don't you answer the question.....How have you checked the accuracy of costella's claims Yes. I am satisfied as to the accuracy of the majority of his claims. I am not qualified to render a judgment as to the science of some of it. However, I am convinced that he is completely qualified and he is the "genuine" article.

What science would that be davie? Heck you and yours still can't figure out how parallax works? Now thats science biting you on the azz davie. Traction? You guys and your physics professor who can't even figure out parallax? You got no traction. All you have is wannabe woof woofs posting stuff they don't have a clue about and could not check for accuracy if thier life depended upon it. My life has depended upon accuracy, Craig, many times and in many ways. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqq_YZHqE-Q&feature=related

Sprocket hole supporting evidence, too! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3NIGRUGZXA&feature=related