Greg Burnham
-
Posts
2,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Burnham
-
-
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...
-
I bet Lamson posts next...
-
Ok.
Consider this statement : "I believe that there was a conspiracy to kill John Kennedy, but I do not think that the Zapruder film was altered".
That statement could be uttered by whom (among well-known conspiracy advocates) ?
I think it would be interesting to see the list.
I can safely begin such a list :
1. Robert Groden
2. Josiah Thompson
3. Debra Conway
4. …
Who else ?
(Do correct me if I'm wrong.)
/F.C./
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.
-
On the other hand, who needs such as test ?
Only the fringe of the fringe of conspiracy theorists believe that the Zapruder film was altered.
100% of Warren-Commission defenders believe the film to be genuine.
Added to them, the great majority of conspiracy believers still say the Zapruder film is indeed genuine.
Only a small percentage of people on the "conspiracy side" claim that the Zapruder film was altered (you have Lifton, Fetzer, White, Livingstone, and that's pretty much all).
So it's fair to say that WE ALL AGREE THAT THE ZAPRUDER FILM IS GENUINE AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER TOPICS.
/F.C./
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--
-
Greg:
In Twyman's book he says that the CIA actually tacked on the second strike later. He got this from McNamara.
That sounds like what you are saying.
Is there anything definitive that says that is the case.
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.
-
...
The only CIA secret I am interested in seeing disclosed is with respect to AMHINT...
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.
-
Perhaps Colby is a little sensitive seeing as how he is an heir to the Oppenheimer family.
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...
-
All I can add is that Judyth's book should be out by September at the latest. If anyone who reads this is truly an objective researcher looking for the truth he or she will read for themselves what she has to say. To state that she adds nothing new without reading what she has to say and looking at the exhibits printed in the book is proof to me that the so-called researcher makes conclusions based on hearsay and innuendo. Objectivity requires open minds, which this forum lacks.
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.
-
Greg:
I missed the quotation marks.
But it was really aimed at Francois, who made all those cheap and ill founded remarks and smears.
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.
Greg:
Its not conspiracy theory if you can prove it. Its conspiracy fact.
To go through all the facts that we have proved in our cause would take about a page and a half.
Let us just use a few:
1. CE 399 was not fired at the car. It was planted after the fact.
2. CE 543 was not ejected that day.
3. What happened to the trail of fragments from the lower skull to high in the skull described by Humes in his autopsy report?
4. Where were the boxes of MC ammunition that Oswald bought?
5. Where is the copper on the Tague strike?
6. Why did so many people see a brain unlike the one Ida Dox drew and why did Stringer not recognize the film used in the photos if he took them?
7. Why does Stringer recall the brain being sectioned and Humes and Boswell do not?
8. Why did the Paines cooperate in the lie that Oswald did not have a Minox camera?
9. Why did the CIA tape sent to Dallas that night by Anne Goodpasture not match Oswald's voice?
10. Why did the CIA lie about the Man in Mexico photo being Oswald, when they not only knew it was not him but knew who the guy actually was?
These are all documented and provable to a courtroom standard. This is why almost every lawyer since the WC who has studied this case in any official capacity strongly criticizes the travesty of the commission. If you want to hear the Commission urinated on, take a listen to the likes of Richard Schweiker, Gary Cornwell, or Jeremy Gunn. Again, these are facts, not theories.
What is a theory, actually a fantasy, is the whole single bullet delusion. With a bullet that was not even the one found at Parkland. And it was found on the wrong stretcher. And Frazier got it at FBI HQ, before the guy who gave it to him, Elmer Todd, was in receipt for it at the White House. And even though Hoover says Todd's initials are on the bullet they are not.
So don't call us theorists. Because if we are, you are delusionists.
-
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.
-
So you simply don't have a clue. Fair enough.
I didn't say that "I don't have a clue" -- However, I'm not a know-it-all, either.
If he is a "genuine article" How did he so badly screw up something as simple as photogrpahic parallax? For gods sake the guy is SUPPOSED to be a phd in physics.He is a PhD in physics. I don't believe you have shown him to be in error. We disgree on that. Fine.
Clearly if he can't deal correctly with something as elemental as parallax, what else has he screwed up? Oh yea, how a SHADOW works for example. You might know something about that. Its quite claer he has spent very little time in observation of he world around him or viewing it through a lens. Not a glowing endorsement considering his utter failure ... see:www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm
www.craiglamson.com/coatella.htm
www.craiglamsom.com/costella2.htm
Why all the venom, Craig?
Then that brings us back to the monkster. You claim the above work is not revelent, you you have just admitted you don;t havehte first cluew aoubt any of this. In other words you false objections were nothing more that BS tossed out in a poor attempt to prop up someone's work you don;t even know is correct.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.
You just believe. How quaint. Sad...but quaint.I'm a man of little faith, Craig. I never "just believe" -- NEVER.
Yet one more example of a cluelessss ct clinging to ANYTHING to maintain their worldview.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?
-
My life has depended upon accuracy, Craig, many times and in many ways.
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.
-
you're whining again Craigster (boring).... can't get traction can ya there son? Science gets ya everytime!
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.
-
LOL! You mean the handwaving by Costella and based on the MPI frames which are really sub par? Tell us Mork, did Costells try this with decent scans of say the preservation or archival copies of the film?
If not just HOW can he have anything correct on this handwaving exercise? Oh yea, forgot..monk don't know, woof woof.
BTW, gotta love the fact that johnboy, when writng this "supproting evidence, had no idea that prepress in those days hada handy sharpening tool called unsharp mask. all done wiht film.
Quite the researcher that johnboy...
You are quite the sos follower monk, heck your ignorance becomes you.
Sprocket hole supporting evidence, too!
-
Hey thanks for reminding everyone about rain sensors and washers. Can oyu say wackjob? I knew that you could.
So have you found relevant yet or are you still SOS as Honore likes to say?
I get it, levity:
Oh yea, costella and this work is true sillyness. And there is a mindless horde of sheeple ct's who have not checked his works following blindly along, like MONK!
SOS for sure.
BYW, just how did YOU confirm the work done by costella? DO you even understand his parallax argument? DO you understand ANY of this at all? Are you even relevant? Nope!
you're whining again Craigster (boring).... can't get traction can ya there son? Science gets ya everytime!
COSTELLA: "I'll swear to that on a witness stand -- that those three frames did not come through Zapruder's camera, in that order, one after the other. It's impossible!"
-
Hey thanks for reminding everyone about rain sensors and washers. Can oyu say wackjob? I knew that you could.
So have you found relevant yet or are you still SOS as Honore likes to say?
I get it, levity:
Oh yea, costella and this work is true sillyness. And there is a mindless horde of sheeple ct's who have not checked his works following blindly along, like MONK!
SOS for sure.
BYW, just how did YOU confirm the work done by costella? DO you even understand his parallax argument? DO you understand ANY of this at all? Are you even relevant? Nope!
Some of the best "supporting" evidence has to do with impossible "sharpness" --
-
Hey thanks for reminding everyone about rain sensors and washers. Can oyu say wackjob? I knew that you could.
So have you found relevant yet or are you still SOS as Honore likes to say?
I get it, levity:
History Lost: Test of Zapruder fakery doomed
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.