Greg Burnham

Your thread, your question, your ignorance... So can you refute the work or are you just hot air? Yes, it is my thread, my game, my question, and no legitimate answer has come from you. However, you are not required to answer my question. You are also not required to embarrass yourself any further. The links you provided are rife with irrelevance. I admitted my error regarding shadows on the moon. To err is human--to admit it shows integrity. To deny it, even in the face of irrefutable MATHEMATICAL certainty, demonstrates cognitive challenge beyond your scope, dis-honesty, or vanity.

Can you hear: STFU? I knew you could!

John, I'm serious here. Please--before you reply--consider the "possibility" that the climate change "science" is not as "locked down" as we've been led to believe. Again, I'm not asking you to agree with me! Not at all. --I'm just asking you to consider the possibility that it is still un-settled. If you can do that and then conduct "dispassionate" research (from a "clean slate" mentality) I will be in your debt. Here's why: It's easy to find folks that adamantly disagree with me from the "other side" -- and -- it's easy to find those who agree with me from this side... It is much harder to find someone (from an opposing view) who is intelligent enough to "suspend judgement" in order to "consider" the opposing position. I need that. It helps me to, at the very least, refine my own position. Sometimes their findings will cause me to REVERSE my position. Originally, I bought into the whole Man Made Global Warming idea. I changed my position because I found compelling evidence that, IMHO, impeached it. In other words, I was wrong, originally. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last.

Thanks Jim. I know we have had our differences in the past--Farewell America--but we also share a passion for the truth. For this quality alone--I'm glad to know you.

Right. There isn't any abnormal climate change. The only climate change is consistent with that which has been going on since the planet came into existence. Causes include: 1) THE SUN 2) THE OCEANS 3) UNPREDICTABLE FACTORS for which human activity is not responsible since similar factors have always existed.

Save the Earth? Huh? Save the Earth?? Are you serious? The Earth is what we come from and does not need us to "save" it! It would be like my father feeling threatened by me when I was 2 years old! OMG! The earth is fine. Humans are unfortunately self important enough to imagine tht they can be so powerful. It's like the kid in "A Christmas Story" who thought (imagined): "Then they'll be sorry..." Oh yeah, and about Bolivian logic... Sundance: What's your idea this time? Butch: Bolivia. Sundance: What's Bolivia? Butch: Bolivia. That's a country, stupid! In Central or South America, one or the other. Sundance: Why don't we just go to Mexico instead? Butch: 'Cause all they got in Mexico is sweat and there's too much of that here. Look, if we'd been in business during the California Gold Rush, where would we have gone? California - right? Sundance: Right. Butch: So when I say Bolivia, you just think California. You wouldn't believe what they're finding in the ground down there. They're just fallin' into it. Silver mines, gold mines, tin mines, payrolls so heavy we'd strain ourselves stealin' 'em. Sundance:(chuckling) You just keep thinkin', Butch. That's what you're good at. Butch: Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals.

Lee, There are endless anomalies (to put it mildly) associated with the "so-called" Zapruder film. I call it the "Happy Zappy (should be rated X (for violence)-- Cartoon" (because it's a FAKE). There is no question remaining as to its utter lack of authenticity. IT IS A CARTOON--at best...a violent depiction of an American coup animated to protect the guilty, obfuscate the facts, and forever undermine the Executive Branch of the US government. NOT ON MY WATCH.

JFK Interview ostensibly addresses "Lone Nuts" and the "son" of one, Craig Lamb. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txIismezLAo&feature=player_embedded

Then I suppose you do have a very clear understanding. A word to the wise. You call people names with whom you disagree; you even attack those who are friends of those with whom you disagree. There are plenty of topics that Jack and I have found ourselves at odds. However, one of the reasons that I call him "friend" is because he has treated me with respect even when we disagree--sometimes BECAUSE we disagree. Sheesh, why am I even talking to you...

The last comment in the link that Lampson provided above says: "By the way, you don’t have to take my word on this, like Costella, Fetzer and company, who simply hand wave, and expect you to believe their claims. I urge you to do your own tests and reach your own conclusions. That’s the wonder of empirical testing, it can be repeated." ROFLMFAO If you're so dedicated to "empiricism" then why don't you go to Dealey Plaza and do it with a Bell & Howell camera? Ok, you're right, there's no Stemmon's sign there anymore. So, why not do it with any sign of your choosing as long as you use a Bell & Howell Director's Model like Zappy's and at the very least attempt to replicate the conditions? Your exercise is not representative of anything relevant to the subject being debated. Certainly, you did manage to prove "something" -- but what the hell has it got to do with what we are talking about?

Evan, Before I check out Jack's claims, I have to find time to check out my own! I have done some preliminary checking, but the conditions weren't adequate to make a final call. Stand-by... It's been 12 days, are we to beileve that there has not been a sunny day in San Diego since the 11th? Well, there certainly have been many sunny days here, Craig! Thanks for noting our fine city's most notably popular feature. However, I've been in Australia for the past two weeks visiting my daughter, her husband, and my brand new granddaughter. I literally flew back to the States this morning. Sorry, but this topic just wasn't at the top of my list of priorities. Now, having said all that, I concede my error. However, please understand that it was my error, not Jack's. I wasn't agreeing with, nor was I defending, something he asserted. I made a legitimate observation, but drew an erroneous conclusion. I spent a couple of days with John Costella while I was down there, too. He quite easily showed me my error. Amazing Burnham can't count any better than he can see shadows. 34 days now equals two weeks. So now that you have a better understanding of how shadows work. perhaps you can offer your conclusion of Jacks works that starts this thread. Unless you want to highjack it again in another failed attempt to deflect from Jacks utter failure. And I would check Costella's work. He has a nasty habit of screwing up the simplest things. Listen carefully. I am attempting to be cordial. I am hopeful that debate with those with whom I disagree will render enhanced knowledge for both sides. However, am I to understand that you could be such a poor judge of character that you might mistake me for someone who would continue to engage with a person whose goal appears to be to publically display their attraction to mental self abuse to the exclusion of all else?

Over the past few weeks I was in Australia visiting my daughter and granddaughter in Brisbane. Then I flew to Melbourne for about 5 days and visited with John Costella for part of that time. I'll leave the details out, but I seemed to recall that Craig has yet to offer any explanation for why the Stemmons Sign lacks pincushion distortion as seen in the Zapruder Film--when it MUST--if it is authentic? "Parallax" can't account for the obvious rotation (change in angle) of the sign post nor that of the edge of the right side of the sign--particularly when no such effect is present along the top edge of the sign. It took me a few weeks to answer your question, Craig (about parallel shadows on the moon). How many years has it been since these questions about the Stemmons Sign were first posed to you? To refresh your memory...here's a short YouTube that addresses the issue. The part that is most relevant to this topic starts at approximately the 6 minute point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_KFnmPtsDw&feature=related

Evan, Before I check out Jack's claims, I have to find time to check out my own! I have done some preliminary checking, but the conditions weren't adequate to make a final call. Stand-by... It's been 12 days, are we to beileve that there has not been a sunny day in San Diego since the 11th? Well, there certainly have been many sunny days here, Craig! Thanks for noting our fine city's most notably popular feature. However, I've been in Australia for the past two weeks visiting my daughter, her husband, and my brand new granddaughter. I literally flew back to the States this morning. Sorry, but this topic just wasn't at the top of my list of priorities. Now, having said all that, I concede my error. However, please understand that it was my error, not Jack's. I wasn't agreeing with, nor was I defending, something he asserted. I made a legitimate observation, but drew an erroneous conclusion. I spent a couple of days with John Costella while I was down there, too. He quite easily showed me my error.

Me too...

Indeed...

ROTFLMFAO.... Perhaps the 6th Floor Museum is seeding the project! Maybe they'll add a "dungeon level" in the basement where Robert Groden will be incarcerated in the future, too!

Thanks Mike. However, I still think this matters a lot too. It's never ceased to amaze me that LNers spend their time arguing this though. Right? I mean, what for? I know why I do it. I do it because the "record needs to be set straight". -- But why do those who think the record is already set straight continue to argue it? It would be like folks arguing that "gravity exists" with people who think it doesn't. I can see why those who disbelieve in gravity would spend their time arguing their point. But since I believe gravity is real and the idea of it isn't disinformation --I know I would never waste my time arguing with those who disbelieve in it because the text books and "science" is already supporting it and the "record is straight" on it. Because the record need to remain straight. Well, I have to admit that, assuming you are being sincere, the reason why you do what you do is one I can respect--even if your conclusion is one with which I disagree. When I debated McAdams and posed the same question to him, his answer was [paraphrased]: "I like to debunk nonsense". That's like saying "I like to beg the question." The record is straight. And Bugliosi, DVP, Ken Rhan, McAdams, Mike Williams and the other 20 percenters are only fooling themselves. Bill Kelly Good point, Bill. The problem for me is the record is still "crooked" in the text books from which our children (and grandchildren will) learn history...among other things.

Thanks Mike. However, I still think this matters a lot too. It's never ceased to amaze me that LNers spend their time arguing this though. Right? I mean, what for? I know why I do it. I do it because the "record needs to be set straight". -- But why do those who think the record is already set straight continue to argue it? It would be like folks arguing that "gravity exists" with people who think it doesn't. I can see why those who disbelieve in gravity would spend their time arguing their point. But since I believe gravity is real and the idea of it isn't disinformation --I know I would never waste my time arguing with those who disbelieve in it because the text books and "science" is already supporting it and the "record is straight" on it. Because the record need to remain straight. Well, I have to admit that, assuming you are being sincere, the reason why you do what you do is one I can respect--even if your conclusion is one with which I disagree. When I debated McAdams and posed the same question to him, his answer was [paraphrased]: "I like to debunk nonsense". That's like saying "I like to beg the question."

Thanks Mike. However, I still think this matters a lot too. It's never ceased to amaze me that LNers spend their time arguing this though. Right? I mean, what for? I know why I do it. I do it because the "record needs to be set straight". -- But why do those who think the record is already set straight continue to argue it? It would be like folks arguing that "gravity exists" with people who think it doesn't. I can see why those who disbelieve in gravity would spend their time arguing their point. But since I believe gravity is real and the idea of it isn't disinformation --I know I would never waste my time arguing with those who disbelieve in it because the text books and "science" is already supporting it and the "record is straight" on it.

I hear you, Lee. Loud and clear. I took a rather long break myself after the episode of TMWKK, in which I had particpated, was censored. I got married and decided to spend my time differently than I had been. My daughter just gave birth to my first grandchild a few weeks ago. I live in San Diego and they live in Australia. So, we're going there to visit next week. If they lived closer, I might have decided to "give all this up again" --but as it is I'll still hang around. I'm going to visit with John Costella while we're down there, too. Take care-- If there's anyone who comes across this site by accident Greg, University students, high school students, people who have just become interested in the case then I want them to know that there is EVERY REASON to question EVERY ASPECT of this case and not to fall for any of the mind-games and dogmatic rhetoric that is printed on this forum by proponents and supporters of the Warren Commission. I guess that's why I keep coming back although I do sit and think that I could be spending this valuable time with my beautiful daughters. I am thinking of putting it all to bed to be honest Greg. I believe I need a rest from it all. There was a person, I forget his name, who once said "How convenient it is for leaders that the people they lead do not think."

Geez Mike, I wonder why they still use similar tests to this day? Sorry, that's not responsive. They conducted the tests. They conducted them for a reason. The likes of McAdams and those of his ilk would have us believe that the test was not reliable. Why? Because the test result was exculpatory. If he had nitrates ONLY on his cheek, but not on his hands, they would have explained it this way: "After firing the rifle, he obviously washed his hands, but not his face." However, since the opposite is the case (none on his cheek, but lots on his hands), that evidence is exculpatory and therefore, it must be discredited...even if doing so is counter-intuitive.

Ummm. I think you might be confused, Mike. Oswald had NO nitrates on his cheek. NONE at all. Yet, he did have nitrates on his hands. What does this mean? Well, it's quite simple. He could have easily picked up nitrates on his hands from handling the boxes and other materials in the TSBD building as a NORMAL function of his work. Yet, we know that if he fired a rifle that day he would NECESSARILY have had to acquire a nitrate splash pattern on his right cheek at the very least (and possibly beyond). This is not conjecture but well established fact. That's what happens when a person fires a rifle. I know because I've done it and so do you. The problem is this: He had no nitrates on his cheeks--none at all! I guess he could have washed them off? If he did how could he still have nitrates on his hands then? Read the FBI and DPD reports for yourself. That's what they say. None on his face, but lots on his hands. What do you think happened? Maybe he washed his face with his feet?

C'mon Lee! Don't you get it yet? JFK was assassinated by accident! It was all a big mistake. Oswald, acting alone, was attempting to kill James Tague and Jackie Kennedy. He missed them both. Well, not quite, he wounded Tague with peripheral shrapnel from the curb. And, even though he didn't kill Jackie (as he planned), at least he made her suffer by killing her husband. That should teach her... You, my friend, have a lot more patience with this foolishness than I.

I thought this was gonna be a real "pit bull fight" and then all of a sudden: detente? WTF?