Greg Burnham

[snip]

He misinterprets anything that comes close to him.

Josiah Thompson

Ok, Tink--now "we're into it" -- you and me...again. It's been a long time. "Tally ho, here we go--I'm in!"

To whom exactly are you referring in your post? Jim or Noel? Don't you think that the term "anything" is fallacious by definition in this context?

One of the most maddening features of trying to discuss anything with Professor Fetzer is his unvarying posture of never admitting he is wrong about anything. Over the course of the last few years he has been proved wrong again and again but refuses to admit it. Years ago, he began saying that two not three cartridge cases were found on the 6th Floor near the sniper’s nest. This claim was contradicted by numerous statements from law enforcement and non-law enforcement personnel. It was also contradicted by crime scene photos and the sworn testimony of numerous DPD personnel. Fetzer based his claim on several pages of a book published by a friend of his named Noel Twyman. The book was called Bloody Treason and, if memory serves, was self-published. Years ago, when the book first came out, Twyman’s argument was examined and found to be vacuous; he simply misinterpreted the documents and photos he presented as backing his claim. Fetzer knew of all this because he was part of the discussion.

Tink,

Noel Twyman is also my friend. For the record, I confronted him with this dispute years ago and advanced (as devil's advocate) the theories that you and others expressed. Noel stood by his original conclusions and was unwavering in his conviction. His position is unequivocal and firmly based not just on the photographic interpretation, but on witness interviews that he conducted. I haven't communicated with him in a while, but I would be very surprised if he changed his position. Noel is known for his attention to detail--and has voluntarily corrected errors and omissions without being requested to do so. It is the nature of his personality. He has nothing to prove and no image of himself to which he must cling.

But alas, we post erroneously to a thread about Judyth Vary Baker.

Re-direct: JVB states the following:

Anna Lewis was not the only witness to verify that Baker and Oswald were intimate friends. William "Mac" McCullough is acknowledged to have been in New Orleans and working as a musician (and later, in other ways) for Carlos Marcello-owned restaurants and lounges. He is on audiotape as having seen Baker and Oswald together, but is consistently ignored. He decided to go on record despite warning Baker against speaking out at all because he had a heart condition.

Burnham on Re-Cross asks:

You say that "Mac is acknowledged" to have been...etc. Question: Who has acknowledged that "Mac" worked as a musician for Marcello? What does "is acknowledged to have been in New Orleans, etc." --mean?? I might be behind here, but is the audio tape available in which he says he saw them together? I'm confused, he warned Baker that she should not speak out because he had a heart condition?

Also ignored is the Charles Thomas family that has verified that their father/grandfather/uncle worked in clandestine matters and was engaged in activities that Baker described to them, proving she had been with Oswald and Thomas in New Orleans.

This is obviously an example of "begging the question" -- PLEASE! C'mon, now. First, are the "slashes / " used above indicative of their lack of certainty as to who in their family was involved in "clandestine matters", such as, it might have been our "father OR grandfather OR uncle"? Or do they mean all of them were involved in clandestine activities? Or probably it means that this individual who workded in clandestine activities was the grandfather to some, father to others, and uncle to others--or something like that. If I assume that it is the latter, is there any reason beyond pure "faith" that I should take their word for it? How do I or we know that this family's "father, grandfather, and uncle" was involved in "secret" (clandestine) matters? Even if we established a high probability that this family is telling the truth, where's the proof...after all, it was SECRET? Without substantiation, it is fallacious to conclude that their statement constitutes PROOF that JVB was with Oswald and whoever in New Orleans. It "might" be true, but it hasn't been proved.

Baker presented the family with irrefutable proof of having known Charles Thomas. The family lives in a private, hard-to-find location in Louisiana. Charles Thomas' granddaughter assisted Dr. John DeLane Williams in obtaining data on New Orleans for his statistical analysis of Baker and Oswald's activities.

Has the "irrefutable proof" presented by Baker to the family of Thomas been made available to researchers for analysis? Is the "statistical analysis" by Dr John DeLane Williams regarding Baker and Oswald's activities [inappropriately presumed] available for researchers to scrutinize? (begging the question again!)

The particulars Baker described were unique regarding Charles Thomas: his work in the 1950's as the Customs agent at the US-Canadian border in Buffalo, New York, at the time Oswald crossed the border there, his moving to Miami and working with Cubans and anti-Castro factions and with the Mafia there, his secrets of which he had been proud, the tattoos on his fingers, his German accent and silvery hair, and, of particular importance, his marriage to a Chitimacha native American Indian, and the fact that Thomas used the name "Arthur Young" in New Orleans --with which information Baker was eventually able to locate the Thomas family.

I might just be way behind on all of this information, so please forgive me if that's the case...but--even if Thomas worked at the border crossing during that time: 1) has that been proved? 2) so what if he did? 3) I can't keep up with all of this! IOW: Am I expected to assume the veracity of every premise upon which these arguments are or will be built? Will the consequent conclusions postulated also be built upon unsupported assertions?

What I'm saying is simple: I concede that IF the "premises" are true, then the case in favor of Judyth is formidable. The problem is that THE PREMISES THEMSELVES have not been substantiated! Now, I am not stupid. I understand that even so, she may be telling the truth. However, this is a real problem as far as PERSUADING anyone else!

Thus, there are two living witnesses and the attestations of the Charles Thomas family supporting the fact of Baker's having known Oswald.

Well counselor, the burden of proof is on Judyth, as you invited. Has she met it?

Mike,

Just for the record, I agree that Jim has also crossed the line, IMO. In fact, Jim admitted that himself when he recommended that the irrelevant posts be removed, including his own.

I have been friends with both Jim and Jack for over a decade. So watching them bicker is kinda yucky. But, Jim drew first personal blood with Jack, too, IMO. And it was not appropriate. However, Jim reacted to what he perceived as a personal attack on Judyth -- with his own personal attack on Jack. Unfortunately, that really is what happened and how the nastiness began. Perhaps all "personal" attacks, even of folks not currently posting themselves (JVB) should have been stopped before the temperature rose to its current level.

As it is, we seem to have a "pile on" effect, where those, like you, who even admit to only having a very narrow field of expertise (ballistics, that does NOT include sufficient knowledge about JVB) are weighing in to the discussion and doing so with considerable force. So, while I agree that both sides have crossed the line, one should not expect that a person will remain non-defensive when a mob is attempting to back them into a corner.

Moreover, I think the only reason you injected yourself into this thread is because you have a bone to pick with Jim on another topic relating to ballistics, which is why this thread has been steered away from JVB and re-directed to ballistics. IOW: Hijacked.

I think it is unreasonable for anyone to think that thread topics won't drift sometimes, but there is a difference between drifting and steering.

Of course, if you cant explain it and make if fit your theory, simply call it faked and let the conjecture parade begin. What amazes me the most about 47 years of research, and there seems to be multitudes of people that have no idea what an entry wound could look like.

There is no evidence what so ever of a shot from the front.

I have to ask Jim, do you do ANY research of your own, or is all your work just based on the parroting of others?

I extend to you an open offer to debate the ballistics in this case any time you wish.

I have a feeling you will not accept the offer, I assure you the outcome would make you look as ridiculous as you did on the O'Reilly show.

Mike

Perhaps Jim will invite both of us on his radio show to debate...each other. However, the topic will need to be expanded beyond mere ballistics, which is only one aspect of this case. Are you up to it?

.....It seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who are claiming she is a fraud (guilty of prevarication).

Greg, have you read her book Lee Harvey Oswald?

No Mike, I haven't. I don't know if you recall (since it got buried in the enormity of the other thread), but I stopped researching her story completely about a year after I interviewed her. I concluded, based upon that interview, that:

1) I personally found her believable (although granted parts of her story were a strain, she herself was credible);

2) I couldn't find any motive for her to "make it all up" -- NONE -- and I still can't;

3) I had not the time, nor the interest, nor the funds, nor the necessary resources to pursue the details contained in 40 year old memories about an extra-marital affair concerning an individual that did NOT kill JFK--as told by someone who was 19 years old at the time who knew him nearly 40 years previous;

So, I haven't read or bought any books about her story. The main reason I haven't is because even if I assume everything she has said to date is 100% true, it bears only in the most minimal way upon the JFK assassination. For those who already know that LHO did not act alone (or perhaps did not act at all) it has NO value. We already find him to be "humanized" without her story. And for those who believe he is the lone nut--NOTHING will ever convince them that he isn't. --NOTHING WILL-- It is already OBVIOUS to those who aren't disingenuous. Those who deny the obvious will not be persuaded by the obscure...

Contemporaneous newspaper reports as well as mortician Paul Groody said that the

FBI took the fingerprints in the mortuary...NOT THE DPD. The mortuary was in Fort

Worth, out of the DPD jurisdiction.

Jack

Paul Groody told me the same thing when I interviewed him before my appearance on "Infamous Gravesites" a documentary featuring the "Exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald/The Norton Report".

Thanks Dean--and good luck!

Dean,

Although I commend you for attempting to resolve the issues, I think that the "form" of your mock trial is counter-intuitive to our system of jurisprudence and hence inadequate to the task. Here's the reason why: a "defendant" is not required to prove their innocence; not required to prove they are NOT guilty; not even required to "take the stand" in their own defense. Moreover, such refusal to take the stand is NOT to be considered by a jury as indicative of guilt.

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who are claiming she is a fraud (guilty of prevarication).

So far, I am not personally convinced either way. But, by my way of thinking, if faced with "having to choose" definitively one way or another--in the absence of additional evidence--I would choose to believe her. However, I'm not faced with having to make any choice at all. So I don't.

I understand why those who believe her would continue to fight for this information to get widely known...for if true, some of it is important (just not the marginally related to JFK part). But, I fail to understand why those who don't believe her make such a point of loudly declaring her story to be either outright false or too confabulated beyond their concept of reality to even partially accept.

At this stage, IMO, we'd have a mis-trial. Remember, she is "innocent of being untruthful" unless and until she is proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's why I think this "form" is inadequate to the task. Judyth is the one making the positive assertion. Her detractors are accusing her of being guilty of prevarication. She shouldn't be attempting to prove a negative i.e., "I'm not lying" -- Yet that's what she is forced to do in this model.

GO_SECURE

monk

JVB DEBATE IN A "TRIAL" FORM

I have decided to take the comments I am getting on this thread and put it into a new form. We could assign JVB the "plaintiff" status and say that her case is that she is telling the truth about her time in New Orleans in 1963. Her specific assertions and evidence offered for each can be shown, as can "cross-examination" or counter-arguments offered by critics. This is a work in progress and, of course, is subject to my own bias as to what is relevant or debatable evidence.

(1) JVB went to New Orleans during the time Lee Harvey Oswald is known to have been there.

Evidence: the work time card mentioned on the main thread and shown on previously named web sites.

Cross-examination: None

(2) JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald.

Evidence: Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

Cross-examination: Stephen says it would help to know more about what, if anything, anyone encouraged Anna to say before she talked on the video. She should also clarify why she gave a different story to Garrison than her husband regarding how she knew LHO, which may or may not be a problem. Barb states that she is trying to confirm a comment made Debra Conway as to whether Anna Lewis originally recalled JVB. Barb also claims that JVB sent around a "transcript" of an interview with one witness to another witness.

(3) JVB and Lee Harvey Oswald had an affair.

Evidence: Comments made by Anna Lewis on this topic on the same video.

Cross-examination: See above. Jack adds that he believes several agencies and other parties watched LHO very closely in New Orleans and that none of the agencies has produced any report mentioning JVB.

(4) JVB worked on a lab on a project to collect cancer cells to use to kill Fidel Castro.

Evidence: Newspaper clippings posted show her interest in work in a science-related field and her excellence as science student.

Cross-examination: See above.

Evidence rule: Independent corroborating evidence is best. Jack says it is a second source with no stake in the matter (paraphrase). Further questioning made it clear that he believes pecuniary interest rules out witness; I say it should be a factor for finder-of-fact to consider.

Where it goes next: Members are free to respond with ideas on evidence. Remember we are now only working on JVB's assertions (I will get to other possible evidence later). I need any evidence that works for or against any of these assertions (#1-#4). You do not have to prove it but you must give reason to believe what you are suggesting.

Complaints, rhetorical questions and other distractions will be ignored.

Greg,

This is very difficult to answer. It would depend on the conditions it was stored in. In an ideal environment it could be reliable for decades. In less than ideal conditions, it could be as small as a year or two. In wet conditions, less than a week.

Its really hard to determine as each presents its own case.

I recently read an article from a man who purchased some MC ammo from the 30's. Out of 200 rounds he had one misfire. I think that is crazy luck, but it proves the point you just never know.

Mike

Agreed. However, here's why I asked. As far as I'm personally concerned--I would not use ammo that I hadn't stored myself or ammo that I didn't know "who or how" it had been stored. This would apply even more if the weapon make and model I chose (for a very important "assignment"--as opposed to target practice) had itself not been produced for nearly 20 years prior to my using it [Mannlicher Carcanos retired from Italian Army circa 1940 and all production was discontinued by 1945]. As I think you will agree, delitirious effects on elements of precision, as they negatively impact accuracy, tend to be cumulative and also tend to compound each other even further if more than one are present. So, the age and condition of the weapon are factors, as is the age and condition of the ammunition. The healthy physical appearance judged by the naked eye is not necessarily indicative of a reliable weapon or ammunition.

Since you tend to believe that LHO was the lone shooter, he apparently was capable of being quite thorough in his execution of his task and quite composed in the aftermath. 1) He pulled it off -- that alone is huge. (Not so much for the marksmanship, perhaps, as for the audacity and coolness under extreme pressure). 2) He escaped immediate death! No one returned fire let alone killed him on the spot in defense of the POTUS). 3) His escape from the immediate crime scene worked quite well--escape route was effective. 4) Upon arrest and interrogation he was calm and cool (after initial altercation) and never admitted guilt. And there's more, but I'll stop with that much for another reason...

It seems inconsistent to me that he would choose an MC for the job? Doesn't seem to jibe with his level of competence (which was quite high). He employed a weapon that was about 18-23 years old--now, he could have completely refurbished and/or cleaned it up for the task, but there is no record that he did. The scope has alignment problems that he didn't correct. Maybe he could "shoot round it" -- but even if true, why would such a thorough guy leave that glaring loose end? He even had a weird "sling" attached to it. Odd. As for the ammunition, it was traced back to Western Cartridge Company in Chicago. It was part of a batch of Four Hundred Thousand (400,000) that was manufactured in 1954. It was ordered by the USMC, who had NO weapons in which it could be used. The FBI believed it was ordered (probably for CIA) by the USMC for "concealment" purposes. But, this was 9 year old ammo whose provenance and method of storage was unknown to Oswald as far as we can tell from the documentation.

Using that weapon, prticulrly with THAT ammo, just doesn't seem consistent with his "competent" behavior, IMHO.

Mike,

On a slightly different, but relevant note, in your opinion, how old is "too old" for ammunition? I know what the answer for me personally would be, and there are some variables that could extend or diminish the "safe shelf life" expectancy. But, in general terms, how long would you feel comfortable and confident to use 6.5 WCC ammo after its original date of manufacture?

[snip]

I certainly am glad that Mr. Freeman did not chose to abandon his men and his Country and run off to the University of Indiana.

God Bless and Keep him.

Great story, Mike. Freeman was indeed a hero--without question. Were you one of those he rescued? If not, is there a specific reason that this story is significant for you? I'd like to hear your story, if you want to share. Were you in combat? Wounded? Deployed and in the line of fire, etc.? If you can't say, I understand...

I'm confused as to the relevance of your reference to the University of Indiana. It is a cheap shot that has no bearing on anything. If you are confident in your criticisms of Jim Fetzer's arguments perhaps it would be appropriate to remain focused there else your own credibility might suffer. But, that's just my opinion. Feel free to disregard it.

All three fall short of explaining "WHERE DID EVERYTHING COME FROM?"

The only explanation is NOBODY KNOWS. It is unknowable.

Jack

I agree 100%, Jack. It is unknowable given the evidence available. I would be equally foolish to claim that there definitely is a God, or conversely, that there definitely is NOT a God. Both positions are based on assertions that are less than adequately supported.

Thanks a lot for your reply.

To: Stephen Roy & Judyth Baker,

I have a few questions to which either (or both) of you may have answers.

Do you have the New Orleans telephone number that was used by David Ferrie from the summer of 1963 to call various individuals in Washington DC? Just to be up front, I have had the number--verified by the FBI--since 1998, as well as the list of all of the numbers he called from that number during that period of time. Have either of you any knowledge as to the significance of the numbers he called (or from which he received calls) or done any research on the subject?

Thanks--

Sounds interesting. I do have the list of calls from Ferrie's employer, the law offices of Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill; while we can't be sure he made every call, it is likely that he made many of them. I have checked into some of the numbers, but not others. (It'll be great when we eventually have "historical" phone listings online. For now, it's a matter of getting old phone books.)

I do know that Ferrie had extensive phone and mail contacts that summer with a man in Washington D.C. named George Augustine Hyde, regarding Ferrie's possible ordination by the "Orthodox Catholic Church of America." Hyde was born in July 1923, attended (but left) traditional Catholic seminary, taught in high school, was ordained in July 1946 in Atlanta in the "Orthodox Church of Greece," moved to D.C. in 1950, became a bishop in the "American Holy Orthodox Catholic Church" and "Apostolic Eastern Church" in May 1957. in 1960, he founded the above-mentioned "Orthodox Catholic Church of America," with "an active pastoral outreach to gay people as members and priests." (In 1970, Hyde would be elected Archbishop of this church.)

I need to look into Hyde more deeply, and try to check some of the other numbers Ferrie likely called. Any information in this regard would be appreciated.

Thanks Judyth!

A few other questions, but you might not have had any way of knowing this information unless... Let me first ask, were you EVER at Gill's office?

Thanks--

JUDYTH REPLIES TO GREGORY BURNHAM ABOUT DAVID FERRIE'S PHONE NUMBER

Dear Monk:

I wasn't privy to Dave's calls, except for the few that involved me and Lee....I know Dave made calls from Gill's

office all the time, free of charge, as he told me. I think the FBI has records on that, and that is what you have.

I have a few numbers from New Orleans that I kept over the years, if this is of any help: I had written them down

for emergencies along with some maps.

Calls I am aware of....

He called the New Orleans Stevedores (Ames) in June, but that's not Washington, DC....the phone number for them

was 524-6227

He gave me the phone number to the Sheraton-Charles Coffee Shop where he apparently went at lunch sometimes,

but I've lost it.

Gill's office phone number was 524-0197...but I think Dave had his own extension. I did not have permission to call

him there.

Banister's phone number was 523-4532 (I have a piece of Banister's stationery).

HE MADE CALLS SOMETIMES FROM DUBL-CHEK -- their number was 522-3394

Of course I have Reily's number--524-6131 (but that's how he reached ME!)

He'd call FROM Mr. & Mrs. Mancuso (Mancuso's Coffee Shop) sometimes, too: 523-8156

....I think Garrison had some phone records...your best bet?

You might get a lead using DUBL-CHEK's number....

J

To: Stephen Roy & Judyth Baker,

I have a few questions to which either (or both) of you may have answers.

Do you have the New Orleans telephone number that was used by David Ferrie from the summer of 1963 to call various individuals in Washington DC? Just to be up front, I have had the number--verified by the FBI--since 1998, as well as the list of all of the numbers he called from that number during that period of time. Have either of you any knowledge as to the significance of the numbers he called (or from which he received calls) or done any research on the subject?

Thanks--

Yes, thank you very much, Bernice. Note his left arm elbow to right of left knee, the leg of which appears twisted towards us, his shoulder behind the pipes, the rifle way in front. Basically he's contorting to avoid the pipes. Add the boxes, the box rest, lower the window to where it should be. Pretty snug. Is that the proper set up for a sniper to take that particular shot? (and for 8+ seconds not be on any photo, film)

Great observations, John! And, as to your question, IMO, the answer is unequivocally: NO!!!

Magic Ballot defeats Magic Bullet!!!

To: Stephen Roy & Judyth Baker,

I have a few questions to which either (or both) of you may have answers.

Do you have the New Orleans telephone number that was used by David Ferrie from the summer of 1963 to call various individuals in Washington DC? Just to be up front, I have had the number--verified by the FBI--since 1998, as well as the list of all of the numbers he called from that number during that period of time. Have either of you any knowledge as to the significance of the numbers he called (or from which he received calls) or done any research on the subject?

Thanks--

I agree, Mike.

Now consider this (please ): a faulty scope + a rotation. Can that make a scope not faulty?

I don't mean to butt in--but IMO, the answer is no. It would make it a faulty scope that was mounted on a weapon that had also been rotated. It is remotely possible that the rotation could compensate for the inaccuracy created by the faulty scope, but it is highly improbable, and completely unpredictable. IOW: you couldn't do it (compensate) on purpose with any degree of confidence, and "doing it by accident" is a fantasy. It would be like you aimed at Deer #1 using a known faulty scope, but before squeezing off a round, you applied rotation to compensate for the faulty scope-- and voila` -- you accurately shoot Deer #7 right between the eyes by random chance. SCORE!!!

In Volume V of Inside the ARRB, Doug Horne examines the points raised in Greg's essay in great detail.

I haven't read that one yet, Mike. Thanks, I'll pick it up right away.

Hey John,

I know this is a very late reply, but I've never read this post. Anyway, you said: "I will tell you what happened next later."

Well, what happened next?

The Crime of the Century: The JFK Assassination...Or The Cover-up?

Events That Implicate LBJ in the Crime of the Century

By Gregory Burnham

2-January-2000

Was LBJ guilty of contributing to the "cover-up" of the truth? The answer to that question is, no doubt, an area where few dissenting opinions exist among those serious researchers of the JFK assassination. Most agree that he participated, if not co-orchestrated (with J Edgar Hoover) the cover-up of the century!

Furthermore, the main indication of LBJ's complicity is evidenced by the haste in which he changed the KENNEDY Administration's Policies, at home, and even to a much greater extent, abroad.

In a Democratic-Republic, like the United States, the "ELECTED" leader, is not the "only legally recognized" part of the Executive Branch of the Government. When the People vote and elect a President, we elect not just "the man or the woman" who will sit in the Oval Office. But, we elect the President's appointees to his new ADMINISTRATION, as well.

The "ADMINISTRATION" consists not only of individuals, (such as the four [4] members of the National Security Council: the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense; as well as the remaining Cabinet members, and many other individuals, appointed by the President are also a part of the "Administration" elected by the people), but also includes various "policies" that a President has implemented.

It is the RESPONSIBILITY of those that he appoints: to "administer, advance, and implement" his policies during LIFE OF THE ADMINISTRATION, (not ONLY during the life of "the president").

When a President dies in office the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the U.S. Federal Government does not die in office along with him. His Presidency is over, but the health of his ADMINISTRATION is maintained by the integrity and loyalty of his successor... or it is not.

LBJ did not kill JFK....[presumptive]. He pulled no triggers, paid no contracts, supplied no weapons. But, he went one step better than that: LBJ murdered the duly elected "Kennedy administration" instead.

What this means, is that prior to LBJ having "won the right" to reverse the KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION'S policies, he was already of the mind set: "The king is dead; long live the king... blah, blah, blah." The transition was almost too even, too easy, too smooth.

What a Vice President is supposed to do after ascending to the vacated office of his predecessor, the late president, is to direct the ADMINISTRATION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT according to the NSAM's (or their equivalent) and Executive Orders placed in effect prior to the death of the President. LBJ SHOULD have been finishing out JFK's term first, not beginning his own term, unless and until he was elected DIRECTLY by the people. Only then does he have the right to author new policy. This restriction, of course, does not apply to situations involving "clear and present danger" to the National Security of the United States or the safety of her citizens. However, no such situation existed. Therefore, lacking such a tangible cause, LBJ had no legitimate AUTHORITY TO ALTER THE COURSE JFK HAD SET IN MOTION. He did have the "usurped power" to change that course, but NOT the legal or moral authority to do so. But, that's exactly what he did.

Those who question JFK's intentions need to read the NSAM's and the many Executive Orders signed by him [JFK]. This is nothing new to those who work in Washington, but many would act as though such official orders mean little or nothing. They are wrong.

The policy of any administration is defined by the nature of the NSAM's (or their equivalent) and EXECUTIVE ORDERS signed by the president.

Point in case: JFK not only threatened to shatter the Central Intelligence Agency, but NSAM's 55, 56, & 57 had already accomplished cutting out the red tape that normally would hinder such an endeavor. His having fired Allen Dulles, General Charles Cabell, & Dick Bissell is evidence of his resolve. These three NSAM's were slowly being implemented from the moment after the "Bay of Pigs" fall-out until the day he died, (with full implementation to occur during his second term).

Therefore a decision was made: JFK COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ESCAPE ALIVE. -- He must be denied a second term.

NSAM 263, of October 11th 1963, clearly stated JFK's intention to withdraw 1,000 troops (of a total of 16,000) from South Vietnam by Christmas 1963 and withdraw ALL remaining troops by Christmas of 1964. But, he was dead 6 weeks after signing that document. On November 21st, 1963, the day before the assassination, JFK's National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, signed his name on the bottom of the DRAFT of NSAM 273. Then LBJ officially signed it on November 26th, 1963. That document began the reversal of JFK's Vietnam withdrawal policy and ushered in the escalation of the longest war in U.S. history.

The fact that LBJ reversed several policies within 4 days of the assassination, (and within one day of the funeral) is disturbing, as is the fact that he had already begun to restructure the budget BEFORE the Congress went home for the winter break to accomodate the cost of the many changes to JFK's policy that he would soon be initiating, such as the escalation of the Vietnam Conflict into an all out war. That LBJ was informed by President Kennedy's Special Advisor on Natiional Security, Mr. McGeorge Bundy, while enroute to D.C. from Dallas aboard AF-1 within 60 minutes of the assassination that: "JFK was killed by a lone gunman..." is also disturbing. But, this isn't about Bundy...yet.

These items speak volumes about LBJ's role in the Crime of the Century.

Greg Burnham

Copy of original draft of NSAM 55 provided to this author courtesy Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, USAF (Ret.)

Copy of original draft of NSAM 273 provided to this author courtesy Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, USAF (Ret.)

Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:nsam55.jpg (JPEG/JVWR) (00006F14)

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/media/128...protesters.html

WALTER CRONCITE HELPED ORGANIZE NAM PROTESTERS...FBI FILES

« on: Today at 12:24 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.observer.com/2010/media/walter-...m-protesters-69

No biggie, Bernice ... but Croncite should be CRONKITE ...

Cheers,

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

It should also be noted that while Cronkite helped organize NAM protesters, Hoover helped dis-organize them [READ: bugged, wire-tapped, dis-credited, messed with, assaulted, killed, and otherwise harassed].

Like nearly everyone in the building, the official's identity could not be divulged.

That's why it's called "Secret" Service, I guess? LOL -- How are ya, Beans?

During my latest visit last week to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the U-2 incident, I had the privilege of interviewing retired Soviet Rear Admiral Boris Novy, as well as retired KGB agent Oleg Nechiporenko, who questioned Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City in September 1964.

Well, first of all, by September 1964 Lee Harvey Oswald had been dead for about 10 months.

Secondly, the U2 was NOT shot down by a missile. Sorry, Gary JR., no disrespect intended. It would have exploded if it had been hit at that altitude! That is undeniable. Your father had no reason to (and there is no evidence that he did) descend to an altitude of vulnerability to SAMs initially. He was forced down to a lower altitude upon engine failure due to a defect in the fuel mixture. Only then did MIGs "escort" him to a crash landing after he had re-started the engine.