Greg Burnham

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)

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].

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

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.

I apologize, Ron. I thought you were questioning the flight of the Cabinet members themselves. My mistake.

Ron, I assumed it was your own website, perhaps it wasn't. I should have said it was from an "article" or a "paper" you wrote. You can find it reproduced here: By Ron Ecker

What do you mean "I've also never heard of U.S. congressmen and senators being aboard the Cabinet flight to Japan on 11/22/63" ?? Huh? This is from your OWN website, and I quote RON ECKER: ============== THE REASON FOR THE TOKYO TRIP [...] In June 1961 JFK met in Washington with Japanese Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda, and in a joint statement they announced an agreement "to establish a joint United States-Japan committee on trade and economic affairs at the cabinet level." 14 In a November 8, 1961 press conference, JFK commented on "the success and significance of the first meeting of the Joint United States-Japan Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs," which was held the week before in Japan, and which he described as a "joint Cabinet group." 15 (The acronym for this committee in State Department documents is the Joint ECONCOM.) The second annual meeting was held in Washington on December 3-5, 1962, and the third was to have taken place in Tokyo on November 25-27, 1963. 16 A videotaped greeting from JFK was scheduled to be sent to Japan in the first ever U.S.-Japan satellite telecast on the afternoon of November 22. Instead the Japanese people were introduced to the satellite telecommunications era with news of the assassination. 17 Prime Minister Ikeda went to Washington for JFK's funeral, and President Johnson personally expressed regret that the tragedy had forced postponement of the third annual Joint ECONCOM meeting. Rescheduled, the meeting was held in Tokyo on January 27-28, 1964. 18" ================ You obviously have heard about it. I don't agree with your analysis...

I too would prefer either a stationary target or, if not available (or unpredictable), one that was approaching me (getting larger) and descending below my horizontal LOS--particularly if target was in an open car. Absolutely! The worst shot, and one to avoid, would be the knoll, where an issue would be a passing right to left shot. Although the Snipers nest location was not bad either, I just dont think it was the best choice. However one has to take what one can get lol. The "key" to the knoll shot would have to be a stationary target. Without a guaranteed FULL stop it is--without a lot of luck--way too uncertain. But, I don't like the TSBD shot for several reasons. First, (assuming that is where I was staged) I wouldn't have passed up my BEST approach shot when target was on Houston Street immediately after straightening up after the turn from Main. The driver has NO escape route and very limited ability to acquire lateral motion! Granted, the angle is not optimal due to the relatively short distance and the fact that it is a moving target, which forces continuous adjustment, reducing the margin of error. However, if one were already positioned there, it seems to be the best opportunity, IMO. However, waiting for the target to pass and acquire lateral motion down field is not smart--indeed, the target has an open escape route dead (no pun intended) ahead, as well. Anyway, this is the wrong thread to discuss this subject, my bad.

I too would prefer either a stationary target or, if not available (or unpredictable), one that was approaching me (getting larger) and descending below my horizontal LOS--particularly if target was in an open car.

How would you know? You said you've never even read it except for bits and pieces! What, you just happened to stumble upon the errors?

So, then--it's illogical for you to say that the conclusions/opinions regarding ballistics that are contrary to your conclusions, are not well founded because those disagreeing with you don't have as much experience as you do. We know this is fallacious because Lt Colonel Roberts disagrees with you on every count of which I am aware. I wish you would refrain from claiming it in the future.

If you're implying that Craig isn't qualified to render a well informed opinion, I beg to differ. I sense that you are calling his qualifications into question. There are many people who have not been official Marine Scout Snipers but that have other experience which affords them sufficient knowledge to have well informed opinions. Moreover, not everyone who has held a particular position necessarily makes correct judgment calls. It is hard for me to imagine that you are actually placing yourself in a position to judge Lt Colonel Roberts' qualifications. Not only did he rise to the rank of Lt Colonel, sargeant, but he served in Vietnam--in combat, with a Unit referred to as, The Walking Dead, and received the Purple Heart among 10 other combat decorations. He was on the Tulsa Police Department for 27 years and became a training officer for the Tulsa SWAT team's snipers, as well. Are you not willing to concede that he is an expert on the subject?

Craig Roberts retired from the armed forces in 1999 with 30 years total service. He was awarded ten decorations for his Marine Corps service in Vietnam, where he served as a Marine sniper. He was also a career police officer with the Tulsa, Oklahoma, police department. An internationally published writer, he is the author of Combat Medic-Vietnam and Police Sniper, as well as the co-author of One Shot-One Kill, and The Walking Dead. As a Master Police Officer: By 1971, a new unit was formed called the "TAC Squad," which was Tulsa's first "SWAT" type special operations team. Roberts was selected for his Vietnam combat experience and his training as a sniper and with explosives. By this time he had attended Bomb Disposal School in Dade County, Florida and was one of three department bomb technicians. Above: Gunnery Sergeant (Ret.) Carlos Hathcock, one of the Marine Corps best known snipers, and Craig Roberts during training of Tulsa Police Department's Special Operations Team's snipers (1989)

Mike, do you know Lt. Col.Craig Roberts, USA, Ret.? He's the author of: "Kill Zone: A Sniper looks at Dealey Plaza"? Have you read the book?

Hey Mike, Just out of curiosity, what's your day job? How do we know you are an expert in ballistics? I'm not doubting it, I just would like to know your qualifications to render judgments on these matters. Is there anyone who can vouch for your expertise? Thanks--

No need to be condescending, I'm not an idiot. [emphasis added]Well, that is demonstrably false. First of all, characterizing his style of arguing as "ridiculous and clownish" is a subjective judgment. Second, to claim he has directed "mud" at every single one who has opposed his assertions is obviously false since he has not directed mud at me! Have you ever heard of "begging the question"? Well, you are. Indeed. And they are few and far between. You condescending little [expletive deleted by author]! I have my eyes wide open. I do not take sides on this one for a reason. I have not done adequate research on all of her claims to render a well informed opinion. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, really, besides read forum posts? Not one thing by comparison! It is extremely telling that many of those who consider themselves "researchers" have not actually researched anything beyond what is written on "internet forums" --and act as though they know what they are talking about! Sorry, I lost my temper admins. Censor me if you must...but golly gee--this is ridiculous!

During the Cuban Missile Crisis both Kennedy and Khruschev allowed each other to "save face" while maintaining their position. IOW, they gave each other a "graceful way out" without caving in. If they had employed the same strategy displayed by some of those participating in this thread, we would have all been fried to a crisp!

Jack and all, As a point of fact: I have not always agreed with Jim in this thread and I have opposed the relevance of JVB's story to the JFK assassination. Yet, contrary to the allegations of her detractors, Jim has not attacked me as a result of my disagreeing with him or my lack of committing to fully support JVB. Therefore, he has not, in fact, "attacked" anyone or everyone who fails to embrace JVB's story. He has said that he was "taken aback" by some of my positions; he has said he was "grieved" by them, as well. But, he has never attacked me. I suggest that if one does not draw first blood (or had not in the past drawn first blood) against JVB, Jim would respond in kind. It's a fine line sometimes... GO_SECURE monk

Jim, I don't personally need Judyth's story to help me appreciate the humanity of Oswald. I have studied him for decades. I have no interest in the cancer bio-weapon subject as it is not related to the assassination. Let me qualify that: I have an interest in the subject, but not in forcing a combining of it with this subject. I feel the same about the Polio vaccine allegations. I do not think they are related to JFK. I don't see the connection, at least not yet. Perhaps I will in the future. My mind is open--However, it is not "wide" open or too accepting without more proof. I will read her new book. I expect that it will answer a lot of questions, one way or another. If it fails to adequately address concerns that have been legitimately raised here (and many have been legitimate) that, in itself, will be an answer. It is my prerogative to disagree after evaluating the evidence for myself. But, until then, I must refrain from finalizing my opinion. In any event, I will be as intellectually honest with myself as possible--as a matter of self respect. You have my word.

I object to reserchers taking the study of a presumably innocent man's genitals this far because it does nothing to enhance or detract from the case made against him. However, I believe it is still within the purview of legitimate research. I would think that researchers can self moderate this matter without the help of the admin's power to censor. I apologize if my posts encouraged such encroachment on freedom of speech. That was not my intent. It was an appeal to the researchers NOT to the admins!

Jim, If Judyth's story, as it relates to JFK's assassination, offers me nothing further, save for the confirmation of a fact (LHO'S innocence) of which I am already fully convinced--for me, it is irrelevant. I don't need or want more information about the guy who didn't do it. She had an affair with a partially spliced married man who was innocent of murder, but guilty of adultry. So what? However, that's just my take on it. This is the reason that I didn't expend the considerable time, energy, and funds required to confirm her story from the beginning. In my view, I would learn nothing of importance that I didn't already know--and at best, I'd discover details of an affair I didn't care to know. Information about his genitals is one such detail. GO_SECURE monk Greg Burnham is 100% correct.

That's what we have at the JFKresearch Assassination Forum and it works very well. JFKresearch Assassination Forum Photo Gallery

In theory you agree? In theory? Wow. That takes the cake. Let's move this from the theoretical to the more concrete then. This is not a trial. You and Jim are not on the jury nor are you prosecutors or defense counsel. Neither of you are private investigators nor are you detectives in law enforcement. That said, remember, LHO IS innocent. Why? Because in this country, last I checked, a suspect IS (considered/treated) innocent until proven otherwise IN A COURT OF LAW! There was no trial for Lee Oswald--and there never will be a trial for him. He is therefore INNOCENT by our standards of jurisprudence--and is NOT deserving of being condemned, even in memory [READ:HISTORICALLY]. If he is to be considered innocent, his memory should not be sentenced to a punishment that reduces him to the status of a lone, worthless, deranged, no-count, good for nothing, murderer...who can be easily disregrded as "not worthy of respect" -- Hasn't the official record already done that to him through its distortion of his character? Why would we contribute to such an image here? I find it EQUALLY appalling that Jack, Jim, and Judyth don't realize this! Each of you claim that he is NOT GUILTY, yet you treat him as if he is guilty (in the sense of treating his memory as "not being worthy of respect") in order to prove a point about Judyth's credibility. However, both you and Jim agree that irrespective of whether or not her story is true or false--Oswald is still innocent! The ONLY potential relevance her story has to JFK (this forum's focus) is her corroberation of LHO's innocence. So why would you guys throw LHO under the bus by treating him in a less than respectful manner? Why would two well respected researchers who are: 1) on the same side of the big picture, and 2) who believe LHO is innocent--somehow forget that they already agree on this subject? (BTW: Judyth is NOT the subject...JFK is!) Is it really worth it for either of you to participate in an exercise that denigrates OSWALD (who you claim does not deserve it) in order to prevail in an argument about the credibility of another who also agrees that Oswald was innocent and therefore also agrees that Oswald doesn't deserve such treatment? And why would Judyth, of all people, participate in such folly at the expense of the memory of her beloved? Why? What gives here? GO_SECURE monk

Jim, For me, NONE of this is about MY credibility! NOT ONE OUNCE... Nor for me is it about Jack's, or Michael's, or Doug's, or Tink's, or Junk's, or even Judyth's...it is about discovering the truth for me--as it is for you [presumptive]. However, Judyth's credibility does come into play at this juncture because she claims to be a witness. Her pending status as a witness is therefore dependent upon her credibility. That is the difference. Her credibility is on the line. NOT YOUR'S -- NOT JACK'S -- NOT ANYONE ELSE'S Let's try to keep it that way otherwise it will no longer be about the truth... GO_SECURE monk

Jim, Run ALL of the recent posts (on the "Study of the Guilty's Genitals" --a euphemism for de-humanization & de-personalization) by your PSYOPS EXPERT. It all stinks of mind kontrol. I do not say this lightly. It has a signature of deliberately induced cognitive dissonance. Or perhaps...its just madness (a euphemism for insanity). This was very clever. I don't like it. How and when did Oswald become "worthy" of being treated as though he really DID murder JFK? I could understand it, marginally, in 1963/1964 due to Group Trauma Response -- But I don't "get it" when it happens in this thread! GO_SECURE monk