Greg Burnham
-
Posts
2,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Burnham
-
-
[emphasis added]Thanks, Monk! On target as usual. If I have offended Jim, I apologize. But I think he needs to take a break from his crusade. He is ruining his credibility, to the detriment of all of us. I was only pointing out that Lifton, Weldon, White, Armstrong, et al have not changed...it is Jimthat has changed, and he cannot see it.
Jack
Not to belabor the point, Jack, but I'm sure Jim would sincerely argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is you who has changed! Perhaps Jim felt an obligation to defend the "underdog" (Judyth) and when she was being attacked--he took it personally. If that is correct, it's not that big a deal. I'm surprised this "feud" went this far, but I understand how it did. It's the result of one party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the "witness" is lying--and the other party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the witness is the "real deal" who is being unfairly treated.
The error, IMHO, is the absoluteness of both of your individual, diametrically opposed, positions.
-
and Howard Burris?
He was a (CIA--sheep dipped) Colonel in the Air Force and later became LBJ's Military Attache. The crowd he hung out with is frequently suspected of complicity in the assassination. If "guilt by association" was a rational argument...he'd be found guilty.
-
What the hell is this?
An Oswald autopsy photo...
Kathy C
It's a cropped version of his right bicep (upper arm), I think. Actually, I have no idea. It's your picture--why post something if you don't know what it is?
-
It is unfortunate that two of my closest friends in the JFK assassination research community, Jack White and James Fetzer, have both contributed--and continue to contribute--to turning this topic from what it is about into "their story". In fact, if any media persons had been following this as a "Judyth story" at the beginning-- that story's significance would have long ago been lost in the quagmire of the Jim & Jack feud.
Originally, Jim was presenting Judyth's material and Jack was discrediting Judyth's material. Shortly thereafter, Jack (and others) began discrediting Judyth--not just her material. Then Jim (and others) began defending Judyth--not just her material. Then an incredibly stupid misdirection of hostility occured: they both began discrediting each other!
This is, no doubt, the most absurd behavior that I've ever witnessed among otherwise intelligent persons who are on the same side of the BIG PICTURE!
My advice: Attack ideas--not each other. This isn't about either of you! It's not about your respective competence as researchers--so don't make it about that. You disagree. Leave it there. It will only mean more than that if you force it to mean more. Allow each other a graceful way out. None of us is ever 100% right about anything. Who knows, fellas--one or both of you might not be this time?
-
Very compelling post, Michael...IMHO.
Jim, with over 2300 posts on this thread it has simply become too unwieldly to go back and find all of yourexact comments about the scholarship and quality of Haslam's research. I do recall you using the words
for the general public in one instance, but the larger point is that you have always defended the scholarship
and research in Dr Mary's Monkey. Your comment about "getting my points straight" is gratuitous.
If you knew that there was a general agreement not to comment until JVB's new book comes out, why did you offer
to take those questions of mine to Ed? I had explained that I would rather you answer them; you are the one that
suggested it would be better if they (EH & JVG) did.
As far as answering my questions, you have not. You left it that you had contacted Ed Haslam about them and were
waiting for his reply. That is where things were left. If you dispute this, I will take the time and go back and find the post.
When did Haslam say he first contacted Judyth Baker? Your answer that Haslam only became aware
of the significance of two different JVB's after 60M contacted him goes without saying and was not responsive
at all to my question.
According to DMM it was after 60M decided not to air her story that he decided to contact Judyth Baker.
Do you agree with that? Please indulge me and refer to the bottom of page 287 of DMM.
I have watched virtually all of Haslam's videos. The more I watch Haslam, the less faith I have in him in terms
of his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers. In his book, he also claims as fact that Oswald met Marcello
at parties and that Ferrie introduced JVB to Sparky Rubebnstein. He can believe that if he wants to, but he
states it as if it were a proven fact in his footnotes, of all places. If he has no evidence or research of his own to
offer regarding his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers, then his book is of questionable value to this thread,
as far as I am concerned.
Are you acknowledging now that Dr Mary's Monkey offers no proof (or research by Haslam, for that matter) that
Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers? If you had told me that six weeks ago, I would not have spent all this
time asking the questions that I have.
The mention of the interview with Anna Davis does appear in Haslam's book. I would suggest that you get your
points straight, but that comment might be taken to be gratuitous.
Jim, you wrote:
"As for not telling her that he was writing a book, you seem to be confounding Judyth's initial encounters with him(when he did not mention that) with her later knowledge about it (when he asked her to review what he had written)"No Jim. I have explained this carefully to you several times. Let me know if you
want me to go back and find it. In this thread, Judyth explained that she did not tell
Haslam that her book, Lee Harvey Oswald, was unauthorized by her and
contained errors. She offered an explanation as to her reasons that included Platzman.
She said that if she had known Haslam was working on a book, she would have told him.
Judyth Baker said that Haslam's book was a complete surprise to her.
Do you want me to go back and find that?
I am not concerned with Oswald's genitals, David Lifton's tape, marmosets, missing teeth,
Haslam's encounter with Ed Butler, how Mary Sherman died, John Armstrong, and other esoterica.
I have never discussed any of that on this thread. I am interested in whether or not her story is true about
she and Oswald being lovers and what reasons you have for referring members to Dr Mary's Monkey
to answer this question. I have simply claimed that Haslam presents no real evidence or proof that this was so.
You could have conceded that long ago and saved me some time and effort.
Jim, I have watched Judyth Baker's YouTube videos. I find them unconvincing, to be charitable.
I have met Ed Haslam, watched his interviews, including the one with Jim Marrs, and I have read
every post on this thread. I have listened to what you and others have posted. I have read Judyth Baker's
book Lee Harvey Oswald, which Haslam urged all his readers to do. I am waiting for her new book,
but based upon what you and Judyth have presented here, I do not expect any new revelations that will prove
(or even persuade) that she had a love affair with Lee Oswald.
In the prologue of DMM, Haslam writes about the History Channel's decision to withdraw from
circulation the episode that dealt with Judyth Vary Baker. His failure to mention that the entire three
episodes were withdrawn (due to pressure from LBJ's supporters) and leave the reader with the belief
that Baker's story was the only episode that was withdrawn is misleading, to say the least.
And Jim, do you believe that Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet
of materials detailing their prospective story, and sent one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....
all without reading his book? Does that even make sense to you?
I know that you and Ed Haslam have had extended contact with her, but people should not have to rely
on your faith. Her story demands evidence and proof. If after seven years of researching, Haslam was unable to
offer any proof (and none has been forthcoming after the publication of DMM), it is difficult to be
optimistic that her new book will convince anyone. I guess we will wait and see.
Not only that, I have claimed that there are inconsistencies and vagaries in Haslam's account.
I have always confined my comments only to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Baker. If Haslam
expects anyone to believe his account of meeting another Judyth Baker in 1972 with absolutely
no evidence other than his recollections, the rest of his unsupported statements need to be rock-solid
in order to afford him the benefit of the doubt.
-
No, Greg, the names just stood out, would like to know more about them from anyone who does.(know)
Well, for starters, JFK fired General Charles Cabell from the CIA along with Allen Dulles because of their incompetence (real or contrived) during the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Charles Cabell's brother, Earl, was the mayor of Dallas on November 22, 1963--and was therefore, ostensibly "in charge" of the Dallas Police Department.
-
[...snip]
Mr Weldon, do you really believe that my reaction to someone's prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination against a group of people who have only one defining characteristic is "exaggerated"? It is this type of "lazy discrimination" that results in most of the problems we see in our world today, and unfortunately the problems seen many, many times before to varying degrees of hostility.
Actually, Jim's friends have more than one defining characteristic--they are also social psychologists, among other accomplishments. But, of course, you are correct, Lee: Any and all "definitions" that might lessen the negative impact perceived by those prejudice against homeless persons is minimized, if not, totally ignored.
That's how hatred works...it's better done from a position of ignorance, not a position of strength.
-
I promised I would not post in thread, but who knew back then what turns it would take?
I'm glad you did. And yes, a WHOLE LOT of self restraint was employed. You made some other very cogent observations. Well done.
-
Charles Cabell, Howard Burris?
John,
I'm confused. Are you questioning why Charles Cabell is on the list? Or are you questioning the photo? The photo, BTW is of General Cabell. And Cabell was a Deputy Director of the CIA. So what are you questioning? Like I said, I'm confused.
-
Thanks Todd,
I was aware of Dale's recreation and knew of his conclusions - I had hoped to find analysis in support of the theory to balance all the evidence against it.
From the Dale Myer site http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_6.htm
"The only photographic expert to allegedly confirm the existence of Badge Man was British photographic technician Geoffrey CRAWLEY. Yet, in a 2001 interview, CRAWLEY revealed that producer Nigel TURNER falsified the true results of his 1988 study in the hopes that his documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, might lead to a reopening of the assassination case. In reality, CRAWLEY concluded that the Badge Man figure, if human, would had to have been standing considerably behind the stockade fence in an elevated position - both of which seemed unreasonable to CRAWLEY under the circumstances. CRAWLEY concluded that MACK and WHITE had misinterpreted background foliage for the three figures."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/mack.htm
Discovery Program Sparks Controversy Among Theorists
By W. Tracy Parnell
On February 26 2003, the Discovery Channel featured a documentary entitled “Death at Dealey Plaza” ...... As Mack explains, “The show was produced for a general audience, not conspiracy researchers. It was simply about the photographers and what they captured on film. The discussion about who killed JFK is another subject for another day.”
{note: we all know the problems with this show... the point of pasting this here is Gary's response to the question below. If his position has changed since this statement I am not aware of it at this moment}
Q: Why did the program imply that there was no assassin visible in the Moorman photo? Was Gary involved in the Moorman recreation?
Gary Mack: “I was fully involved in the restaging and no claim was made that there was not an assassin in the Moorman photo. The photo expert concluded only that if someone was there, the camera could not photograph him clearly enough to identify. I agree, and that is the same conclusion that Geoff Crawley and several other photo scientists have told me over the years based on the physics involved.”
Gary may be referring to the identification of the person himself rather than someone in a police uniform. Either way it shows that Crawley has maintained his position over the 15 years between 1988 and 2003.
I am not 100% in agreement with all of Dale's conclusions or statements yet the analysis that places these images 40-50 yards beyond the fence based on size, or not even there at all, seems logically presented and well supported. As with the image of the "person" in the SWest 6th floor window in Dillard, I had hoped there was something that would effectively illustrate support of the Badgeman theory - but as of yet, I haven't been able to find any.
Bernice's post helps us see that the illusion is very convincing - but IF that person is actually 120+ feet from the fence and 10+ feet up in the air (or even higher if Moorman was actually in the street) what we "see" and even conclude is based on a faulty foundation.
IF he is actually at the fence, you'd think the analysis would support rather than contradict the fact.
DJ
DJ,
I appreciate your well reasoned, IMO, post.
-
If the shoe fits...
Doesn't fit me. I did my own little bit to expose Prouty's crap. Didn't even take that much intelligence (since I clearly don't have a lot), just a little time and work.
I can assure you that if you didn't know the man personally, your research is wanting. But, you are entitled to your opinion. I respect your right to an opinion even if I take exception to it.
-
True, but he depended on people's stupidity.
If the shoe fits...
-
The new FRUS Volume is definitely worth a read.
-
Speculations Beyond the Pale of Reality
Volume 13, Number 18: 5 May 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the introductory material to their paper on potential effects of predicted near-future increases in CO2-driven ocean acidification on shell-producing calcification in a certain species of oyster, Watson et al. (2009) report that over the past two centuries, CO2 emissions from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280 to 380 ppm, citing NOAA/ESRL records produced and maintained by Pieter Tans. They additionally say that the portion of this extra CO2 that has been taken up by the planet's oceans has caused a 0.1 unit drop in the pH of their surface waters, which would appear to be correct. However, they predict there will be a further reduction in ocean pH of 0.3 to 0.5 units by 2100, citing the work of Haugan and Drange (1996), Orr et al. (2005) and Caldeira and Wickett (2005), while noting that these predicted changes in ocean pH "are not only greater but far more rapid than any experienced in the last 24 million years," citing Blackford and Gilbert (2007), or "possibly the last 300 million years," citing Caldeira and Wickett (2003), which all sounds pretty scary. But does it seem just a bit too scary? ... as in too scary to be true?
Consider the findings of Tans himself, who Watson et al. approvingly cite in regard to the CO2 history they mention. In a paper published in Oceanography, which we have briefly discussed in a prior Editorial, Tans (2009) concluded that the future trajectory of oceanic pH will likely be significantly different from that suggested by the scientists cited by Watson et al., while at the same time bravely criticizing the IPCC reports that have also accepted the highly inflated acidification predictions of those scientists. Indeed, whereas Watson et al. and the IPCC accept the claims of those who project a decline in pH somewhere in the range of 0.3 to 0.5 between now and the end of the century, Tans' projections yield a pH decline somewhere in the range of 0.09 to 0.17, which is much smaller, and which would be expected to have significantly reduced biological impacts compared to those suggested by the experimental work of Watson et al. for that future point in time.
Based on the results of their experiments and the maximum decline in ocean-water pH that they accept, for example, Watson et al. predict a significant decline of 72% in Sydney rock oyster (Saccostrea glomerata) larval survival by the year 2100. However, utilizing Watson et al.'s data, but with the maximum ocean-water pH decline calculated by Tans, we obtain a non-significant larval survival decline of only 14%, based on our interpolation of the graphical results portrayed in Watson et al.'s paper. In like manner, similar assessments of changes in antero-posterior measurement yield a significant decline of 8.7% using Watson et al.'s assumptions about ocean pH, but a non-significant decline of only 1.8% according to Tans' pH calculations. Corresponding results for dorso-ventral measurement were a significant decline of 7.5% with Watson et al.'s pH values, but a non-significant decline of only 1.5% with Tans' values; while for larval dry mass there was a decline of 50% in Watson et al.'s analysis, but an actual increase (albeit non-significant) of 6% using Tans' pH analysis. Last of all, for empty shells remaining there was a significant decline of 90% in the Watson et al. study, but a non-significant decline of only 6% when Tans' pH projections were used.
In summation, based on their experimental data and the ocean pH projections for the end of the century that are promoted by them and the IPCC, Watson et al. find what they characterize as "a dramatic negative effect on the survival, growth, and shell formation of the early larval stages of the Sydney rock oyster." On the other hand, employing the pH values projected by Tans, there are no statistically significant reductions in any of the five biological parameters measured and evaluated by Watson et al., which is an amazingly benign response to an environmental threat that is being suggested by some to be more serious or extreme than it was at any other time that it may have reared its ugly head over the past 300 million years!
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
References
Blackford, J.C. and Gilbert, F.J. 2007. pH variability and CO2 induced acidification in the North Sea. Journal of Marine Systems 64: 229-241.
Caldeira, K. and Wickett, M.E. 2003. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425: 365.
Caldeira, K. and Wickett, M.E. 2005. Ocean model predictions of chemistry changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: 10.1029/2004JC002671.
Haugan, P.M. and Drange, H. 1996. Effects of CO2 on the ocean environment. Energy Conversion and Management 37: 1019-1022.
Orr, J.C., Fabry, V.J., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Doney, S.C., Feely, R.A., Gnanadesikan, A., Gruber, N., Ishida, A., Joos, F., Key, R.M., Lindsay, K., Maier-Reimer, E., Matear, R., Monfray, P., Mouchet, A., Najjar, R.G., Plattner, G.-K., Rodgers, K.B., Sabine, C.L., Sarmiento, J.L., Schlitzer, R., Slater, R.D., Totterdell, I.J., Weirig, M.-F., Yamanaka, Y. and Yool, A. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437: 681-686.
Tans, P. 2009. An accounting of the observed increase in oceanic and atmospheric CO2 and an outlook for the future. Oceanography 22: 26-35.
Watson, S.-A., Southgate, P.C., Tyler, P.A. and Peck, L.S. 2009. Early larval development of the Sydney rock oyster Saccostrea glomerata under near-future predictions of CO2-driven ocean acidification. Journal of Shellfish Research 28: 431-437.
-
Leave it to Prouty to ask a bunch of questions (based on his own unsubstantiated version of events, i.e. "we now know") and not answer them.
Fletch simply had enough faith in an individual's intelligence to allow them to draw their own conclusions from the evidence. It's not his fault that some individuals are too stupid.
-
I would say this Greg
If I was going through Jury selection on a Trial for lets say a Homeless man who killed another person I would make sure the Defense knew about my feelings and my past dealings with Homeless people so that the Homeless man would get a fair trial by having me not sit on the Jury
I believe everybody deserves a fair trial, and I would be man enough to make sure that I was not on the jury to sway anybody with my feelings about Homeless people
Im not trying to drag this on Greg, I just want you to know I have strong feelings about alot of things, getting a fair trial no matter who the accused is one of those things
Thanks Dean. I figured as much. You strike me as an honest guy. In such a circumstance you would disqualify yourself as a matter of self respect--so that justice would have the best chance to prevail.
I've often heard it said, "The best thing about being a cop is never having to make up a bogus excuse to get out of reporting for jury duty."
-
Monk:
Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.
Best,
Doug Weldon
Doug,
Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror?
I'd like to move on as well.
Monk:
It is not that simplistic. There are challenges for cause, which are not so broad, and preemptory challenges. What do you call a person with an I.Q. of 60, barely got into law school, finished at the bottom of their class, failed the bar exam 4 times before barely passing it? Answer: Your Honor.
Doug Weldon
Absurd. Oh, I get it: Lawyer jokes.
-
Monk:
Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.
Best,
Doug Weldon
Doug,
Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror?
I'd like to move on as well.
-
MonK:
Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated.
I did not and have not criticized Dean. I called a spade a spade.
[my emphasis]Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person.Doug -- "probably" ? You know better than that. It is not a "probably" situation--! It is absolutely wrong. If you are appealing to an argument of "human frailty or the human condition" that is all fine and good as a mitigating circumstance by which to justify Dean's perspective--but it fails to justify the lack of logic in the argument.
-
Now do you see why I have a strong opinion Greg
If you say yes I see why you have a strong opinion I promise I will never bring up the subject of Bums again
You have my word
Yes, I see why you have a strong opinion [about bums].
However, Jim's friends are NOT "bums" -- Jim never identified them as "bums" -- So, let's continue this thread about Judyth and her credibility and admit ALL evidence--even that which comes from formerly homeless persons (not bums), or from Mormons (not polygamists), or from Catholic priests (not pedophiles), or from Germans (not Nazis), etc, etc.
Thank you
Lets move it along
Jim im sorry I called your friends Bums, I was feeling defensive torwards your insults and should not have said that about them
Please dont insult me and I will not speak to you in a harsh way
That sounds fair enough, Dean.
-
Now do you see why I have a strong opinion Greg
If you say yes I see why you have a strong opinion I promise I will never bring up the subject of Bums again
You have my word
Yes, I see why you have a strong opinion [about bums].
However, Jim's friends are NOT "bums" -- Jim never identified them as "bums" -- So, let's continue this thread about Judyth and her credibility and admit ALL evidence--even that which comes from formerly homeless persons (not bums), or from Mormons (not polygamists), or from Catholic priests (not pedophiles), or from Germans (not Nazis), etc, etc.
-
I will not call you names nor will I defend myself from you calling me names. We are adults.
Did I miss something Greg?
I have not nor would I ever call you a name
Well then, you still might consider me "cool" as opposed to "uncool"-- I guess?
Let me elaborate on what I said in order to make my position clearer. Dean, I don't claim to know what your 3 year long experience with homeless people was like. But, I have no reason to doubt that you are telling the truth about your personal perception of them. If you thought I was saying that your reportage of your Seattle Homeless experience was untrue--I apologize. That is NOT what I was saying.
-
Dean,
If you will re-read my post you'll note that I acknowledged your right to your own opinion. But, we're not talking about your SPECIAL 3 YEAR LONG circumstances! We are talking about individual human beings (Jim's friends) whom you know nothing about aside from what Jim has told you. Therefore, what you claimed to be necessarily true about Jim's friends is demonstrably a false statement. Your judgment of them is not necessarily accurate. This is logically inescapable, and--as such--it is therefore a false statement.
I will not call you names nor will I defend myself from you calling me names. We are adults.
-
This thread is about Judyth. It's been hijacked about homeless people. Was Oswald ever homeless? If not we should go back to the discussion of Judyth's veracity.
Kathy C
Well, I sorta agree with you about the above. However, Jim offered witnesses whose statements speak to Judyth's credibility. That IS on topic. The witness' testimonies were summarily rejected as worthless due to a prejudice against them that is logically ill founded and therefore irrelevant, not only to the topic, but in general. That's why we are discussing it. If it is indeed inappropriate to dismiss these witnesses on the grounds stated, then what they have to offer to promote the discovery of the truth should be considered...without prejudice.
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Jack,
IMHO--there was a charade on Rich's forum about this, but I still maintain that you and Rich were being unreasonable at that time. I miss Rich very much, too--but the arguments the two of you advanced at that time did not convince me and seemed to revolve around defending Harvey & Lee more than anything else. But, they did convince many others. I was, in fact, her lone champion on the forum back then about a decade ago! That said, I have not kept up with a lot of the intervening developments--so I can't disagree or agree with you one way or another about that part.