Greg Burnham

You're welcome, Judyth--and thank you for your reply. GO_SECURE monk That's a different kind of "bright" and you know it. I'm talking about LIFE EXPERIENCE brightness, which is not the same as maturity, nor is it the same as "gifted" which he may have been. Life experience brightness can be gleaned in one way only, by definition. Strawman. I was not judging his intelligence. I have no problem accepting his brightness. I do have a problem accepting that he was that bright, but failed to tell anyone who could have made a difference that Kennedy was to be killed if he REALLY knew it AND TOLD YOU. I have a problem believing that someone that damn smart EVEN WENT TO WORK that day knowing what you claim he knew! I would understand if he knew it--and stayed HOME! I might not like that--he should have tried to stop it--but I would BELIEVE human weakness got the best of him and he just called in sick. Don't worry, I don't believe everything I read. No comment. Agreed. No rancour. GO_SECURE monk

No thanks, I'd prefer to avoid your analysis. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I don't believe you're approaching this very scientifically at all, no matter your expertise. I have yet to ever hear a serious analyst dismiss the medical evidence and/or the testimony of the attending physicians in a shooting case! I lack the patience to continue this train of thought with you. Good hunting-- eom Can you define "very quick" more precisely? Do you think it would take you less than 1 second or more than 1 second? I was under the impression that he did not duplicate the conditions of duress that the shooter would have been under, including, the use of a tripod. I believe that is correct. Not if one of the shooters were in front. Where I come from we tend to rely on doctors to determine a great deal. No disrespect intended, but IMHO you have a lot of catching up to do. GO_SECURE monk Mr. Burnham, Unless the laws of physics have changed over the last few years, then the basic principles of ballistics still apply. I believe I already defined Quick in proving Frazier fired 3 very well aimed shots in 6 seconds. That sounds like an average of 3 seconds for the last two shots which included aiming and cycling the bolt. I would say that is pretty quick considering your theory that it takes 2.3 seconds to cycle the bolt without aiming (which I do not agree with). There are several videos that bear this out. Frazier used no tripod in the testing of the rifle at the ranges. I also believe you assume duress, it is impossible to know the state of mind of the shooter. There is no evidence whatsoever of a shooter from the front. Kinetic energy transfer indicates a rear shooter, as does Blood Spatter, inter-cranial fragment disbursement. You do realize that the "violent backward motion" can not possibly be attributed directly to a bullet. No disrespect taken Sir, not at all, and none intended when I say that I do not believe I need to catch up, I simply believe that many do not understand the ballistics and physics involved in a shooting event. Where I come from an opinion is an opinion, until it is proven, it then becomes fact. From a ballistic stand point the fact now stands at no frontal shooter. Do you have any other evidence other than the opinion of a doctor? Do you have a suspected location? I would be glad to examine that for you Sir. My best to you, Mike

Can you define "very quick" more precisely? Do you think it would take you less than 1 second or more than 1 second? I was under the impression that he did not duplicate the conditions of duress that the shooter would have been under, including, the use of a tripod. I believe that is correct. While it is true that he placed a tight group within about the space of a dime, none of them were close to the target. Precision and accuracy have distinct significance in ballistics. Not if one of the shooters were in front. Where I come from we tend to rely on doctors to determine a great deal. No disrespect intended, but IMHO you have a lot of catching up to do. GO_SECURE monk

Well, that's not exactly correct, Jack--but you didn't know. Since 2006, I now have a career in Real Estate with my wife. GO_SECURE monk

Well, it seems to me that wound ballistics are the direct result of the mechanics. One can tell a lot about the mechanics from the effects that were left behind. But, if that was too far off--sorry. Let's see: Mike said, (in Bill Kelly's unrelated thread) that he believes it was possible, if not probable, that one could "easily" have fired accurate head shots from the TSBD. He mentioned the "target" was traveling away from the sniper's position (presumptive), and only minimal lateral motion was present. He said that he was surprised that it took 3 shots to finally get a head shot. Question: Since it did take three shots, according to Mr Williams theory, and since the FBI determined that the minimum amount of time between shots that was required to cycle the Carcano (chamber a fresh round) was 2.3 seconds WITHOUT ALLOWING FOR ANY TIME TO AIM -- how easy (and quick) is it to re-acquire the target after having already fired a shot, and after having had to chamber a round? Thanks

G'day John, Yeah, it's called "turn off your speakers" I think. Just kidding, but it's a funny ad, in a way--and man is it LOUD!

Hi Mike, I read your earlier post and noted that you said you believe that all of the shots were fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Have you read Doug Horne's book? He was the Assassination Records Review Board's "Chief Analyst for Military Records". You might find it an interesting read, if you haven't already read it. You might want to check out Jim Fetzer's books, Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza--especially the work of David Mantik, MD, PhD as well as others, which is contained therein. Do you believe that all of the earliest statements by the doctors at Parkland Hospital who first attended JFK's wounds after the shooting, were mistaken? Do you believe that these trauma room doctors, with extensive experience dealing with gunshot wounds, mistakenly identified the throat wound as a wound of entrance? If so, (which would necessarily be your position in order for you to have concluded that all shots were fired from BEHIND JFK) upon what do you base your opinion? Or did you reach your conclusion irrespective of the opinion of the Parkland doctors? Thanks

I saw a fascinating news program about 6 months ago that claimed that scientists had discovered the cause of the decline in honey bee population to a certainty. According to the study, the cause is a virus. They originally had been dealing with the idea that cell phone "cells" (or something related thereto) were interfering with the navigation systems of the bees! Eventually, they found that all of the bees that were coming from declining populations--and only those bees--all had this virus. I wonder how they re dealing with it?

No way!!! Sarah Palin's IQ can't possibly be 59?? I want confirmation! Hi Doug, good to see you again. GO_SECURE monk

Did you read, "BROTHERS" by David Talbot? Good stuff... I've found information supporting the idea that RFK had to know that the Warren Commission's investigation was compromised; sabotaged by the alliance of organized labor and organized crime that RFK had devoted himself, at least publicly, to exposing and bringing to justice. There are records of a 1953, congressional committee hearing on Paul and Allen Dorfman's "instant" 1949 entrancce into the life and health insurance business. Testimony is taken from Michael Frank Darling, the president and business manager of Chicago Local 1031, a 37,000 member affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Under questioning, Darling admits that he buys, from funds paid to Local 1031 by employers per union contracts negotiated by Darling, the group health and life insurance policies of more than half of Local 1031's members. Darling discloses that he switched all of his insurance purchases, in May, 1949, on the advice of attorney Joseph Jacobs, to the Dorfman's newly formed insurance brokerage. M. Frank Darling admiys that he made this decision without knowing if the Dorfman's, who he admitted to knowing previously, were even yet licensed to sell insurance. Reviews of his testimony and other information in that 1953 hearing, surface again in hearings held in 1958 and in 1960. In the later hearings, mention is made of Darling's 1953 testimony and the fact that he was, still president of Local 1031. Also included is infrimation that the $700 initial binder, paid by Darling to a representaitve of the Dorfmans, a Dr. Perlman, was used by Allen Dorfman to pay the initial rent for his insurance office, and for the purchase of office equipment. Kennedy participated in that session of a 1960 hearing. Counsel for Michael Frank Darling in the 1953 hearing, declaring that he woulld never attempt to answer questions directed at his client, was Albert E, Jenner. Counsel for Paul and Allen Dorfman was Stanford Clinton. According to information from the New Jersey Division of Gaming in the matter of an application for a gambling license by Playbpy and the Pritzkers, this was disclosed.: Consider that the NJ Division of Gaming excluded the word "Teamster" in all descriptions of the PENSION FUND, after the first oage of its report, which it kept hidden from the public for six uears after it was published in 1982. Consider that Pritzker attorney and 30 year friend, Stanford Clinton, was the Teamsters Pension Fund counsel, and he got the law firm of Albert Jenner and Henry Crown's son, John, to stand in for him in negotiating a $4 million loan to the Pritzkers in 1960. The Pritzkers could see that the stench of Stanford Clinton's clients had caused him to stink, too, and the distanced themselves from him. Tom Clark, Earl Warren, and Bobby Kennedy, either welcomed the nearly as tainted, Albert Jenner Jr. into one of the most sensitive investigative spots in the Warren Commission, or suffered silently in reaction tp Jenner's role in determining an Oswald or a Ruby conspiracy....or not. Albert Jenner did not represent Allen Dorfman until after the WC Report, but we now know Jenner represented the Union official who put the first Union insurance fund dollar in Dorfman's hand, and that Bobby Kennedy had to have known it. It is possible that Bobby and Teddy went to their graves faking their support for the finidings of the WC because they were trying to hide Kennedy family involvement in recruiting mob leaders in plots to assassinate Castro, but keeping that secret does not seem like enough of a benefit to stand by while Albert Jenner attempted to thwart the WC investigation, as if it was the invesitigation to determine where the Union money went after it was paid to Dorfman Insurance front companies, or why the business went to Dorfman in the first place. Watching Jenner's lawfirm, in 1960, acting as fill-n counsel for Jimmy Hoffa's Mafia piggy bank, with Henry Crown;s son on board, is rich. Bobby could not have known in 1964, that Earl Warren would be choosing Paul Ziffren;s son as his Supreme Court law clerk for the 1966 term, and there is a chance that Bobby was not aware that Tom Clark picked Henry Crown's son to clerk for him in 1956, or even that the Crown kids next stop was Jenner's law frim, but Bobby had to know that Earl Warren and family were too close to Henry Crown partner, Conrad Hiltom. Bobby Kennedy was much smarter than I am, he was an expert on the subject of Jimmy Hoffa and the mob, and he knew almost everything I've presented in thsi post, yet he permitted the Chicago Syndicate to place its attorney on the WC, to determine that neither Oswald nor Ruby had discernible mob ties, and then remained publicly supportive of the WC's "findings", and seems to have persuaded his brother Teddy and his sister-in-law, Jackie to do likewise. Albert Jenner smelled almost as bad, in 1963, as Stanford Clinton did. The Pritzkers pushed Clinton away, while Earl Warren, Tom Clark, and Dean Acheson were sponsoring Jenner to spearhead the most sensitve investigation in recent times, and the US Attorney General and dedicated mob opponent, all but held the door for thsi corrupt, bi-partisan, mob influenced whitewash. Jenner's role in representing the man who controlled the company awarded the TFX contract, investigation of which had just been shut down in December of 1963, does not even need to be emphasized, for the WC Report to look like a mob tainted mess. . Why was the Kennedy reaction, to the compromised WC, considering what Bobby had to know, no reaction?

Thanks, Steve--interesting stuff. GO_SECURE monk

And even if true, his INTELLIGENCE and BRIGHTNESS were never challenged in this thread! I never disputed the form of intelligence that Judyth is claiming he possessed and is now defending! I expressed doubt as to his WISDOM -- his ability to respond as someone who had LIFE EXPERIENCE--which is the other type of "intellect" that cannot be explained away so easily. GO_SECURE monk

Too funny, Mike-- ROFLMAO

I believe it was on this forum that Judyth came to when she left Rich's forum. She claimed that Rich had called her a "slut." I never knew Rich to call any woman something like that. But, wait a minute, yes, he liked to use the word "skank" which he reserved for Jada, the exotic dancer. Kathy C I object to that! Totally off topic. I know it doesn't matter "that I object" but I do. It will derail this thread if pursued. A pity. You kill me, Mink. Like your new name? I couldn't resist. (At least you're not a skank.) Kathy C You kill me, too -- but please don't "kill" the thread. (I'm asking nicely).

I believe it was on this forum that Judyth came to when she left Rich's forum. She claimed that Rich had called her a "slut." I never knew Rich to call any woman something like that. But, wait a minute, yes, he liked to use the word "skank" which he reserved for Jada, the exotic dancer. Kathy C I object to that! Totally off topic. I know it doesn't matter "that I object" but I do. It will derail this thread if pursued. A pity.

(cont.) That's a different kind of "bright" and you know it. I'm talking about LIFE EXPERIENCE brightness, which is not the same as maturity, nor is it the same as "gifted" which he may have been. Life experience brightness can be gleaned in one way only, by definition. Strawman. I was not judging his intelligence. I have no problem accepting his brightness. I do have a problem accepting that he was that bright, but failed to tell anyone who could have made a difference that Kennedy was to be killed if he REALLY knew it AND TOLD YOU. I have a problem believing that someone that damn smart EVEN WENT TO WORK that day knowing what you claim he knew! I would understand if he knew it--and stayed HOME! I might not like that--he should have tried to stop it--but I would BELIEVE human weakness got the best of him and he just called in sick. Don't worry, I don't believe everything I read. No comment. Agreed. No rancour. GO_SECURE monk

I don't dwell on them at all. If accurately reported, agreed. I have listened to him. He doesn't sound spontaneous to me in those debates and/or in interviews. He sounds "programmed" to me. I don't mean "brain washed" programming -- I mean "rehearsed" and DIRECTED on how to respond. His ability cannot have been due to both "spontaneous brightness" (hey give him a medal if it's true) and an "intel op asset" simultaneously. It was one or the other. That is not to say that he was not chosen for his "brightness" -- he might have been so chosen, but the "performances" that you reference are not necessarily indicative of an independent expression of intelligence beyond his years, IMO. Or a "proclamation of innocence" knowingly made from being rehearsed. Again, I believe that Oswald was well briefed in such matters. It is important for the accused to DENY the charges. Anyone who believes that once charged with a crime it is preferable to remain silent, just because you have the right to remain silent, is wrong. One needs to first DENY THE CHARGES -- and then shut up. Henry Purcell's, "Dido and Aeneas" -- because I hate foreign languages. (haha) I love Mozart, so what? Me too. Except my friends were playing checkers, parcisi (sp?), and chinese checkers -- I was 7. Sorry, my parents avoided giving me the socialist stuff, but I loved Orwell, Huxley, and Verne. (Hemmingway was a favorite, too) No, I haven't. My wife is of Russian dissent and told me I'm not missing anything though. Does that make her less intelligent? Nope. I haven't read it. However, is it publically available? Sorry, if I'm behind on this--but, I've never heard of it. However, at 23 I would find ANYTHING attributed to him suspect. IMO, by then, there was very little (if anything) in his life that was not CONTROLLED. It's one of the curiosities that you represent. If you are the "real deal" ---never mind. (cont.)

No worries, Dixie.

.......Let me clarify my meaning: I think he went to the grave with a lot of information, but--he may not have been aware of the significance of the majority of it himself. For sure that must be true. One thing's for certain though; at some point he realized he was being framed for murder. And however limited his level of knowledge and understanding might have been, those secrets that died with him would have had the potential to change history as we know it. Agreed--

I think it is safe to say that it was the military.

"Mink" ??? LOL A friendly suggestion to all: Dial it down a bit -- at this rate, we'll soon be assassinating each other! GO_SECURE monk

Hello all, Yes, the "You Won!" audio announcement is absurd, obviously untrue, and annoying. I sent John Simkin an email containing the image of a screen shot (similar to that posted by Bernice) only a few days after I joined the forum. The seriousness of this type of threat is not dependent upon "clicking" any of the advertising links. If only it were that simple. I recommend running your anti-viral / anti-spyware / anti-EVERYTHING programs regularly and keep them up to date. I run mine EVERY SINGLE NIGHT on the highest security setting available. GO_SECURE monk

Jack, I haven't seen any memory lapses so far that I couldn't have committed myself! I sincerely and firmly DISBELIEVE that Judyth posted any abusive messages to the forum, EVER. I would remember as a function of helping Rich administer policy there. I do recall Wim posting highly vitriolic messages critical of anyone who didn't immediately accept Judyth's story, or James Files' story, or Chauncey Holt as a 3rd tramp, etc. I do recall the ISP discovery for the hacking incidents as I was the one who tracked it down and supplied it to Rich for confirmation. GO_SECURE monk

Thanks, Mike. I find it interesting that we sometimes forget (or neglect to remember) the obvious significance of this man's age: He was ONLY 24 years old! Imagine that...it was one of us? Hard to imagine--reliving my 24th year in his shoes or even in my own shoes for that matter! Yet, he--of such limited life experience--we presume went to the grave with extraordinary secrets about the crime of the century! Or, at least that's what we're being asked to believe... Let me clarify my meaning: I think he went to the grave with a lot of information, but--he may not have been aware of the significance of the majority of it himself. This is in no way "proof" of my assertion-- but, he was ONLY 24 -- I don't think that he or Judyth knew at that tender age (as HEMMING would say): "xxxx from shinola" -- And, who among us would have? Yet, Judyth paints an unrealistic picture of his abilities, IMO. His exceptional level of "wisdom" (as reported by her) is inconsistent with his years of life experience and with his poor judgment. --I'm just thinking out loud, now-- GO_SECURE monk

Dixie, I'm not saying Judyth joined in 2001. I don't remember the year for a certainty, but I know that I met with her BEFORE she joined--for sure. I think we met in 2001--but I don't recall exactly how long it took for her to join after we met. It's probably not a critical point, though. I really appreciate your admission that you "bashed her (claims)" -- although, IMHO, it was more like: You guys BASHED HER personally, too... And it was not fair. It was against "flame free zone" policy, even if she was wrong. That said, it is irrelevant to the veracity of her account. "Bashing" (or the lack thereof) doesn't resolve the issue one way or the other, but it does serve to delay (and in some cases halt) the process. GO_SECURE monk