Jump to content
The Education Forum

Your Best Big Fact of a Conspiracy


Recommended Posts

Dr. Charles Gregory, who was responsible for Governor Connally's wrist injury, gave the following testimony, which proves that Dr. Robert Shaw did not have all the facts when he told the press that the bullet was still inside Connally's leg.

DVP's emphasis....

DR. GREGORY -- "I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very
well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of
its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never
have penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was
dislodged and was found in the clothing. I would like to add to that we

were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient

with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient

magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought

to search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see

if it could be identified or found, rather."

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The prima facie case for conspiracy: the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Everything else on this topic is pure equine offal.

jacketclose_zpsw4oehxyq.jpg

A five year old could figure this out -- but so many want to pursue complicated arguments that serve nothing but the on-going cover-up.

bump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E. Martin Schotz:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html#s5

<quote on>

The Malignant Nature of Pseudo-Debate

Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo-debate is a benign activity. That it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo-debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo-debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo-debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise. It is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise – that there is uncertainly to be resolved – seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.

That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions – the media, the universities and the government – once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.

<quote off>

bump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, David. I'll go with Shaw's immediate comments after leaving the operating theatre, not something said months later when agendas had been established.

So you think Dr. Gregory was lying through his teeth here?....

"We were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all."

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how the man could be so specifically wrong given his position, the timing of his comments and the importance of the events that day.

To simply say he was wrong is a very weak and unconvincing argument.

I guess it's out of the question that Gregory was wrong?

Edited by James Richards
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Gregory couldn't find a bullet because it had fallen out (Connally heard it drop) and a nurse had picked it up and handed it off to Billy Nolan. Did Gregory ask around about it? Who was there when and did what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, that is called reconciling splits in the evidence.

Many good lawyers do this to win over a jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, that is called reconciling splits in the evidence.

Many good lawyers do this to win over a jury.

Is that good or bad? Did I miss my calling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fascinating that the name Curtis Berkley is so rich with anagams.

In alphabetical order:

Be Cruelty Risk

Be Truly Sicker

Icky Blusterer

Liberty Sucker

Lusty Bickerer

Rickety Rubles

Risky Tubercle

Trickery Blues

Ye Curst Bilker

Lusty Bickerer sounds like the lead character in an adult-themed re-do of Stone's JFK.

I'll take it.

regardless, Stone's JFK-the movie set back WCR supporters and the report 25 years.... they've never recovered, and never will.

I couldn't agree more. If there was a worse face for the CTers than Jim Garrison, which is difficult to even imagine, it was topped when Oliver Stone took the mantle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted that JFK is entertainment, not history. But it sure gave rise to the ARRB, whose disclosures impugn both the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

The ARRB didn't do much to reveal who killed JFK. It sure uncovered stuff the U.S. Government didn't want revealed.

DVP: Assuming you're correct that Oswald did it alone, why have agencies of the U.S. Government fought so hard to reveal their files relating to the assassination? I'd rejoice if the files were laid bare and they indicated clearly that Oswald was the assassin. I'd go on with my life.

I'm nagged, though, even though you aren't. By the neat opinion of the W.C., the MSM, and the mainstream historians that gets perforated by researchers.

The researchers aren't 100-percent correct. They don't have to be to raise reasonable doubt. On the other hand, you and your fellow travelers have to be 100-percent correct. That is your burden.

LHO would be convicted in any court in America, and neither Daniel Webster nor Alan Dershowitz could save him.

It would make the Clay Shaw deliberations look near epic, in comparison.

I understand that many may disagree with this, but that's my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...