The Purloined Projectile

[Pat Speer]

Thank you, Tom, for posting all that info and proving I'm not nuts. I thought Burkley was in the bus because he was in the bus. I thought Burkley was taken to the Trade Mart because he was taken to the Trade Mart.

Ashton, I think part of your confusion comes from your interpretation of the following quote: "Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he got to the hospital." —Dr. Charles James Carrico, Warren Commission Hearings testimony, 30 March 1964. I suspect you think the "he"in this sentence means Kennedy; I interpret the "he" to be Burkley. I think Carrico is simply stating that Burkley got to the emergency room as fast as he could.

You may be right about some of rest. Maybe Burkley did get there in time to talk to Carrico about the steroids. Maybe Perry saw Carrico applying the steroids and assumed Carrico came up with this on his own. But your assumption that Perry lied to hide Burkley's presence at Parkland is a bit fanciful, IMO.

Burkley's failure to tell Humes about the throat wound has been a mystery almost since the beginning. My suspicion is that Burkley 1) was not aware of the throat wound as there was so much blood on Kennedy's head and chest or 2) arrived just after Perry conducted the tracheotomy or 3) was well aware of the throat wound but was upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy when the autopsists inspected the neck. I suspect 3. It simply may not have occurred to him that the scene downstairs was so chaotic that Humes would fail to call the doctors at Parkland and discuss the wounds as they were originally observed---standard autopsy procedure. There is no evidence, furthermore, that Humes discussed the wounds with Kellerman, Greer or Hill. Perhaps annoyed by Burkley's demand that he not look at the adrenals, Humes simply was not interested in what others had to say. He even over-ruled Finck when Finck asked to inspect the neck and asked to look at the clothes. Later he refused to let the brain be sectioned. Finally, he over-ruled Finck again when Finck suggested they list it as a partial autopsy.

I think you'd be far better off investigating Humes and his superiors than Perry.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Thank you, Tom, for posting all that info and proving I'm not nuts. I thought Burkley was in the bus because he was in the bus. I thought Burkley was taken to the Trade Mart because he was taken to the Trade Mart.

Ashton, I think part of your confusion comes from your interpretation of the following quote: "Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he got to the hospital." —Dr. Charles James Carrico, Warren Commission Hearings testimony, 30 March 1964. I suspect you think the "he"in this sentence means Kennedy; I interpret the "he" to be Burkley. I think Carrico is simply stating that Burkley got to the emergency room as fast as he could.

You may be right about some of rest. Maybe Burkley did get there in time to talk to Carrico about the steroids. Maybe Perry saw Carrico applying the steroids and assumed Carrico came up with this on his own. But your assumption that Perry lied to hide Burkley's presence at Parkland is a bit fanciful, IMO.

Burkley's failure to tell Humes about the throat wound has been a mystery almost since the beginning. My suspicion is that Burkley 1) was not aware of the throat wound as there was so much blood on Kennedy's head and chest or 2) arrived just after Perry conducted the tracheotomy or 3) was well aware of the throat wound but was upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy when the autopsists inspected the neck. I suspect 3. It simply may not have occurred to him that the scene downstairs was so chaotic that Humes would fail to call the doctors at Parkland and discuss the wounds as they were originally observed---standard autopsy procedure. There is no evidence, furthermore, that Humes discussed the wounds with Kellerman, Greer or Hill. Perhaps annoyed by Burkley's demand that he not look at the adrenals, Humes simply was not interested in what others had to say. He even over-ruled Finck when Finck asked to inspect the neck and asked to look at the clothes. Later he refused to let the brain be sectioned. Finally, he over-ruled Finck again when Finck suggested they list it as a partial autopsy.

I think you'd be far better off investigating Humes and his superiors than Perry.

1. One must have some appreciation for Naval Protocol. In the U.S. Navy, a Vice-Admiral would normally have had a private vehicle of the equivelant of JFK's. Probably with God as the driver and JC providing security.

That an "Admiral" was relegated to having to ride on a bus with the remainder of the peons, would have been the ultimate insult to his position.

Therefore, the VIP Bus became a VIP Car.

2. As demonstrated in the much later testimony of Dr. Humes, Burkley appears to want to come off as if he were in COMMAND and were making all decisions of things at Parkland as well as at Bethesda.

Nothing unusual in this regards either.

Burkley was in fact a "front" which came about as a result of JFK's medical condition and as a means of hiding the facts of JFK's various treatments for his back as well as adrenal problems, and the treatment of these problems by others.

In fact, if one fully evaluates the evidence, it would appear that Burkley was more concerned about keeping these items officially out of the medical/autopsy records than he was with insuring a complete autopsy.

3. The brain was sectioned following the fixation.

4. Lastly, there can be little doubt that Humes became fully aware that he, as the principal party responsible for the autopsy, had made some drastic mistakes.

That he was willing to completely change his original thesis from a bullet which merely entered a short distance and did not pass through the torso of JFK, to an anterior neck wound exit, clearly demonstrates this, as well as his somewhat lame and uncontested excuse for having burned the original autopsy notes.

All of which of course Specter did not pursue as these notes would have basically stated the same thing as that stated in the report of FBI Agent Francis O'neill.

Which goes back to the "godly" syndrone.

For either an Admiral or a "full" Captain in the US Navy to admit a mistake, is about like getting the Pope to admit error in religious matters.

Right after hell freezes over.

[Chuck Robbins]

Which goes back to the "godly" syndrone.

For either an Admiral or a "full" Captain in the US Navy to admit a mistake, is about like getting the Pope to admit error in religious matters.

Right after hell freezes over.

Not to be a smart-a__, but, this syndrome seems to be exhibited by some forum members as well.

Of course, forum members are not subject to prosecution for revealing to the public that following direct orders from superiors caused "mistakes" to be made in the course of the autopsy.

I expect some will argue this point with me?

Maybe it is just a part of being human to deny things we do not wish to consider or believe?

[Ashton Gray]

Thank you, Tom, for posting all that info and proving I'm not nuts. I thought Burkley was in the bus because he was in the bus.

I guess if you're not, then Burkley is, since he thought he was in a VIP car. If only you'd been there to set him straight on what he was in.

I thought Burkley was taken to the Trade Mart because he was taken to the Trade Mart.

No one contested Burkley having been taken to the Trade Mart. Given that the Trade Mart is on the same road as Parkland Hospital, on the way to Parkland Hospital from Dealey Plaza, and less than a mile away from Parkland Hospital, it simply isn't the issue that you seem to wish it was relative to Burkley's presence at Parkland Hospital:

Ashton, I think part of your confusion comes from your interpretation of the following quote: "Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he got to the hospital." —Dr. Charles James Carrico, Warren Commission Hearings testimony, 30 March 1964. I suspect you think the "he"in this sentence means Kennedy; I interpret the "he" to be Burkley. I think Carrico is simply stating that Burkley got to the emergency room as fast as he could.

Pat, I think part of your confusion comes from your wishful thinking that I'm confused. I'm not.

And, no, Pat: I don't think for an instant that Charles James Carrico said "Admiral Burkley was there as soon as Admiral Burkley got there." You interpret it any way that makes sense to you, though.

Maybe Burkley did get there in time to talk to Carrico about the steroids.

Guaranteed. Do stay tuned. There's going to be a little movie soon.

Maybe Perry saw Carrico applying the steroids and assumed Carrico came up with this on his own.

Perry was present when Burkley said to administer the steroids in the drip.

But your assumption that Perry lied to hide Burkley's presence at Parkland is a bit fanciful, IMO.

Perry was present when Burkley said to administer the steroids in the drip.

Burkley's failure to tell Humes about the throat wound has been a mystery almost since the beginning. My suspicion is that Burkley 1) was not aware of the throat wound as there was so much blood on Kennedy's head and chest...

Other people present in the room saw it, and they didn't do a doctor's inspection of Kennedy's wounds. Burkley did on arrival. It was discussed while Burkley was present in the room. Burkley knew about the throat wound. Stay tuned.

...or, 2) arrived just after Perry conducted the tracheotomy...

Not possible. Wrong sequence re: steroids.

3) was well aware of the throat wound but was upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy when the autopsists inspected the neck. I suspect 3.

Burkley had ordered the United States Naval Hospital at Bethesda to be prepared for performing the autopsy, and supervised the autopsy himself, by his own admission in his own sworn affidavit. Burkley knew about the throat wound. There is no evidence at all that Burkley was "upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy when the autopsists inspected the neck," and if he was in the mop closet with an ensign nurse when the autopsists inspected the neck, it doesn't mitigate at all his withholding the fact of the throat wound throughout the entire autopsy—which he supervised.

Ashton Gray

Edited February 6, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

For either an Admiral or a "full" Captain in the US Navy to admit a mistake, is about like getting the Pope to admit error in religious matters.

Must be something about like trying to get you to answer this: isn't it true that gaining officer and instructor status in the Special Forces required considerable training in brainwashing and coercive persuasion techniques, including but not limited to familiarity with works referenced in the CIA manual "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation," et seq.?

If so, that's not "personal": that goes to social engineering, and I think it's a very, very relevant disclosure that should be made, pertinent to exactly what these forums are addressing.

You keep acting like this question isn't here. It is. It's relevant. It's important. It isn't going away. How about a straight answer.

Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

Ashton, since you swear by Burkley's interview, maybe you can tell us which car Burkley was riding in... Was it before or after the press bus? Since you seem so certain Burkley knew about the throat wound, why do you believe he failed to tell Humes? Or do you feel he told Humes, and Humes concocted a big fat lie in order to confuse the FBI? I have to admit I'm curious where you're heading with this.

Tom, you seem to have your own theory about the brain... Officially, it was never sectioned. Do you think Humes lied about the brain? If the supplementary examination showed two wound tracks, it seems reasonable that Humes would be told to forget about it--thus, his insistence that he didn't section the brain. Perhaps Burkley was well aware of this and this is what led him to later state he thought there may have been two head shots. When told about this by the ARRB Humes grew quite upset. Was he just pissed at Burkley for being such a pain, or do you think Burkley came close to spilling the beans about what was discovered by Humes' sectioning the brain. Your thoughts appreciated.

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton, since you swear by Burkley's interview, maybe you can tell us which car Burkley was riding in

Maybe first you can tell us where I "swear by Burkley's interview." Just quote me, that's all.

Since you seem so certain Burkley knew about the throat wound, why do you believe he failed to tell Humes?

My first post in this thread answers that question. The very title I gave to this thread answers that question—though I have not stipulated, and will not stipulate, that Humes was ignorant at all relevant times of the throat wound, or of the purloined projectile of record.

I have to admit I'm curious where you're heading with this.

I'm heading where the data trail leads.

Tom, you seem to have your own theory about the brain...

This isn't a thread about the brain or what happened to it. If you want to pursue the "If We Only Had a Brain" question with your buddy the Special Forces instructor, start a different thread and stop trying to drive this one off a cliff.

Ashton Gray

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Humes before the AARB:

A. He says he supervised the autopsy. He was in the room. As far as supervising the autopsy, he didn't. Nobody supervised. I'm, unfortunately, responsible for it. Maybe he thought he was supervising it. If that made him feel better, that's okay with me, too. But I could not have put up with that. You know, just--it was not in my nature to be that retiring. I'm afraid I haven't changed a great deal.

I never saw this document before, of course.

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

From HSCA Testimony of Dr. Humes.

Humes Chain-of-Command and exactly who had the authority to direct him and/or give him orders regarding the autopsy.

Dr. HUMES. Well, I was summoned from my home late in afternoon of that day by the Surgeon General of the Navy and the Commanding officer of the Naval Medical Center, and the Commanding Officer of the the Naval Medical School, and much to my surprise, was told that the body of the late President was being brought to our laboratories and that I was to examine the President and ascertain the cause of death.

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

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol16_0504a.htm

"A supplemental report will be submitted following more detailed examination of the brain"

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol16_0506a.htm

CE391-----------------Supplemental Report.

"Coronal sections are not made"

"The following sections are taken for microscopic examination".

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

These sections were microscopically examined along with the section through the back/upper neck wound.

It was during this examination that the considerably fibers from the coat/shirt of JFK which had been carried down into the wound of entry of the back/upper neck wound were observed.

Negligently, this critical item of evidence did not get into the written report and came about only as the result of a casual comment by Dr. Boswell to a news reporter, some time later.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Ashton, since you swear by Burkley's interview, maybe you can tell us which car Burkley was riding in... Was it before or after the press bus? Since you seem so certain Burkley knew about the throat wound, why do you believe he failed to tell Humes? Or do you feel he told Humes, and Humes concocted a big fat lie in order to confuse the FBI? I have to admit I'm curious where you're heading with this.

Tom, you seem to have your own theory about the brain... Officially, it was never sectioned. Do you think Humes lied about the brain? If the supplementary examination showed two wound tracks, it seems reasonable that Humes would be told to forget about it--thus, his insistence that he didn't section the brain. Perhaps Burkley was well aware of this and this is what led him to later state he thought there may have been two head shots. When told about this by the ARRB Humes grew quite upset. Was he just pissed at Burkley for being such a pain, or do you think Burkley came close to spilling the beans about what was discovered by Humes' sectioning the brain. Your thoughts appreciated.

Pat;

Understanding the "progression" of how the autopsy ENDED with:

1. A bullet into the back/upper neck which penetrated only a short distance, stopping over the apical portion of the right lung and bruising the lung as well as the parietal pluera.

2. A tracheotomy incision of the anterior neck.

3. A bullet entrance located just to the right and above the EOP, severely fragmenting, and exiting in the frontal lobe of the brain.

And thereafter got to the SBT theory, is almost as long-winded as explaining the progression of the Survey Work in Dealy Plaza.

Nevertheless:

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

The autopsy absolutely ended with #1, #2, and #3 above.

And, everyone went home.

Dr. Humes called and spoke with Parkland on the morning of Nov. 23, and then learned of the small anterior throat wound through which Dr. Perry had done the tracheotomy incision.

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

With this new information, Dr. Humes was obviously quite aware that "they" had missed something.

Dr. Humes thereafter contacted Dr. Boswell and Dr. Finck to disuss the newly gained information.

The result being that the autopsy surgeons came to an agreement that it must have been a fragment from the head shot which went downward and exited out the anterior neck which was responsible for the anterior throat wound.

At this point, there was still no consideration given to the back/upper neck bullet having completely penetrated the body of JFK.

This too is where the concept/idea that a "fragment" from the head shot may have travelled downwards and exited the anterior neck, and this has to do with the previously posted document regarding the anterior neck wound having been created by a fragment as the information was so contradictory that Rankin & crew did not even know what was going on.

So, the next and never reported concept was the bullet into the back and no complete penetration with a shot to the back of the head and a fragment wound from this shot which may have exited the neck.

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

This "discussed" theory was wiped out when the brain was later fully examined and it was found that there was absolutely no damage pathway for the bullet which struck at the upper tip of the occipital lobe to have sent a fragment down through the brain and exiting out the neck.

So, now we have a shot to the head which severely fragmented, yet sent no fragment downwards towards the anterior throat, and we have a bullet into the back which, according to all, did not completely penetrate JFK, and we (being the autopsy surgeons) have already made several mistakes.

And, according to Parkland Hospital, we have a projectile wound of some unknown size to the anterior throat.

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

Thus was born the SBT/Magic Bullet theory, which effectively explained the wounds and I might add, allowed the Autopsy surgeons to "escape" without having to admit the series of mistakes and errors which had been made in examination and an absolutely conclusive determination of the forensic facts.

Many, many careers hung in the balance on this one.

We like to call it: "Incoming--run for cover"!

Not that I expect you (or most others) to believe it, but hope that answered your questions.

[Ashton Gray]

Humes before the AARB:

A. He says he supervised the autopsy. He was in the room. As far as supervising the autopsy, he didn't. Nobody supervised. I'm, unfortunately, responsible for it. Maybe he thought he was supervising it. If that made him feel better, that's okay with me, too. But I could not have put up with that. You know, just--it was not in my nature to be that retiring. I'm afraid I haven't changed a great deal.

I never saw this document before, of course.

Yes, Special Forces Instructor Purvis, it's as predictable as gravity now that if evidence is posted that something was black, you will immediately post evidence (always at your fingertips) that it was white. This principle of dichotomies is a primary psy-op technique of the exact kind of CIA-originated coercive persuasion training you received to become a Special Forces officer and instructor, isn't it? And its actual intention is a method of social engineering to keep people in a constant state of confusion, because in such psy-ops training, you're taught that "what applies to the microcosm applies to the macrocosm; what works on the individual will work on populations." Isn't that correct? And these exact kinds of black/white dichotomies of "evidence" have been seeded all through the Kennedy assassination "evidence" in testimony for exactly these purposes of wide-scale confusion, haven't they?

I ask these points specifically regarding this topic at issue, because you keep evading this question: isn't it true that gaining officer and instructor status in the Special Forces required considerable training in brainwashing and coercive persuasion techniques, including but not limited to familiarity with works referenced in the CIA manual "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation," et seq.?

If so, that's not "personal": that goes to social engineering, and I think it's a very, very relevant disclosure that should be made, pertinent to exactly what these forums are addressing.

You keep acting like this question isn't here. It is. It's relevant. It's important. It isn't going away. How about a straight answer.

Meanwhile, we have not only Burkley's own sworn affidavit that he supervised the autopsy, but have very certain and emphatic collaboration of the fact that Burkley supervised the autopsy from the extensive testimony of Jerrol Custer, who actually took every x-ray that was taken.

So your efforts on this point to keep everyone who passes this way as confused as possible just tanked: Burkley supervised the autopsy. Period. And at all relevant times, Burkley knew about the throat wound. Period.

From HSCA Testimony of Dr. Humes.

Humes Chain-of-Command and exactly who had the authority to direct him and/or give him orders regarding the autopsy.

Dr. HUMES. Well, I was summoned from my home late in afternoon of that day by the Surgeon General of the Navy and the Commanding officer of the Naval Medical Center, and the Commanding Officer of the the Naval Medical School, and much to my surprise, was told that the body of the late President was being brought to our laboratories and that I was to examine the President and ascertain the cause of death.

Well, that little psy-op to keep the chain of command truncated at the named C.O.s and the Surgeon General also just got flushed down the pipes, because we now know that they got their marching orders from Burkley, which orders came in the general confusion over the passing of the baton to a new President and came from Burkley with all the force and power of an order from the office of the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States.

That should be obvious to you of all people, since there is no evidence of record that either the Surgeon General, or the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical School, or the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical Center independently had standing to originate any such order about who would carry out the autopsy of their late Commander in Chief. In fact, it's my opinion and informed belief that at all relevant times you have been thoroughly aware of this fact, and therefore have willfully propagated as fiction the false idea that the origin of order stopped below Burkley. But maybe you'd like to gainsay your knowledge that the order for Bethesda to conduct the autopsy originated from Burkley.

If so, it seems to me that's going to water down your self-proclaimed "expert" status considerably, but maybe you have a good reason for having omitted this crucial information.

Ashton Gray

Edited February 6, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Thomas H. Purvis]

A. He says he supervised the autopsy. He was in the room. As far as supervising the autopsy, he didn't. Nobody supervised. I'm, unfortunately, responsible for it. Maybe he thought he was supervising it. If that made him feel better, that's okay with me, too.

OK with me too!

AARB of Dr. Finck:

Could you please tell us what your

[10] understanding is of who was in charge of the

[11] autopsy?

[12] A: Of the autopsy itself? I would say Dr.

[13] Humes, who was the chief of the laboratory.

[14] Q: Was there anyone during the course of the

[15] autopsy who gave Dr. Humes instructions regarding

[16] the scope of the autopsy?

[17] A: Throughout the autopsy, we were told about

[18] the wishes of the family to limit the autopsy to

[19] the head, and then it was extended to the chest,

AARB of Boswell:

Q. Was it your impression in 1963 that Dr. Burkley was supervising what was going on in the autopsy room?

A. Well, he wasn't supervising very closely. We were acting on certain of his instructions. Initially, Jim--at this time, I can't remember how Jim got his instructions from Burkley. I don't know whether Jim actually went upstairs to see Burkley or whether he came down. I never saw Admiral Burkley in the morgue. But at some point, Jim understood that we were to do a limited autopsy to find--I think the initial thing that they told us was that we were to find the bullets, that they had captured the assailant, and that that's all they needed. And Jim argued and said that that was--you know, we couldn't do that kind of an autopsy. But we started out just with the idea that we were going to do an external examination and then we were going to do a limited internal examination. But at a point shortly after we started, it was agreed that we would do a complete autopsy. But I don't know how Jim got those instructions, whether he left the morgue and went up to see Burkley or whether Burkley came down or whether he sent a messenger. There was just too many things going on, I guess, that I wasn't aware of how that all happened.

Q. Was it your understanding that the instructions about the scope of the autopsy were, however, coming from Dr. Burkley?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. If I understood you correctly, you said that you have no recollection of Dr. Burkley being in the morgue. Is that correct?

A. I don't remember him being in the morgue at all. Now, he could very well have been in there very briefly early in the autopsy, but I'm sure that he was upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy most of the evening.

Q. Ultimately, did it seem to you as if a complete autopsy had been performed on President Kennedy?

A. Well, a generally complete autopsy was done. We did not do some of the more radical things that you do in forensic autopsies, like remove limbs or large portions of spine and that sort of thing. But, otherwise, a complete autopsy was done.

Q. Did you ever understand that there were any orders or instructions to limit the scope of the autopsy of the brain?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever understand that there were any orders or instructions to limit the autopsy of the organs of the neck?

A. No.

Q. Were the organs of the neck dissected?

A. Yes.

[Charles Black]

Hello Tom Purvis

This is sounding like the finals in the International Liars Competition !

What about Fincks comment that there were "Admirals" there.

And by the way, didn't Ashton go into one of his whirling dervish tirades promising to prove that Burkely never left the autopsy room ?

This procedure of autopsy on the most powerful political figure on earth, as well as being their military Commander in Chief, had to be the professional highlight of these doctor's careers.

Yet knowing the scrutiny under which this procedure would be reviewed, they had the audacity to state that they felt that this was a "normal autopsy"?

If these Doctors considered "THIS" to be a normal autopsy.....can you possibly imagine what would transpire at the autopsy of say an 18 year old seaman? I wonder how many were buried alive !

Hell, if I were a seaman, I would be terrified to fall asleep !

Charlie Black

[Charles Black]

Hello Tom Purvis

This is sounding like the finals in the International Liars Competition !

What about Fincks comment that there were "Admirals" there.

And by the way, didn't Ashton go into one of his whirling dervish tirades promising to prove that Burkely never left the autopsy room ?

This procedure of autopsy on the most powerful political figure on earth, as well as being their military Commander in Chief, had to be the professional highlight of these doctor's careers.

Yet knowing the scrutiny under which this procedure would be reviewed, they had the audacity to state that they felt that this was a "normal autopsy"?

If these Doctors considered "THIS" to be a normal autopsy.....can you possibly imagine what would transpire at the autopsy of say an 18 year old seaman? I wonder how many were buried alive !

Hell, if I were a seaman, I would be terrified to fall asleep !

Charlie Black

[Ashton Gray]

AARB of Boswell:

A. ...I'm sure that he was upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy most of the evening.

While you're keeping the blender spinning on HIGH, Special Forces Agent Purvis, tell everybody listening to your spin how Boswell could have had any idea at all where Burkley was—if Burkley had been out of the autopsy room at any time, which I do not stipulate. X-ray vision? Is that what you're trying to get people to buy? That's how I see it: either, Boswell had X-ray vision, or it's yet another example of the gratuitous "details" that liars always seem to throw in to help sell their lie.

Meanwhile, Burkley himself says in sworn affidavit that he supervised the autopsy, and Jerrol Custer testified that Burkley was in the autopsy room with a four-star general, both of them issuing orders on the conduct of the autopsy. And Burkley is the person who ordered where the autopsy was to be done. The propensity of evidence entirely supports the fact that Burkley supervised the autopsy, and that testimony to the contrary is perjured testimony in support of a cover-up—which fact of falsehoods and a cover-up is inarguable.

And there's a question still on the table for you, Special Forces Instructor Purvis: isn't it true that gaining officer and instructor status in the Special Forces required considerable training in brainwashing and coercive persuasion techniques, including but not limited to familiarity with works referenced in the CIA manual "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation," et seq.?

If so, that's not "personal": that goes to social engineering, and I think it's a very, very relevant disclosure that should be made, pertinent to exactly what these forums are addressing.

I only speak for me, but from where I sit, your continued dodging of this very pertinent question is starting to look a little ugly.

Ashton Gray

[Guest John Gillespie]

"This principle of dichotomies is a primary psy-op technique of the exact kind of CIA-originated coercive persuasion training you received to become a Special Forces officer and instructor, isn't it? And its actual intention is a method of social engineering to keep people in a constant state of confusion, because in such psy-ops training, you're taught that "what applies to the microcosm applies to the macrocosm; what works on the individual will work on populations." Isn't that correct? And these exact kinds of black/white dichotomies of "evidence" have been seeded all through the Kennedy assassination "evidence" in testimony for exactly these purposes of wide-scale confusion, haven't they?

I ask these points specifically regarding this topic at issue, because you keep evading this question: isn't it true that gaining officer and instructor status in the Special Forces required considerable training in brainwashing and coercive persuasion techniques, including but not limited to familiarity with works referenced in the CIA manual "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation," et seq.?"

__________________________________

Quite rightly, as Mr. Leitch would say. I testify to the above, having been processed through some of it myself. I guess that's why I'm drinking A.G.'s Kool Aid, n'est ce pas? Yeah, that's it.

I have known several S.P./Intell career guys quite well and it is their abiding modus operandi to obfuscate when absolutely nothing is at stake. Cognoscenti, nod in unison.

Hey Ash, notice how Douglas Catty seems to slither out to the daylight just when it is deemed that establishment dogma might need reinforcement? Here he comes to save the day! Looks odd in that cape.

JG

Edited February 6, 2007 by John Gillespie