Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Purloined Projectile


Recommended Posts

All Members & Moderators

who may still be interested if their is legitimacy in my references to Ashton Gray's "non answers" to posts on this forum, which have asked for further substantion of his claims. Please refer to Ashton's

posts numbers 75 and 68.

There was no nasty goading which preceded the answers which he entered in these posts. To his credit, he did try to further educate me in basic math. However before my 16th birthday, I was able to count up to the number of my fingers and by 18, the digits on one foot.

These types of non responses have been the major source of my criticism of Ashton.

No ! I am not lobbying to have he or anyone booted from the forum ! Just an attempt at definining some of the frustration which evolves when corresponding with Ashton. This is not an isolated pair of posts. Merely his latest ones.

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Mrs. Lincoln, the President's Secretary, and I were in what Mr. Behn called the VIP car,"

Oh, good: he was in a car.

She said that she was with Dr. Burkley (then physician to the President) when they were somewhat suprised at being "shoved" back in the motorcade into a bus."

Oh, good: he was in a bus.

"Suddenly Dr. Burkley vanished.

Oh, good: he was on the Magic Bus.

"Dr. Burkley, on the wrong bus and taken to the Trade Mart against his will, came into the room."

Oh, good: he was on the wrong bus, and it crashed into a room at the Trade Mart.

George G. Burkley, physician to the President, was in a car following those "containing the local and national representatives."

Oh, good: he was in a car.

In event one has trouble with "forward" thinking, perhaps reverse order thinking may help.

Oh, good: yeah, that should help a lot.

Speaking of "reverse order thinking" (now that you brought it up), and very germane to what you spend a good deal of time doing in these forums (such as the above): 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.

Meanwhile:

"On arrival in Dallas, Texas there was a long motorcade. Mrs. Lincoln—the President's Secretary—and I were in what Mr. Behn called the VIP car, which followed the cars containing the local and national representatives."
—Admiral George Gregory Burkley
,
WH22 CE 1126, Report dated 27 November 1963 by George G. Burkley, Physician to the President, on his participation in the activities surrounding the assassination

And it still doesn't alter by one jot when Admiral George Gregory Burkley was inside Trauma Room 1, no matter how many more second- and third-hand "sources" you run around chasing up to confuse people further. And it never will.

So you go ahead and wait on the bus. I'm moving on to Trauma Room 1.

Ashton Gray

So you go ahead and wait on the bus. I'm moving on to Trauma Room 1.

Ashton Gray

If, and when you actually find your way there, you may also find some conflict in regards to exactly who it was that initially pronounced JFK as dead.

Burkley would also like to take credit for this one as well.

And although Burkley may/ or may not have done so, it was a Parkland Dr. who first pronounced death.

And considering that it is documented that he did not arrive until some point AFTER 12:53, perhaps if you too hurry then you can beat him there.

Provided of course you do not also get onto the wrong bus and end up elsewhere.

Which it would appear, you long ago did!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you go ahead and wait on the bus. I'm moving on to Trauma Room 1.

Ashton Gray

If, and when you actually find your way there, you may also find some conflict in regards to exactly who it was that initially pronounced JFK as dead.

Oh, they're located. Very located. It's the conflicts that are getting resolved in this thread—not flung in people's faces like chaff in a whirlwind to confuse them.

Speaking of the psy-op of flinging conflicts in people's faces like chaff in a whirlwind to confuse them, I posted a direct germane question for you that you didn't answer. I'll ask it again: 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.

Burkley would also like to take credit for this one as well.

And although Burkley may/ or may not have done so, it was a Parkland Dr. who first pronounced death.

And considering that it is documented that he did not arrive until some point AFTER 12:53, perhaps if you too hurry then you can beat him there.

You make your record; I'll make mine.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton

has once again made another enormous contribution to research with his last post. He said

"PLONK"

This may have been the most relevant of his posts.

If one were to construe this response in a very favorable and literal manner, a few of you might

s-t-r-e-t-c-h, and respond that this was quite an improvement, for if one were really to push oneself, it might be construed that this response may not have been totally adversarial !

I feel that "this one word" says a great deal !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
So you go ahead and wait on the bus. I'm moving on to Trauma Room 1.

Ashton Gray

If, and when you actually find your way there, you may also find some conflict in regards to exactly who it was that initially pronounced JFK as dead.

Oh, they're located. Very located. It's the conflicts that are getting resolved in this thread—not flung in people's faces like chaff in a whirlwind to confuse them.

Speaking of the psy-op of flinging conflicts in people's faces like chaff in a whirlwind to confuse them, I posted a direct germane question for you that you didn't answer. I'll ask it again: 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.

Burkley would also like to take credit for this one as well.

And although Burkley may/ or may not have done so, it was a Parkland Dr. who first pronounced death.

And considering that it is documented that he did not arrive until some point AFTER 12:53, perhaps if you too hurry then you can beat him there.

You make your record; I'll make mine.

Ashton Gray

Ashton, FWIW, I started a thread on Dr Burkley and his strange performance on the day, so to speak, several months ago. Unike this fine upstanding thread( a real credit to its Father) mine garnered little responce, except from one member who took it upon himself to berate me for attempting to diminish such a fine, upstanding military man as the good Doctor. I'll see if I cant dig it up, who knows, it may add some grist to your mill...Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton, FWIW, I started a thread on Dr Burkley and his strange performance on the day, so to speak, several months ago. Unike this fine upstanding thread( a real credit to its Father) mine garnered little responce, except from one member who took it upon himself to berate me for attempting to diminish such a fine, upstanding military man as the good Doctor. I'll see if I cant dig it up, who knows, it may add some grist to your mill...Steve.

I'd really like to see it, Steve. Sorry I haven't ferreted it out myself, but my forum forays currently are almost on a drive-by basis. I'l be driving back around, soon, though...

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran
Ashton

has once again made another enormous contribution to research with his last post. He said

"PLONK"

This may have been the most relevant of his posts.

If one were to construe this response in a very favorable and literal manner, a few of you might

s-t-r-e-t-c-h, and respond that this was quite an improvement, for if one were really to push oneself, it might be construed that this response may not have been totally adversarial !

I feel that "this one word" says a great deal !

Charlie Black

Charles, can I ask what enormous contribution to research your last post has made (or this one for that matter)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary

I detect a major defect in your "lilly white" armor. Why did you not direct this thread toward Ashton rather than me ? Ashton may feel deprived that I, rather than he, received more of your words of wisdom.

And for one who is so opposed to forum friction....

why do you further it with your own inconsequential points and posts, which are so transparently meant to personally degrade me ? Step up and do it like a real......"person".

By the way, if Ashton adds anything more to his signature credits, I will feel that I have watched a movie. "Sci Fi", of course !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton's in the right church.

He's just in the wrong pew.

His point with the farcical Parkland Hospital Shiv Scenario is that the

plotters would not have taken any chances.

That last bit I buy.

But they didn't have to recruit Diana Bowron to shiv the obviously-soon-to-die JFK.

They had the technology to fire a blood soluble paralytic, setting JFK up for

an easy head shot, which is fully consistent with the medical evidence --

especially that airpocket overlaying C7 and T1 as seen in the thoracic x-ray.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca..._Vol7_0117b.htm

People don't talk about that little detail because it doesn't fit pet theories.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran
Gary

I detect a major defect in your "Lily white" Armour. Why did you not direct this thread toward Ashton rather than me ? Ashton may feel deprived that I, rather than he, received more of your words of wisdom.

And for one who is so opposed to forum friction....

why do you further it with your own inconsequential points and posts, which are so transparently meant to personally degrade me ? Step up and do it like a real......"person".

By the way, if Ashton adds anything more to his signature credits, I will feel that I have watched a movie. "Sci Fi", of course !

Charlie Black

Hi Charles,

I suppose, whether I agree with the product or not, Ashton typically produces research in his posts. Yes, some find it controversial, but he makes a record of it none the less. For this I thank him, as I do to everyone who takes the considerable time to post informatively on the subject. This thanks to all is without my personal prejudices, or beliefs. I try to take all the information from wherever it originates and form my own ideas. For example, I agree with you that the technology and brainpower existed to alter film in '63, whether it happened or not....?

I am opposed to, not necessarily, friction - which can be a good thing - but the noise of nothingness, which, is interspersed in a great many threads, which I find interesting. This post, like my last to you, becoming, unfortunately, an addition to that distracting noise. I'm sorry you felt personally degraded, that was not my intention. I was self deprecating in my last post and acknowledged that my post was also inconsequential, already answering the question you pose.

To allow the true participants in this thread an opportunity to resume, I shan't create anymore inconsequential posts here.

Thanks

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice Post Gary

Thank you. I will try to do the same.

It seems that I "bicker" more on this forum than I contribute. This has been 5th grade playground type conduct at best !

We all have much to learn and far better things to do.

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary

I detect a major defect in your "Lily white" Armour. Why did you not direct this thread toward Ashton rather than me ? Ashton may feel deprived that I, rather than he, received more of your words of wisdom.

And for one who is so opposed to forum friction....

why do you further it with your own inconsequential points and posts, which are so transparently meant to personally degrade me ? Step up and do it like a real......"person".

By the way, if Ashton adds anything more to his signature credits, I will feel that I have watched a movie. "Sci Fi", of course !

Charlie Black

Hi Charles,

I suppose, whether I agree with the product or not, Ashton typically produces research in his posts. Yes, some find it controversial, but he makes a record of it none the less. For this I thank him, as I do to everyone who takes the considerable time to post informatively on the subject. This thanks to all is without my personal prejudices, or beliefs. I try to take all the information from wherever it originates and form my own ideas. For example, I agree with you that the technology and brainpower existed to alter film in '63, whether it happened or not....?

I am opposed to, not necessarily, friction - which can be a good thing - but the noise of nothingness, which, is interspersed in a great many threads, which I find interesting. This post, like my last to you, becoming, unfortunately, an addition to that distracting noise. I'm sorry you felt personally degraded, that was not my intention. I was self deprecating in my last post and acknowledged that my post was also inconsequential, already answering the question you pose.

To allow the true participants in this thread an opportunity to resume, I shan't create anymore inconsequential posts here.

Thanks

Gary

I shan't create anymore inconsequential posts here.

Thanks

Gary

It is hardly inconsequential when one utilizes his on/independent thought processing capabilities to openly and fully examine the facts and evidence.

Certainly better than being lead around by the nose and only getting a sniff of the frequent garbage as produced by others and thereafter willingly jumping onto/into the refuse pile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISN'T THIS ALL BECOMING JUST A LITTLE BIT RIDICULOUS?

Seriously, nothing anyone says, which is designed to lessen someone elses stature on this forum, will change my thoughts or views regarding my beliefs about who was responsible...etc. etc. for the assassination of JFK.

Anyone who seems intent upon minimizing anothers point of view regarding this event is doing all a disservice.

We all have the faculties to determine, for ourselves, which statements, when made, or, which evidence, when presented, is within the realm of possibility.

No matter what, ultimately, we all must decide for ourselves what evidence, whether "solid" or "anecdotal" is acceptable.

I, for one, believe that much of what is accepted as evidence today is nothing more than fiction.

The fox was guarding the henhouse. The fox, once the chicken was dead, was charged with investigating that death.

Much of what shapes my opinions and beliefs is the evidence which was dismissed out of hand by the fox.

Chest thumping while relying upon the so-called accepted evidence might not be the wisest course one could pursue.

After all, can any one of us state, with absolute certainty, which evidence is credible and which is not?

Chuck, this is a very good point. It was precisely for this reason that I spent WAAY too much time studying the "accepted" evidence. I found, to my surprise, that the accepted evidence suggests more than one shooter, and always has suggested more than one shooter. I concluded from this that it is not the evidence itself which is suspect, but the men hired to "interpret" (read spin) this evidence. This puts me on the opposite side of the fence from the "alterationsists." While they believe the case can only move forward when people stop looking at the evidence (outside of convincing themselves it's fake), I believe this case will inevitably (and hopefully soon) take a giant leap forward when previously disinterested and fair-minded scientists actually look at the evidence. This process began a few years ago when the National Academie of Sciences pulled the rug out from Guinn's NAA analysis. If only a few pieces of evidence, including F8, get re-interpreted, then the lone-nut theory will collapse under its own weight. All it takes is one TV special and it's over. Then the FBI will have to acknowledge there was more than one shooter, and resolve all the mafia, CIA and Cuban connections to the killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mafia connections were CIA connections.

The Cuban connections were CIA connections.

Resolution of connections: Done.

Now returning you to your regularly schedule on-topic continuation of this thread...

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...