Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Purloined Projectile


Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest John Gillespie

"I agree that Mr. Gray is a deliberate pain. ...I fail to understand what his role is here." - Pat Speer

_____________________________________________

At last, we agree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...uster_0001a.htm

How about if those who bother to read this topic review what Custer had to say.

Among the more memorial items would be:

1. That the "Y" incision had been made and that organs of the body had been removed when he took the first X-ray.

(page 4)

Q. Approximately when did you take the first X-rays of President Kennedy?

A. Aproximately, I would say, it would have to-The first thing I remember-It would have to be after the Y-incision was made so the autopsy was already in progress.

(page 9)

Q. Back to the chronology. You have now come back into the morgue after having been summoned by Dr. Ebersole.

What do you observe of the body of President Kennedy? What was the condition at this point?

A. All right. The body was completely nude. The Y incision had been made. And the skull literally was a mess.

Can't say all of them were removed. I know a good portion of them were removed.

Yet, by his own admission, X-rays which he took, demonstrate internal organs as being present.

And, as Dr. Humes and others have long ago demonstrated in their testimony, certain preliminary examinations were made and then the body was submitted to X-ray before any surgical work or removal of any organs transpired.

In fact, even though early in his testimony Custer makes this "Y" incision statement, towards the end of his testimony in which he is again attempting to discredit the radiologist, he states exactly:

(page 18)

"Now, he sounds pretty confused to me.

He's not sure what. And we proved today, there were some taken before and there were some taken after".

So, one must now conduct "comparative confusion" analysis.

2. That the X-rays taken of JFK's head demonstrate that there is no brain present and that all of the metallic fragments which can be easily seen scattered throughout the skull, from rear to front, are actually embedded in the outer skin/scalp, as the brain is not there.

Page 11: "But his is all empty"

Page 13: "They have to be resting on the bone itself somewhere" "Because here you go again. Theres no brain here."

Page 17:

Q. So, at the time the X-rays were taken, the brain has been removed from the cranium?

A. It's not there.

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

Personally, I usually look for a considerably more reliable source for my work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is frighteningly clear that the medical statements and testimony can be used to support most any scenario. There is no reason, of which I am aware, to believe that Burkley's unsworn statements years after the fact, and Custer's testimony and statements many years after the fact, are the Rosetta Stones through which all other testimony must be interpreted. It would prove helpful, in judging the comparative credibility of each man, to go through all the statements of all the witnesses, and lay them out in some form, noting the dates of the statements and recollections regarding certain aspects of the autopsy. Otherwise we're just picking and choosing other people's words to suit our own little theories. When Tom has attempted to drag conflicting statements into this discussion, it has been suggested that he is some sort of disinfo agent. If Mr. Gray has any reason to believe Boswell et al were bigger liars or more mistaken than Burkley and Custer, then he should cite his reasons, other than that they conflict with his interpretation of events.

Ashton, do you believe Burkley was in the VIP bus, or in a car? The question goes to credibility. If he was in a car, can you point out which car in a photo, and who else rode with him? You took such offense to my suggestion that you swore by his words. If you don't swear by his assertion he was in a car, what other evidence have you that he was in a car?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is frighteningly clear that the medical statements and testimony can be used to support most any scenario.

Yes, that was its purpose, and some people make a full-time job out of capitalizing on it.

If Mr. Gray has any reason to believe Boswell et al were bigger liars or more mistaken than Burkley and Custer, then he should cite his reasons, other than that they conflict with his interpretation of events.

Listen up good, Mr. Speer, because I'm only going to say this once: I'm not here to answer your muster. Is that clear? If it isn't, I guarantee you I can make it perfectly clear. Your phony "standards" that you go around trying to hang on me mean less to me than grunge around a public toilet.

I'm presenting information for people who have the decency, respect, and rational intelligence to soberly consider the relative importances of facts, and the relative truthfulness and falseness of contrary facts—not for the benefit of people like you who have expressed their "absolute contempt" for my diligent work and views, or have exerted boundless energies to attempt to convince the world that I am "100% phony," that I have no principles, that I am an infiltrator, a sabateur, a "fifth-columnist," that I am banal, an "internet xxxxx," and the other despicable garbage that you and your cronies spend most of your time here spewing into an educational forum.

I feel certain that you are blissfully unaware of the unspeakable hubris you flaunt in issuing your fatuous mandates, imperatives, and bloviating ordinances to me, and I dearly hope you remain so, if only for the continuing comic relief.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is frighteningly clear that the medical statements and testimony can be used to support most any scenario.

Yes, that was its purpose, and some people make a full-time job out of capitalizing on it.

If Mr. Gray has any reason to believe Boswell et al were bigger liars or more mistaken than Burkley and Custer, then he should cite his reasons, other than that they conflict with his interpretation of events.
Listen up good, Mr. Speer, because I'm only going to say this once: I'm not here to answer your muster. Is that clear? If it isn't, I guarantee you I can make it perfectly clear. Your phony "standards" that you go around trying to hang on me mean less to me than grunge around a public toilet.

I'm presenting information for people who have the decency, respect, and rational intelligence to soberly consider the relative importances of facts, and the relative truthfulness and falseness of contrary facts—not for the benefit of people like you who have expressed their "absolute contempt" for my diligent work and views, or have exerted boundless energies to attempt to convince the world that I am "100% phony," that I have no principles, that I am an infiltrator, a sabateur, a "fifth-columnist," that I am banal, an "internet xxxxx," and the other despicable garbage that you and your cronies spend most of your time here spewing into an educational forum.

I feel certain that you are blissfully unaware of the unspeakable hubris you flaunt in issuing your fatuous mandates, imperatives, and bloviating ordinances to me, and I dearly hope you remain so, if only for the continuing comic relief.

Ashton Gray

Ashton, I believe the record shows you to have been far more abusive of myself and others than we ever have been of you. And yet, none of us finds it necessary to quote every derogatory or insulting statement you've made in our tag line. I'm trying to move on here and understand your ideas abut the assassination. My questions are entirely on point. Why do you believe Burkley and Custer more credible than others? If Burkley said he was in a car, but he was really in a bus, and if Burkley knew about the throat wound, but never told Humes, how can we take him at his word that he was running the autopsy, particularly as Humes himself says he was in charge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is frighteningly clear that the medical statements and testimony can be used to support most any scenario.

Yes, that was its purpose, and some people make a full-time job out of capitalizing on it.

If Mr. Gray has any reason to believe Boswell et al were bigger liars or more mistaken than Burkley and Custer, then he should cite his reasons, other than that they conflict with his interpretation of events.
Listen up good, Mr. Speer, because I'm only going to say this once: I'm not here to answer your muster. Is that clear? If it isn't, I guarantee you I can make it perfectly clear. Your phony "standards" that you go around trying to hang on me mean less to me than grunge around a public toilet.

I'm presenting information for people who have the decency, respect, and rational intelligence to soberly consider the relative importances of facts, and the relative truthfulness and falseness of contrary facts—not for the benefit of people like you who have expressed their "absolute contempt" for my diligent work and views, or have exerted boundless energies to attempt to convince the world that I am "100% phony," that I have no principles, that I am an infiltrator, a sabateur, a "fifth-columnist," that I am banal, an "internet xxxxx," and the other despicable garbage that you and your cronies spend most of your time here spewing into an educational forum.

I feel certain that you are blissfully unaware of the unspeakable hubris you flaunt in issuing your fatuous mandates, imperatives, and bloviating ordinances to me, and I dearly hope you remain so, if only for the continuing comic relief.

Ashton Gray

Ashton, I believe the record shows you to have been far more abusive of myself and others than we ever have been of you.

Well, of course you do.

And yet, none of us finds it necessary to quote every derogatory or insulting statement you've made in our tag line.
Why, Pat: I acknowledge right in my sig that you are my betters. Naturally you and your vocal little band of cronies are always on higher ground. John Simkin himself said that you are a gentleman. Now, there cannot be a better endorsement than that. But do feel free to quote my forum messages anywhere you choose in order to support your position.
I'm trying to move on here and understand your ideas abut the assassination.

I'm always all for moving on. So as soon as you make a public unqualified recantation of the quotes by you in my sig, I'll remove those quotes from my sig and we'll move on. Till then, I hear the words, but I don't hear the music.

My questions are entirely on point.
There must be static on the internet, then, because by the time they get here to my screen, they are vaingloriously haughty, condescending, challenging, and uniformly reconstructive of a hyperbolic, generalized, and entirely untenable position that you falsely attribute to me without, ever, a direct quote of me. This is your constant, unchanging, repetitive, monotonous, decrepit, threadbare, disingenuous, crutch-borne modus operandi. Of course, you are invariably a well-spoken gentleman throughout, though. Then again, so was Richard Helms.
Why do you believe Burkley and Custer more credible than others?

Quote where I made that sweeping generalized statement. Oh: that's right—you can't, because you made it up and falsely attributed it to me, didn't you. (Very gentlemanly done, though. A tip of the hat.)

...how can we take him [burkley] at his word that he was running the autopsy, particularly as Humes himself says he was in charge?

How can you generate so many ways to waste forum time and mine? To what lengths do you go to create these entirely false and pointless "issues" to beat to death? How can you possibly be as informed as you represent yourself to be, and then absolutely destroy the usefulness of forum threads with an apparently infinite supply of just such flapdoodle?

How in the world can you buy, or even pretend to buy, such utter twaddle from Humes, even long enough to waste all this forum time on it, when you know damned well—and I know damned well that you know damned well—that Burkley was an Admiral, and Humes was a Commander—which is only five ranks lower than Admiraland when you also know that Burkley was in the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States?

HOW? How do you do it? How do you create on the fly such rhetorical and intellectual traps for the unwary, such virtual treadmills to put people on and keep them running in one place infinitely? How do you find all these microscopically senseless "conflicts" and milk them endlessly to create so much confusion and discord where there is no possible interpretation other than that Humes's claim is risibly false on its face? And yet you trot it out shamelessly to create a big, unmoving, stuck, thick, heavy dichotomy of black/white that will practically behead anyone who comes along and who doesn't know the underlying relevant facts.

I am constantly in awe of the time and energy you have to devote apparently to nothing else but creating just such mountainous issues where there cannot be even a mote of an issue. And try as I might, I cannot conceive or postulate any other intention for such activities than willfully and artfully to confuse and deceive others. I wish someone would supply me with some other rationale or explanation for such industrious activities. But I, all by myself, have yet to come up with any. And then you sit on your high horse and talk down to me and attempt to put false words in my mouth and demand that I defend them.

Well, I'll tell you what: if that's what it takes to acquire "gentleman" status in this forum, Lord grant me the strength and fortitude to remain a gutter rat.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton, if by your last rant you mean to communicate that Humes would take orders from Burkley, I agree. It's just not clear to me that Burkley was giving orders during the autopsy, or had any input on the autopsy protocol, outside his ordering Humes to not inspect or mention the adrenals. This, of course, was done on behalf of the Kennedy family. I see no real evidence that Burkley knowingly hid evidence for more than one shooter during the autopsy. I believe that his subsequent inspection of the Harper fragment, coupled with the possibility he ordered Humes not to section the brain, can be taken as an indication he came to suspect more than one head shot and more than shooter at a later date, after Oswald had been killed and the Hoover/Katzenbach cover-up had begun. If so, he may have been doing this under Johnson's direction, for national security purposes, blah blah blah.

I see him as someone willing to sweep stuff under the rug, more than an active participant. If he'd been an active participant, he wouldn't have spoken of two head wounds to the JFK library, IMO. Nor would he have told his lawyer of his suspicions in the seventies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton, if...you mean...that Humes would take orders from Burkley, I agree.

Good. Even I would hate to see you attempt to argue otherwise. Your stipulation is of record. The rest of your post being on the order of a Tarot reading, and off-topic at that, the next section of this thread now will establish:

  1. Burkley's inspection of JFK in Trauma Room 1 prior to Carrico's own inspection,
  2. Burkley's presence in Trauma Room 1 when Carrico noted the throat injury and inserted the cuffed endotracheal tube,
  3. Burkley's presence in Trauma Room 1 during discussion by Perry, Carrico, et al. of the throat wound prior to the tracheotomy, and
  4. Burkley's presence in Trauma Room 1 during the tracheotomy.

I don't know how many other distractions of minutiae and irrelevancies you or others might attempt to set up as a side show, but that is where this thread is going next, establishing beyond reasonable doubt Burkley's clear knowledge of the throat wound. Then, and only then, will this thread move on to the autopsy, and to the back wound missile that was discovered during the autopsy and stolen—willfully removed from evidence with the collusion of Sibert and O'Neill—specifically to create the opportunity for the ludicrous "magic bullet" theory, to create the opportunity for the ludicrous insistence that a bullet that entered JFK's back at the location and angle of evidence possibly could have caused such a throat wound. It could not, and it did not. The back wound was probed. The back wound was shallow. And the bullet that caused it was found and stolen during the autopsy at Bethesda.

And Burkley knew it.

And that is the purloined projectile.

And that is why CE399 is not the back wound bullet.

If you would try checking the topic subject anew each time you post, you might learn how to stay on topic. I won't be holding my breath, though.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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.

A bus is a bus is a bus!

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...