Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: On The Trail Of Delusion  (Read 78762 times)

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: Two Important Posts DEbunk "JFK Revisited"
« Reply #872 on: January 23, 2022, 01:31:16 AM »
Advertisement
I seem to notice that you like to link to and quote from others' blogs. What is the difference, other than Litwin and Parnell are doing their own research?

I'm not spamming the forum by attempting to promote myself.

I couldn't care less if you guys read what I've written here or anywhere else.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2022, 01:32:09 AM by Jon Banks »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Two Important Posts DEbunk "JFK Revisited"
« Reply #872 on: January 23, 2022, 01:31:16 AM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
Re: Two Important Posts DEbunk "JFK Revisited"
« Reply #873 on: January 23, 2022, 03:47:00 AM »
I'm not spamming the forum by attempting to promote myself.

I couldn't care less if you guys read what I've written here or anywhere else.

Are there any CTs here who actually do original research? I know Chris Scally recently posted, but he's an exception.

Offline Ray Mitcham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: JFK Revisited
« Reply #874 on: January 23, 2022, 01:47:41 PM »
https://constantinereport.com/john-kennedy-assassination-the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry/

Excerpt.
One of the witnesses he spent some time with in Dallas was Malcolm Perry. Steadman was aware of what Perry had said at the press conference about the directionality of the neck wound. Steadman wrote that, about a week after the assassination, he and two other journalists were with Perry in his home. During this informal interview, Perry said he thought it was an entrance wound because the small circular hole was clean. He then added two important details. He said he had treated hundreds of patients with similar wounds and he knew the difference between an exit and entrance wound. Further, hunting was a hobby of his, so he understood from that experience what the difference was. And he could detect it at a glance.Steadman went on to reveal something rather surprising. Perry said that during that night, he got a series of phone calls to his home from the doctors at Bethesda. They were very upset about his belief that the neck wound was one of entrance. They asked him if the Parkland doctors had turned over the body to see the wounds in Kennedy’s back. Perry replied that they had not. They then said: how could he be sure about the neck wound in light of that? They then told him that he should not continue to say that he cut across an entrance wound, when there was no evidence of a shot from the front. When Perry insisted that he could only say what he thought to be true, something truly bizarre happened. Perry said that one or more of the autopsy doctors told him that he would be brought before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they threatened to take away his license.After Perry finished this rather gripping tale, everyone was silent for a moment. Steadman then asked him if he still thought the throat wound was one of entrance. After a second or so, Perry said: yes, he did.What is so remarkable about this story is that it blows the cover off of the idea that the autopsy doctors did not know about the anterior neck wound until the next day. Not only did they know about it that night, they were trying to cover it up that night.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: JFK Revisited
« Reply #874 on: January 23, 2022, 01:47:41 PM »


Offline Fred Litwin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
"JFK Revisited" Recklessly Accuses George Burkley of being Involved in a Cover-Up
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, paints Admiral George Burkley as a co-conspirator in the supposed cover-up in JFK assassination. Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence. In this case, there is none.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-recklessly-accuses-george-burkley-of-being-involved-in-a-cover-up

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: Two Important Posts DEbunk "JFK Revisited"
« Reply #876 on: January 23, 2022, 04:06:24 PM »
Are there any CTs here who actually do original research? I know Chris Scally recently posted, but he's an exception.

They're mostly on the Education Forum.

But Jim DiEugenio, Pat Speer, and Michael Griffith have briefly appeared on this forum.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Two Important Posts DEbunk "JFK Revisited"
« Reply #876 on: January 23, 2022, 04:06:24 PM »


Online W. Tracy Parnell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • W. Tracy Parnell Debunking JFK Conspiracy Theories
Great job. Using the nutty Dr. Miller does not reflect well on Stone and DiEugenio.  ???

Offline Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 923
Re: Two Important Posts DEbunk "JFK Revisited"
« Reply #878 on: January 24, 2022, 01:15:18 PM »
I'm not spamming the forum by attempting to promote myself.
If you link to a page containing research or thoughtful commentary, why does it matter if you wrote it or someone else did?

I couldn't care less if you guys read what I've written here or anywhere else.
If you really believed that, you wouldn't be posting here. And you wouldn't be replying to me.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2022, 01:19:04 PM by Mitch Todd »

Offline Fred Litwin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
Mark Lane vs. Sylvia Meagher
« Reply #879 on: January 24, 2022, 02:22:08 PM »
Mark Lane vs. Sylvia Meagher
Mark Lane wrote a blurb for Meagher's book, Accessories After the Fact, but was not happy about her few paragraphs about Jim Garrison. I present two never before published letters.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/mark-lane-vs-sylvia-meagher

JFK Assassination Forum

Mark Lane vs. Sylvia Meagher
« Reply #879 on: January 24, 2022, 02:22:08 PM »