0.3 Opus dei book's darkened rizal & Why - chapter 3  (Page 12/21)

Draw your own conclusive inference from this, scientifically sleuthing ‘CSI-types’: don’t they reveal tangled telltales of fraud, as when foolishly we conspire to deceive? These form many boulders up the virtual mountain of conclusive anti-retraction evidence right before our eyes if we could just overcome unconscious biases and influences from faith-and-ideology, including subconscious longings to see the great Rizal die in our precious faith and ideology. And these are just samples from a still growing conclusive evidence mountain since earliest times in the history of this famous hoax. ‘CSI-type’ readers can surely find all by themselves a big anti-retraction boulder not mentioned so far! Try it. Try harder in digging up for more clues. You’ll eventually come up with a conclusive negative finding, I promise you from my own long experience. That should help convince you of the real existence of this still firmly growing mountain of conclusive anti-retraction evidence that nearly everyone still denies in current writings and teachings. A most recent confirmation of this claim is Gil Fernandez’s find he sent our Internet discussion group in mid-2010 that the 1935-found retraction document most definitely did not yet exist at around Rizal’s time of death. Only the fabricated text-version of it did exist then. That is why the genuine article was never photographed nor publicly shown in spite of clamors from concerned parties, including the hero’s family and friends. for it to be shown. In spite of its enormous model effects and propaganda value in bringing down a rebellion in full swing. And then to be officially told they’d lost the original, from some unknown one who might have borrowed it in bad faith! Ah, what tangled webs are woven when to deceive we conspire!

A Eureka Moment

Here’s another very big conclusive anti-retraction boulder up this evidence mountain. It’s original with me but I have shared it over the years with a few others. The previously quoted statement from the friar-priests who announced their success in obtaining the retraction implies that the December 29,1896 document (signed at 11:30 PM) was sent by Rizal through an unnamed priest or priests to the Archbishop roughly seven-and-a-half hours before his scheduled execution. They read the finished document right away, as the previously quoted first press announcement stated: “We…read [it]…” That is how it got published in time for the following morning’s newspapers. Did the Archbishop, then, see fit to immediately relay the same document to the Governor-General, as duty and political correctness called for, since the latter sat formally at the very top of society’s chain of command. For the latter’s information, if nothing else, and possible reconsideration of sentence in view of the document’s implied admission of past offenses and request for pardon. Nothing of the kind happened according to this first public announcement of the retraction, and this should strike us inquirers as anomalous, fraud-revealing behavior. The main converting priest, whoever he was, had a duty to immediately relay the “bombshell” trophy-document to higher authority, all the way to the very top, especially in view of the fifth sentence’s public contrition for past crimes. In this first account, the process most anomalously stopped short of the Governor-General, giving him no chance to issue a probable stay of execution or reduction of sentence. This glaring anomaly repeats too in the later massively elaborated version by Balaguer. He, as the document’s victorious obtainer, with seven-and-a-half hours to go before execution, did not relay it at all upwards to any superiors up the chain of command but kept it all to himself until Rizal’s execution! This unbelievable anomaly can only tell us conclusively that the alleged historic event did not happen at all. If it did, this would have all the more exposed churchmen as those who ultimately plotted the hated heretic Rizal’s death. “Whose faith killed me,” Rizal in effect cried out in his death poem, which he finished just in time for secret delivery by him to the world, twice in the pile of keepsakes and shoes respectively. It’s there in my previously mentioned 1996 and 1998 books, and I merely cite it here and update in a chapter on what I also call Rizal’s Constancy Swan Song of December 29-30, 1896. This alone by itself conclusively declares the retraction a fraud, and we’ll say more on it later owing to its huge overarching importance not only to the first anti-retractionists but to its rehabilitation here from its generations-long antedating emasculation made official by enshrining it in the Rizal Museum in historic Fort Santiago.