Ashton Gray

Why was there a back wound?

105 posts in this topic

Hello All

This thread has followed the ridiculous circular

path as has the JFK assassination in general. There are those who will propose absolute fantasy to support ridiculous and very unlikely positions.

Ashton has been one of the best at this game. He has been, in the past, a strong proponent of the more immediate testimony most likely to be the more accurate. However in this thread, Ashton perceived that this method would not best support the "fantasy" of this thread which he initiated....SO....he changes from what is considered the most believable and truthful testimony ( that given by the Parkland personnel on the afternoon of 11/22/63 ) to "SWORN", as he puts it, testimony to the Warren Commission months later. It is acknowledged by anyone who has studied this case that the FBI "pressured" the Parkland staff to conform, and to change their testimony, to one that was more in alignment with the Bethesda report. Tho I don't immediately recall his name (tho someone here surely can), the FBI agent who applied this pressure actually admitted it and stated that he felt bad about it.

Ashton, if he is not directly trying to mislead this forum for some "personal reason", is using "Posnerian" tactics to deliberately pound home a "false" point, by the "very selective use of testimony". He uses only that which supports his immediate fancy, and expects the forum to be ignorant of his so obvious tactics. The Warren Commission had Arlen, however we cannot be outdone, as we have Ashton !

He constantly switches to the conveyance which most meets his immediate needs. He is either on this forum because he feels that "debate" is that form of competition in which he most likely might excel,

or for a possibly more nefarious reason.

I would have thought that more members would be aware of of his "circular logic" means of confusing the panel.

This thread began with what should be realized as a most unlikely FANTASY ! It is an attempt to further divide members on the few issues upon which most have previously been in agreement.

I certainly "HOPE" that I am dead wrong, but I see chances of any true progress in this matter being led away by the "PIED PIPERS" of conspiracy.

There is nothing more that I can offer this thread so I won't attempt to "blabber" !

Charlie Black

Edited by Charles Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest that Ruby was at Parkland Hospital that day with a Colt Cobra .38 special in his pocket with instructions to finish off the president if the other gunmen hadn’t done their jobs properly.

Interesting idea, but if true Ruby would logically have been at the hospital waiting for JFK to arrive. (Where else would they take the wounded president?) He would have needed to be in position to get to the limo and shoot, just as he was in position two days later in the DPD basement to get Oswald. But wasn't Ruby (at least said to be) in a newspaper office up to the time of the shooting?

Ron,

What better place to be than a newspaper office to find out whether the job was done? Initial news reports did not say the President was dead, thus Ruby's trip to Parkland. If the President had lingered Ruby would have gotten past the police guards the same way he did in the basement of the police station--by familiarity--and shot the President in his hospital bed. The Secret Service, of course were in on it and would have been on a coffee break when that happened. Obviously Ruby knew he was on a suicide mission. To solve the case, look for the payoff to Ruby, or what "they" had on him.

Erick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashton,

You have the wrong idea about what is going on here.

I've worked on this evidence for 15 years and I'm presenting it now.

Sorry you overlooked all that I've been posting about.

You are a wonderful foil.

Don't take it personally.


I reply to your posts when I need a light break from serious research.

Aren't you over-looking the statements of another half-dozen people -- two reports written 11/22/63 -- that corroborate the throat entrance wound?

Even then I don't respond to your spin. If you want to discuss actual evidence, post it. What you'll be posting is reports of extremely brief and cursory observations of people who did not have any opportunity at all to inspect the throat wound (before Malcolm Perry electively hacked it out of existence), people who were dealing with attempting to save the life a man who they had been told had been shot several times, people who assumed that the small round wound they got a glimpse of was a bullet wound.

And you won't be posting anything else. And you know it, and I know it. But you'll spin it as some kind of phony "proof" that there absolutely was an entrance wound to the throat, despite all the visual evidence that demonstrates beyond any rational doubt that no projectile possibly could have entered the man's throat at the claimed location. So go ahead: post away.

While you do, I'm sure that you won't keep ignoring the physical evidence of the physical impossibility of a projectile having entered the throat there at all, will you? Unless, of course, your paralytic projectile is far, far more magical than the lowly Specter Vector Rejector and actually could meld its way amongst and between the molecular structure of cloth, penetrating two layers of shirt (well, five, actually, because a collar of that class is double-sided with a stiffening fabric sown in, and the collar yoke is doubled) and leaving no mark at all of its passage.

Will you go right on ignoring the physical impossibility? Or are we finally all about to learn the long-kept dark secret of the incredible CIA trans-matter bullet? (Or, excuse me: dart. Let's do be precise.)

Now, back to the evidence...

Back? I haven't seen you get to any yet.

I've just seen you go on and on and on about T1 transverse yadda yadda yadda right lung bibble-dee-bobbity-boo blood soluble yabba-dabba-doo metallic debris field ad infinitum ad nauseum paralyzed paralyzed paralyzed with monotonous repetition blah-blah-blah. You talk it to rags, but you don't post it.

Points right to the CIA

Yes, doesn't it though.

I had a little pool going on how long before you finally were going to shoot yourself in the foot and blow your entire "paralytic dart" nonsense into a glittering, evanescing metallic debris field.

Very nicely done. (Some will understand this at once, some it will catch up with in a day or two, and for others it eventually will get explained to them. You, Varnell—I predict—will go right on taking the remaining few on a pony ride, round and round and round and round and...)

ASHTON: One of those two people destroyed that evidence.

VARNELL: But don't you say this evidence never existed?

Go back to the beginning of the thread and read all the way through as many times as necessary for you to figure out what the thread is about and what I've actually said about the throat wound in relation to the back wound—which the subject title will start to give you a clue to. It's okay to have others explain it to you. When you figure it all out, get back to me then. Who knows: I might be looking for some light entertainment.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Connally, it appears to me, was hit with a high-velocity round only seconds or fractions of a second before JFK was hit with a high-velocity round to the head. The simplest explanation for this, to me, is that Connally's wound resulted from a missed head shot aimed at JFK with a semi-automatic high powered rifle, and the next shot hit its intended mark.

It seems to me that Connally is being hit right after appearing from behind the freeway sign - and apologies to whomever created the moving gif, I have neglected to retain creator info.

Edited by Mark Valenti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had not previously thought about the back wound as being caused by a paralytic projectile, which would then dissolve, hence no through wound and no bullet. It makes a lot of sense, particularly when taken with the front throat wound, which was also no through wound and with no bullet.

If the conspirators wanted to paralyze JFK first (and the Z film suggests it), why depend on one shot to do it? You would want a crossfire of paralytics just like you would want a crossfire of bullets. The paralytics first, of course, then the bullets.

Based on all the evidence, it's almost like Occam's Razor.

Bingo!

Thank you, Ron. I would expand a little on your last points -- first the diversionary

shots, then the paralytics, then the bullets.

Occam's Razor, indeed. Why assume anything? The evidence is clearly there,

the throat and back wounds are consistent with un-conventional firearms, and

JFK's reaction is utterly consistent with a paralytic strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
despite all the visual evidence that demonstrates beyond any rational doubt that no projectile possibly could have entered the man's throat at the claimed location.

This appears to be true, i.e. the WC lied about a bullet going through the front of JFK's shirt. There is no bullet hole in the front of the shirt, only slits that were caused by a scalpel, not a bullet. So the "claimed location" of the wound is a government lie.

Yet there was undeniably a wound in the front of JFK's throat (unless this too was part of the mass hallucination, or mass orchestrated lie, at Parkland and Bethesda that produced a large exit wound in the back of JFK's head). The inescapable conclusion is that this throat wound was above the collar, hence no hole in the collar or shirt. So what does this tell us? It tells us that the "autopsy" photos showing a throat wound below the collar line are also a government lie.

I had not considered this before, so this thread, for all its faults, continues to be educational. I am not at all surprised that more than one autopsy photo has been doctored.

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tho I don't immediately recall his name (tho someone here surely can), the FBI agent who applied this pressure actually admitted it and stated that he felt bad about it.

It was revealed by the ARRB that Secret Service Special Agent Elmer Moore "badgered" Malcolm Perry into changing his testimony that the throat wound was a wound of entry. He may have been badgered by the FBI also - it would surely fit the pattern of this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
despite all the visual evidence that demonstrates beyond any rational doubt that no projectile possibly could have entered the man's throat at the claimed location.

This appears to be true, i.e. the WC lied about a bullet going through the front of JFK's shirt. There is no bullet hole in the front of the shirt, only slits that were caused by a scalpel, not a bullet. So the "claimed location" of the wound is a government lie.

Ron, according to Ashton's photoshopped Autopsy Suit JFK's tie knot was at the base

of his adams apple.

This is clearly not a fact.

Photo_jfkl-01_0001-AR-8242-C.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron, according to Ashton's photoshopped Autopsy Suit JFK's tie knot was at the base

of his adams apple.

This is clearly not a fact.

These photos were taken on and around 11-22. They show the various locations of JFK's shirt collar/tie knot.

Edited by Mark Valenti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had not previously thought about the back wound as being caused by a paralytic projectile, which would then dissolve, hence no through wound and no bullet. It makes a lot of sense, particularly when taken with the front throat wound, which was also no through wound and with no bullet.

If the conspirators wanted to paralyze JFK first (and the Z film suggests it), why depend on one shot to do it? You would want a crossfire of paralytics just like you would want a crossfire of bullets. The paralytics first, of course, then the bullets.

Based on all the evidence, it's almost like Occam's Razor.

Bingo!

Thank you, Ron. I would expand a little on your last points -- first the diversionary

shots, then the paralytics, then the bullets.

Occam's Razor, indeed. Why assume anything? The evidence is clearly there,

the throat and back wounds are consistent with un-conventional firearms, and

JFK's reaction is utterly consistent with a paralytic strike.

Cliff

This as unscientific a post as I have ever read.

There is NOTHING that is indicative of anything other than a throat wound as was reported by the only persons qualified to know.

Are you now qualified as an "expert witness" in the science of paralytic dart reaction ?

There were also at this time, "death darts". However they were not easily manipulated. That is why Castro remained alive and thought was given to killing him by "exploding conch shell" and other

outer planetary brainstorms.

It appears to me that forum members go to the opposite extremes of assesing Intellgence Agency capabilities in 1963. One group claims that they cannot make undetectable changes to 8 mm film, while at the same time others are verging on espousing theories on "ray guns".

You are following the Pied Pipers on an infintessimal tangent that can lead to nowhere but confusion, and the increase of distance between what appears to be two already distant poles.

What has happened to COMMON SENSE ? Why do all of the emerging modern Sherlock's, suddenly believe that the Parkland Staff was unprofessional, incompetent, and had been infiltrated by a cadre of "murderers with MD degrees".

What I expect to follow is a 180 degree turn around, and for some to start praising the merits of the Bethesda Staff, who had it right all along, and that confusion arose only because of that Parkland gang of liars and murderers !

Some of you have questioned and critcized the Press for not having "the guts"

to tell the truth rgarding this assassination.

It appears to me at this point, that the educational community shares at least equally with the "free press" in keeping this matter under wraps.

Beam me up Scotty.....my job in Dealey Plaza is finished !

Charlie Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tho I don't immediately recall his name (tho someone here surely can), the FBI agent who applied this pressure actually admitted it and stated that he felt bad about it.

It was revealed by the ARRB that Secret Service Special Agent Elmer Moore "badgered" Malcolm Perry into changing his testimony that the throat wound was a wound of entry. He may have been badgered by the FBI also - it would surely fit the pattern of this case.

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

Mr. SPECTER - Was there any discussion among the doctors who attended President Kennedy as to the cause of the neck wound?

Dr. CARRICO - Yes; after that afternoon.

Mr. SPECTER - And what conversations were there?

Dr. CARRICO - As I recall, Dr. Perry, and I talked and tried after---later in the afternoon to determine what exactly had happened, and we were not aware of the missile wound to the back, and postulated that this was either a tangential wound from a fragment, possibly another entrance wound. It could have been an exit wound, but we knew of no other entrance wound.

Mr. SPECTER - Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?

Dr. CARRICO - Yes.

Mr. SPECTER - Or, did it look to be more one than the other?

Dr. CARRICO - No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck.

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

Dr. PERRY -I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound, and at that point--

Mr. DULLES - I am a little confused, I thought Dr. Carrico was absent. That was an earlier period.

Dr. PERRY - No, sir; he was present.

Mr. DULLES - He was present?

Dr. PERRY - Yes; he was present when I walked in the room and, at that point, I asked someone to secure a tracheotomy tray but there was one already there. Apparently Dr. Carrico had already asked them to set up the tray.

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

Mr. SPECTER - Who was the first doctor to reach President Kennedy on his arrival at Parkland Hospital?

Dr. CARRICO - I was

Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck,

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior third of the neck which you have Just described, could you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?

Dr. CARRICO - This was probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.

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

Dr. PERRY - At the time I entered the door, Dr. Carrico was attending him. He was attaching the Bennett apparatus to an endotracheal tube in place to assist his respiration.

The President was lying supine on the carriage, underneath the overhead lamp. His shirt, coat, had been removed.

Dr. PERRY - Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium.

I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly.

I did not see any other wounds

Mr. SPECTER - Why did you elect to make the tracheotomy incision through the wound in the neck, Dr. Perry?

Dr. PERRY - The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy.

This is one of the safest and easiest spots to reach the trachea. In addition the presence of the wound indicated to me there was possibly an underlaying wound to the neck muscles in the neck, the carotid artery or the jugular vein. If you are going to control these it is necessary that the incision be as low, that is toward the heart or lungs as the wound if you are going to obtain adequate control.

Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway.

Mr. SPECTER - Based on your observations of the neck wound alone, do you have a sufficient basis to form an opinion as to whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound.

Dr. PERRY - No, sir. I was unable to determine that since I did not ascertain the exact trajectory of the missile. The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure.

Mr. SPECTER - Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?

Dr. PERRY - It could have been either.

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

Dr. PERRY - He was lying supine on the emergency cart directly in the center of the room under the overhead lamp. His shirt had been removed, and intravenous infusion was being begun in the right leg, I believe. Dr. Carrico was at the head of the table attaching the oxygen apparatus to assist in respiration.

I noted there was a large wound of the right posterior parietal area in the head exposing lacerated brain. There was blood and brain tissue on the cart. The President's eyes were deviated and dilated and he was unresponsive. There was a small wound in the lower anterior third in the midline of the neck, from which blood was exuding very slowly.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe that wound as precisely as you can, please?

Dr. PERRY - The wound was roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched-out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut, but the blood obscured any detail about the edges of the wound exactly.

Mr. SPECTER - What was the condition of the edges of the wound, if you can recollect?

Dr. PERRY - I couldn't state with certainty, due to the fact that they were covered by blood. and I did not make a minute examination. I determined only the fact that there was a wound there, roughly 5 mm. in size or so.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you now described it as precisely as you can; that wound?

Dr. PERRY - I think so.

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

AARB Testimony

DR. PERRY: As I testified, I made only a cursory examination of the head, and the only person that made the really detailed examination as far as I know, is Dr. Clark. And I didn't -- like Dr. Jones I didn't look at it. I was in some kind of a hurry. The neck wound -- very few people saw that. I didn't even wipe the blood off on the right side, so I estimated it at five millimeters or so of exuding blood and I cut right through it, as Dr. Jones knows, so nobody else saw it after that. It was small. I didn't look at the head. As I said, I didn't examine it. I could see that he had one. I mentioned the avulsive wound to the head and what appeared to be some brain tissue and that was during the course of the resuscitation, but I didn't examine it.

DR. PERRY: I'm the one that stuck my foot in my mouth, but actually it looked like an entrance wound and the bullet appeared to be coming at him and I based that mainly on the fact it was a small wound to the neck and without any other information. I prefaced those comments at the press conference both before and after by saying that neither Dr. Clark nor I knew how many bullets there were or where they came from. Unfortunately my comment said it's an entrance wound, and it was taken out of context of the others, but I did say that small wound.

As I mentioned earlier, however, I didn't take any measurements. I didn't wipe the blood off. just went through it and it was the thing to do at the time; had no concept about legal things. We did what we were trained to do.

MR. GUNN : For my purposes today the question is not with any of these whether you conclude that they were an entrance wound or an exit wound. Those are all -

DR. PERRY: Small like that.

MR. GUNN: So those are --

DR. PERRY: And I estimated, as I recall, about five millimeters like a pencil eraser I think I used as an example, something like that and, again, pointing out that it was covered with some blood and I looked at it and it would be about five millimeters and then I cut it.

MR. GUNN: Does any of you have a recollection that differs from that basically small, not jagged edges, five centimeter -- millimeters in size?

DR. BAXTER: No.

DR. PETERS: I think you've heard the best comment.

DR. BAXTER: I think you could sum up all of our comments on that wound that it would -- it appeared to be an insignificant wound and --

DR. PERRY: Except for where it was.

DR. BAXTER: Yeah.

DR. PERRY: There's a lot of material in there.

DR. JONES: When Dr. Perry and I went back upstairs into the OR after this had happened, I think we both -- we were both talking in terms that this was an entrance wound, my impression when I saw it in the emergency room. It never crossed my mind it was anything but an entrance wound, without having any history to go by, I thought it was an entrance wound.

DR. PERRY: Had we known, things would have been different; incomplete information. You learn a great deal, and I learned a great deal in two days. One is never allow yourself to be thrown into speculation with the press, bad mistake. At 34 and naive, I thought the truth would suffice. That is not the case. Secondly do not speculate about anything public ever. I learned that after operating on Oswald on Sunday when I went down to repeat the press conference again, I went with a typed statement. I answered no questions, and I didn't get into a bit of trouble. I learned a great deal in two days.

MR. GUNN: Now, one of the very obvious issues that surrounds the story of what you observed in your initial impressions was that there were suggestions both in the press conference and the observations that President Kennedy had been shot from the front. It subsequently turned out that many people came to believe that President Kennedy was shot from behind, and I'm sure you-all have your opinions on that in the sense that's not the purpose of what we're doing here. But there became a concern about what your observations were versus; certainly the Government ended up concluding later. The question I have for all of you is: Did anyone from the government ever put any pressure on you or try to convince you against your will to either change your story or make a different sort of observation or to turn your observations at all?

DR. PERRY: At the time of the Warren Commission -- it's in those 26 volumes somewhere - they took that limousine apart completely and put it back together. I was told that in Washington and at the time of my testimony. And it was interesting several of the members of the committee did not know that they had done that, and there was gilding metal found on the inside of the windshield in that limousine, which was fragment, too, which had to come from behind because there was no hole in the windshield. But they took that whole thing apart, as you know, Mr. Gunn, and put it back together, so it was carefully looked at.

Apropos what you asked Dr. Jones, I had exactly the opposite experience. I was advised by almost everybody I talked to, Secret Service, FBI, and the Warren Commission counsel to tell the truth as best I knew it in its entirety and to hold nothing back on every occasion, and that occurred on a number of occasions that they asked me to be sure that it was everything as best I knew it no matter what. So I can say at least for me they seemed to make every effort to get at -

MR. GUNN: uh-huh.

DR. PERRY: -- the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have decided that in order to return this forum to sanity that there is an action which I must attempt to take.

I plan to petition NASA to create "permanent positions " in the space station for several of our very qualified members. They appear to prefer the study of Lunar Matters to all else. They have all been awarded DL degrees. I feel that this matter will receive rapid approval as there are very few degreed "Doctors of Lunacy" available !

Charlie Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Connally, it appears to me, was hit with a high-velocity round only seconds or fractions of a second before JFK was hit with a high-velocity round to the head. The simplest explanation for this, to me, is that Connally's wound resulted from a missed head shot aimed at JFK with a semi-automatic high powered rifle, and the next shot hit its intended mark.

It seems to me that Connally is being hit right after appearing from behind the freeway sign - and apologies to whomever created the moving gif, I have neglected to retain creator info.

Well, this thread is about the back wound to JFK, but: no matter where in the Z film sequence Connally gets hit, he inarguably was hit in the back near the right armpit, the bullet traveling through his torso and exiting lower on his chest, creating a sucking chest wound. And if you'll watch the Z film a little longer, you'll see that he's talking (or shouting) as he turns around, and stays turned around talking before rather suddenly dropping backwards onto his wife.

If he was turned around talking that way with a sucking chest wound, I think somebody ought to submit it to Ripley's and to Guiness World Records, just in case.

Ashton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, this thread is about the back wound to JFK, but: no matter where in the Z film sequence Connally gets hit, he inarguably was hit in the back near the right armpit, the bullet traveling through his torso and exiting lower on his chest, creating a sucking chest wound. And if you'll watch the Z film a little longer, you'll see that he's talking (or shouting) as he turns around, and stays turned around talking before rather suddenly dropping backwards onto his wife.

If he was turned around talking that way with a sucking chest wound, I think somebody ought to submit it to Ripley's and to Guiness World Records, just in case.

Ashton

Right you are - back to the back. JFK emerges from behind the freeway sign, his shoulders hunch forward. This seems to be either a reaction to being hit from behind or a forceful gagging type of motion, indicating trauma of some kind to his throat.

Edited by Mark Valenti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now