Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Ashton Gray

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ashton Gray

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

31,025 profile views
  1. *PLONK* Plenty more room for thread hijackers, disinformationists, anyone who believes in a magic bullet that can enter a throat directly behind a necktie knot without penetrating the knot, and anyone who believes in ghosts with invisible guns shooting invisible bullets from the front of the limousine while utterly surrounded by onlookers who never saw a single one of them. Ashton Gray
  2. I did no such thing, Cliff. *PLONK* Ashton
  3. Continuing from the last post... Here is Zapruder 255 added to the sequence, and it comes just a little less than half a second later, in real time: And less than 0.185 of a second later is Zapruder 258, in real time: At no point in this sequence—which consumed BARELY OVER TWO SECONDS—do JFK's hands come anywhere near his throat. It is of course understandable that an impressionable young-teen girl who had not had a perfect angle on viewing JFK in a few traumatic split seconds, and who then had been prejudiced by Perry's lie at the press conference about a bullet entrance wound to the throat, might have been induced into believing and stating that he had clutched at his throat. It's an honest mistake. That's also understandable for the wife of a governor who had just been shot while sitting beside her—similarly getting an imperfect glimpse in a moment of high stress, similarly being lied to by Perry, the very man who obliterated the throat wound before any forensic analysis could be done. But here, now, with the benefit of the film, the full clear visual evidence proves conclusively, beyond any reasonable or rational doubt, that John F. Kennedy never once "clutched at" or "grabbed at" his throat. There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat. Ashton Gray
  4. It is a pitiable statement on the human condition that there are those in the world who will relentlessly, shamelessly twist, pervert, and desecrate the truth for their own selfish and self-aggrandizing purposes, without the faintest twinge of conscience or scruples. The shrill insistence that on 22 November 1963 John F. Kennedy "clutched" or "grabbed" at his throat is just such a perversion of facts that are so plain, so simple, so inarguable to any reasonably prudent person, that only the most pernicious and malignant assault on logic, perception, and soundness of mind could mount a war against them. John F. Kennedy's hands never went anywhere even close to his throat that bitter, traumatic day in Dallas. There is clear and certain visual proof of it for anyone who only will look—without bias, prejudice, or fixed ideas—and will tune out the chattering irrationality. It took no more than 0.429 of a second—less than half a second—for JFK's hands to go from this position... ...to THIS position... That's LESS than HALF a second. His clenched right hand is OUT IN FRONT OF HIS MOUTH, blocking it and part of his nose from Zapruder's view, and his left hand is further forward still, OUT IN FRONT of his right hand. Add to this obvious fact that Zapruder is ELEVATED, the camera pointing at a downward angle toward JFK—which means that JFK's hands would appear EVEN HIGHER from a viewpoint level with him. They are NOWHERE NEAR HIS THROAT. Here is how fast his position changed from Zapruder 225 to 232 in real time, meaning the time between these frames has been set according to the frames-per-second rate of the camera: That's just how fast his hands flew up IN FRONT OF HIS FACE. It is utterly daffy to state that his hands were "clutching" or "grabbing" at his throat, because that physically is impossible. Only 0.368 of a second later, his hands were at the position in Zapruder 238, so here that frame is added as in real time: It isn't to say that someone must be downright delusional to state that he is "clutching at his throat" when his clenched fists are obviously out in front of his face that way, or even that they would necessarily be on drugs, but it is to say that someone may as well state that his hands are behind his head. They aren't there, either. They are clearly clenched and in FRONT OF HIS FACE. And all of this has happened IN LESS THAN 8/10ths OF A SECOND. Now here is the sequence adding Zapruder frame 247 in real time, a little over half a second later: Are you looking at this, and SERIOUSLY trying to convince yourself that someway, somehow, he just HAS to be "clutching at" or "grabbing at" his throat, because you have been told it over and over and over and over and over? Are you going to keep listening to twisted disinformation, designed to do nothing whatsoever but confound and confuse, or will you merely LOOK at what you SEE? Can his right hand—up at least as high as the bottom of his right ear, and across his cheek—be "clutching at his throat?" Try it. See how you do. What about his LEFT hand? Where is it in relation to his RIGHT hand? This is continued in the next post... Ashton Gray
  5. The only photo I have been able to find of the nick in the tie, with the tie laid out flat, has the NARA measuring scale cropped out of it. (You can decide for yourself why anyone would crop that away.) As I promised earlier, below is an animation showing how I devised a way to determine that the tie is very close to 1 3/8 inches wide at the nick. I loaded into Photoshop the existing nick-in-tie photo, which has the NARA logo and color swatches, but no measuring scale next to them. I loaded into Photoshop the photo of JFK's shirt, which has an identical NARA tag in the photo, including the logo and color swatches, but ALSO including a 1-inch measuring scale. I meticulously resized the shirt photo so that the NARA logo and color swatches exactly matched and aligned with the logo and color swatches in the tie photo, as closely as I possibly could get them. I copied and made a new layer of the measuring scale, rotated it 90 degrees, then made another copy of it to extend it longer than 1 inch. I placed this new measuring scale directly over the tie just above the location of the nick, and added a red line to show where the right-hand edge of the tie intersects the scale. Assuming that this provides an accurate way of determining the width, this shows that the tie is 1 3/8 inches at the location of the nick: Ashton Gray
  6. Sandy, I thought I had seen where you asked if anyone had a full, un-cropped version of the entire tie that is marked as Commission Exhibit 394, FBI Exhibit C31, but now I can't find where you asked. In any event, if there has not been a concerted, focused effort to wipe any such evidence effectively off of the internet, then it's the damnedest disappearing act I've ever encountered, because the ONLY un-cropped image of it I can find has been almost completely destroyed for the purposes of counting icons; almost all the contrast and details have been drained out of it, and the color has been changed. I can't imagine that was accidental, but given that it's the only copy I can find anywhere, I have COMBINED it in Photoshop with the cropped version you have posted, taking great pains to size them so they match up. This at least puts the ruler back into the image. Here is the result and it's the best I can do: By the way: It has struck me (no pun is intended) that there is NO MEASURING SCALE in any photo I can find of the tie exhibit showing the nick. I have gone to yet more pains to find a way to incorporate one of the NARA measuring scales into it, but I am not posting that right now for technical and time reasons. Probably later tonight I will post it in a way that shows the process of matching measuring scales up to it, but for now I thought I would mention that according to the results I got, the width of the tie at the nick is 1 3/8 inches. Ashton
  7. If this was the tail of the tie, which all of the evidence clearly points to it being, it would have been the piece that passed through the knot, and would not have been part of the "wrapping" of the knot. Well hold on there cowboy. I can't think of any evidence pointing to that being part of the tail. What evidence is there? None, and it is utterly impossible that it was the "tail of the tie"—the narrow part of the tie coming out at the bottom of the knot and hanging down behind the presentation part of the tie. The briefest glance at the image above proves that conclusively. The direction of the nick is 90 degrees in the wrong direction for any such interpretation. Euclid and Sir Isaac Newton agree wholeheartedly that the nick had to be in some part of the knot. It is extremely unlikely that it was in the "back" of the knot, because on both sides of the back of a four-in-hand knot, the fabric is at a significantly greater angle than the front wrap-around presentation side of the knot. All the twisting and turning and stretching going on is being done by people whose religious faith in a front throat shot will not allow them to simply look at the simple facts and admit the most simple truth: There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat. Ashton
  8. Roy, I'm replying separately to two separate parts of your message: The statement that there was a "bullet wound" in JFK's throat is prejudicial and biased. It has never been proven. There was a wound in JFK's throat, period. It is impossible, by all the laws of physics, that it could have been from a bullet or missile. Every single witness who testified that JFK clutched or grabbed at his throat—and they can be counted on the fingers of one hand—did so ONLY AFTER THEIR TESTIMONY HAD BEEN PREJUDICED BY PERRY'S FALSE CLAIM TO THE WORLD, IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE, THAT THERE HAD BEEN A BULLET ENTRANCE WOUND TO JFK'S THROAT. I'm going to repeat that so that no one reading here, no matter how dull or IQ challenged, can ever claim not to know it: Every single witness who testified that JFK clutched or grabbed at his throat—and they can be counted on the fingers of one hand—did so ONLY AFTER THEIR TESTIMONY HAD BEEN PREJUDICED BY PERRY'S FALSE CLAIM TO THE WORLD, IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE, THAT THERE HAD BEEN A BULLET ENTRANCE WOUND TO THE THROAT. Now anyone who comes again into this thread parroting those PREJUDICED witness statements, and does not acknowledge that those "eyewitness" accounts were PREJUDICED BY PERRY'S CLAIM, will join Prudhomme and Varnell in less time than it took for JFK's clenched fists to fly up IN FRONT OF HIS FACE, because to refuse to acknowledge the PREJUDICE that Perry had created is unspeakable dishonesty with the facts. Ashton
  9. Hi, Roy. Yes, that is a nick, not a hole (the latter assertion being just more disinformation), and what you have suggested is a perfectly reasonable possibility—not small potatoes at all. I originally attempted to do that version, too, but because of extremely compressed time, I only did the animation that I posted. Attempting to "stretch" the flat tie-with-nick image so that it conforms to the "knot" shape, while trying NOT (pun unavoidable) to prejudicially distort evidence, and trying to get the icons to properly align, is an enormously time-consuming and tedious task. If no one else will do it, I promise that I will get back to it as soon as I can find breathing time. Perhaps now that the banshees have been banned from my view, I will be able to. Although there are also other complications that arose in attempting to do it the way you suggest, which I will take up later. Thanks for your interest and rational discussion. Ashton
  10. *PLONK* There. That screeching is out of my life for good. Now I won't have to put up with 800 more repetitions of Carrico's exquisitely ambiguous influenced testimony about a tie knot. Now I won't have to endure someone insisting hysterically, repeatedly, over and over and over and over and over, that the back of a rearview mirror in a photo is a face. Now I won't have to deal with the sad shambles of those too technology challenged to be able to quote messages in a forum—while insisting that they are superior to all others. Now I won't have to be subjected to the tag-team disinformation twins—unless there are others who are determined to be their water carriers by quoting them over and over and over and over again. But there's a solution for that, too. The wonderful thing about the Kook File is that it is a marvel of modern technology, because it is infinitely expanding. There's plenty of room for anyone who would like to join the resident Tweedledee and Tweedledum there, and dance round and round and round until the end of time, singing the same sheepheaded songs endlessly, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and... Ashton
  11. *PLONK* Anybody else want to join him? The Kook File is infinitely expandable, so there is plenty of room. Just let me know. Ashton
  12. I never said that JFK did anything at all with his lapel. I said that Varnell and his "cough-up-a-bullet" homey claimed that JFK had grabbed his tie with his left forefinger, and that THEY HAD MISTAKEN THE LEFT LAPEL FOR THE TIE—but JFK also DID NOT HOOK HIS LEFT LAPEL WITH HIS FOREFINGER, EITHER. In short, they were dead wrong on every single point. It was Varnell who then falsely claimed that I had said anything at all about JFK interacting with his lapel, based either on Varnell's inability to read what I wrote, or on his willful attempt to twist what I said. Either way he was dead wrong, and I don't really care. The video shows clearly that JFK's hands never went anywhere near his throat, his tie, OR his lapel. I'm completely sick of the dishonesty in some people trying to rewrite me. I'm going to say it again to all concerned: IF YOU'RE GOING TO CLAIM THAT I SAID SOMETHING, QUOTE ME, DO NOT REWRITE ME! Anybody who again tries to twist and misrepresent what I have said will go immediately and permanently into the Kook File. I had some of the people in this thread there once, but changed computers and in doing so tried to wipe the slate clean. With some of them, I won't ever make THAT mistake again. They don't change their spots. Ashton
  13. What the evidence that is RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD shows is that There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat. It is physically impossible. Great. So show us how Edwin Walker put a bullet into JFK's throat—or how Ronald McDonald put one there, for all I care—without it going through FIFTEEN LAYERS OF TIE FABRIC IN THE KNOT. Ashton The exiting bullet did not go through the tie knot. It passed just outside the tie knot, near the bottom of the knot, and nicked the tail of the tie on its way by. It also made a round hole exiting the throat, and left no metal traces on the shirt or tie. Care to hear how it did that? Not in the slightest, because it's both ridiculous and impossible. The nick is not on the back seam-side of the tie. It is on the front. You cannot twist the tail of the tie just below the knot around 180 degrees, as you so often twist the facts to fit your twisted "theories." BZZZZZZT! But thanks for playing. Ashton
  14. Mark Twain sagely said: "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'" You aren't a king or a president (I hope this isn't coming as a disappointment to your reflection in the still waters)—and you sure as hell aren't an editor—so... . Maybe you ought to get that looked into. Ashton
  15. Robert, sometimes posts here make me smile, and sometimes even make me chuckle, but few are able to make me guffaw—so congratulations on this one. Here, after a wonderful laugh, are a few actual facts: ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was at Parkland Hospital, by his own admission, within as little as three minutes of the arrival of JFK at Parkland hospital. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was already in the small Trauma Room 1 on Dr. Carrico's arrival in the room from across the hall, where Carrico had been tending to John Connally, as Dr. Carrico has testified: "Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's personal physician, was there as soon as he [JFK] got to the hospital." ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY, while in Trauma Room 1, personally "checked the President's physical condition," "viewed the President" at the "head of the table," and "saw President Kennedy's wounds at Parkland Hospital." ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY personally supplied John F. Kennedy's blood type, which happened very early on, before Nurse Henchliffe left Trauma Room 1 to go get the necessary blood, which she says was within about two minutes of JFK's actual arrival inside Trauma Room 1. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY then was in Trauma Room 1 with Nurse Diana Bowron, who is documented as having lied about the throat wound. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1 with Nurse Diana Bowron and Dr. Carrico when Kennedy's clothing was initially partially removed, including his tie, and the opening of his shirt by Dr. Carrico—at which time Carrico first observed the throat wound. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1 when the cutdowns were done to start administering fluids to JFK. Jaqueline Kennedy was still outside Trauma Room 1 on a folding metal chair. Some hospital personnel felt she even was being neglected and arranged for some water for her, and asked if she would like to remove her bloodstained gloves, which she would not do. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1, within arms' reach, when Malcom Perry came in and had the conversation with Dr. Carrico about the throat wound, then started the tracheotomy. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1 when steroids were administered to John F. Kennedy, and in fact ordered the administration of the steroids himself, and in fact supplied the steroids to be used: SolU Cortef (spelled in evidence as Sol U Cortef). The assertion that Carrico administered steroids on his own is yet another willful and malicious falsehood designed to deceive. The source in testimony of that falsehood is Malcolm Perry himself—entered into the record under the guiding questioning of John J. McCloy himself—and the motive for the lie was to cover up the presence and activities of George Gregory Burkley inside Trauma Room 1. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY personally went into the corridor and brought Jacqueline Kennedy into Trauma Room 1 only after the tracheotomy incision had been made—when he was damned good and ready for her to be there. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY had become John F. Kennedy's personal physician only about four months earlier, in July 1963. DIANA BOWRON had arrived from England at Parkland hospital on 4 August 1963—less than a month after Burkley had been announced as Kennedy's personal physician. MALCOLM PERRY had returned to Parkland Hospital, after a year away in San Francisco, on or around 1 September 1963—about a month after Bowron's arrival at Parkland. DIANA BOWRON lied about the throat wound. MALCOLM PERRY made the incision that destroyed any chance of competent forensic analysis of the throat wound. DR. ROBERT MCCLELLAND testified that Perry's incistion "obliterated it [the throat wound]." DR. JAMES JOSEPH HUMES, who performed the autopsy, had no idea when he did that there had been a throat wound. The next morning he called Perry, who said, "Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy." Humes said of what Perry had done to the wound, "Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated—" And: "There was a big gaping tracheotomy wound in the anterior neck [throat]. I learned later that there had been a gunshot [sic] wound in that location, but I didn't know it. That was 99 percent of my problem." MALCOLM PERRY is the first person who told the entire world, during the press conference at Parkland, the lie that JFK had been shot in the throat from the front, which is patently impossible by all laws of physics. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY reportedly went up, at some point, to the operating room where Connally was being worked on, and then told Secret Service agent Kellerman that Connally "still has the bullet in him." [bullet—not "fragment."] According to Connally himself, there was such a bullet—but it fell from his thigh to the floor when the medical personnel rolled him "off the stretcher and onto the examining table." That HAD to have been in the trauma room where he originally was seen by Carrico et al., not the operating room upstairs. According to Connally, a "nurse picked it [the bullet] up and slipped it into her pocket." No one has identified this nurse. MALCOLM PERRY claimed in Warren Commission testimony that "a bullet was not removed from Governor Connally's leg." ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY oversaw every aspect of the autopsy, and allowed it to be completed with NO IDENTIFICATION OR EVEN MENTION OF ANY THROAT WOUND. Humes had to change his autopsy findings AFTER talking to Perry the following morning, and getting Perry to admit that there had been a hole in JFK's throat, exactly where Perry had sliced for the tracheostomy, which had OBLITERATED the throat wound for any forensic purposes, including autopsy. Ashton Gray So, let's see now, Ashton. Next, are you going to tell us Burkley administered poison to JFK in Trauma Room One, via a 1/4 inch diameter needle attached to a syringe; a needle large enough to drink a milkshake through? And then, just for good measure, and with several doctors and nurses watching, Burkley's partner in crime Dr. Malcolm Perry "obliterated" the throat wound in the process of performing a tracheotomy on JFK, just to cover Burkley's tracks? That has got to be one of the stupidest theories I have ever heard. Well, congratulations again, then, Robert, because it's your theory, not mine. All I did was recite facts of record. It looks like you've come up with your own theory that could fit the actual facts. I find that a vast improvement over your usual tiresome efforts to twist and cherry-pick facts to fit loopy theories. I think you may be getting somewhere. My hat's off to you. (I apologize for only having a photo that shows my hat still on.) Ashton