Jump to content
The Education Forum
Ashton Gray

There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat

Recommended Posts

To me this topic seems like a skilled piece of disinformation. A strike against the common sense. No throat- wound at all? No- not in my back yard.

Not in my back yard either.

I did not say anywhere that there was "no throat wound at all." There certainly was a throat wound.

Allowing for language difficulties, I invite you to please carefully re-read the thread from the beginning.

Ashton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, allowing such topics as this to be posted and continued, will either be the demise of this forum, or else give it the name of the "non-educational/educationally deprived" JFK Forum.

Conclusions other zan mine vill not be ALLOWED!

Ahh, schnitzel ... von more year und ve vould have pulled it off.

Vat a shame. Mein beret brought out ze green flecks in ze bunker draperies so nicely.

Heil be seeing you.

It's why we fight.

Charles

P.S. -- Are zere any Gages in ze family?

Maybe you can get Purvis to answer the question I've asked him umpteen times now that he keeps evading—while chasing me through threads trying to smear me. Here's the question I keep asking Purvis that he won't answer:

Isn't it true that gaining officer and instructor status in the Special Forces, as you attained, 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.?

That's not "personal": that goes to social engineering, and I think it's a very, very relevant disclosure that should be made, pertinent to exactly what these forums are addressing.

Ashton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas, brainwashing is as useful a skill in the American south as barnicle scraping is in the Yukon.

Ashton, both you and I should live so long.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And speaking of the head wound. Ashton's position is that there was NO shot from the front, so that includes the headshot.

Dawn

Ashton,

Is Dawn reading you correctly vis a vis her "NO shot from the front" interpretation of your view?

Otherwise: Agreed that JFK alive and preserved -- even in a vegetative state -- also would pose a grave threat to the conspirators.

(We are indeed through the looking glass when vegetables are judged to be detrimental to one's health. But I digress.)

A comprehensive review of the Parkland photographic record -- scenes in and around the hospital -- seems to be in order. Are familiar faces to be found? Perhaps Brother Richards will check in.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashton,

In your early posts on this thread you mention that the anterior neck wound was described as having been some 1.5 - 5 centimeters in diameter. I believe you want to change that to millimeter. 5 millimeters is roughly one fifth of an inch, whereas 5 centimeters is roughly 2 inches.

Tomorrow I hope to post a different picture of JFK's shirt, just to add to the thread, not to try and prove that it was a gunshot wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was most certainly not an entrance or exit of a high-speed bullet as large as CE399.

What about an entrance (or exit) for a smaller-caliber bullet, such as a .223?

Precisely, Ray. My research has indicated the possibility it was the exit of a subsonic M-16 round, or .223, or the round of a .22 caliber equipped with a silencer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And speaking of the head wound. Ashton's position is that there was NO shot from the front, so that includes the headshot.

Dawn

Ashton,

Is Dawn reading you correctly vis a vis her "NO shot from the front" interpretation of your view?

Charles, I am very chary of addressing this at all in this thread because it potentially could open the door to all manner of off-topic garbage. I am going to address it once to answer you briefly because I believe you're asking in good faith, but strictly speaking the question is not at all germane to this thread or to the very clear and inarguable evidence regarding the throat wound.

It also is counterproductive to the entire reason I have focused narrowly on the throat wound in starting this thread, which is embodied in the following definition:

ANALYSIS:
the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements; the separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.

The throat wound is one, and only one, constituent part of a case that has been made by various parties for a front shot or shots. I have neither desire nor intention to leap from the specific case of the throat wound to a general supposition about the presence or absence of a sniper ever having been in some location forward of the motorcade.

So in answer I'll say only this:

1. Dawn did not quote me; she assayed to speak for me, and despite her many sterling qualities, speaking for me is not one of them.

2. I have discussed the head shot vis a vis the likelihood of a front shot in other threads in this forum where the discussion was appropriate, including but not limited to this message et seq. in the thread "Who were the shooters?, as well as in this message et seq. in the thread "The Head Wound Explained, and even in a thread I started called "The Back Wound Considered, A Window of Opportunity". If anyone wants to discuss either the head shot or the back shot with me, I'll be happy to take such discussions further in those threads.

3. In another message in the thread "Who were the shooters, I provided a graphic and considerable evidence and discussion going to the question of the likelihood of any shooter ever having been behind the picket fence or in that vicinity. I also graphically explored, by request, many other proposed locations for an outdoor shooter in that thread, and found them all wanting in material ways. But my tests and views on that are memorialized in that thread and need no further discussion here.

4. I've said it before and I'll say it again in yet other terms: It seems highly unlikely to me (not to say bunghole-plug dumb) that sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents would plot for months, if not years, to set up an assassination of the President of the United States, to set up a Communist patsy to take the fall for it, to set up the location for the patsy behind and above the target at the time of the shooting—and then have the real sniper(s) shoot from in front of the target. Could one possibly conceive of anything more stupid in terms of a sophisticated frame-up of Oswald?

I hope that answers your question, and now I hope that people responsibly will restrict discussion in this thread to discussion of matters related to the throat wound, which I believe deserves a great deal of attention all by itself. If the wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was not caused by a bullet or fragment, but by another device, it truly is proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a "lone nut assassin," and that there was, in fact, a sophisticated and far-reaching conspiracy to murder.

Ashton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashton,

In your early posts on this thread you mention that the anterior neck wound was described as having been some 1.5 - 5 centimeters in diameter. I believe you want to change that to millimeter. 5 millimeters is roughly one fifth of an inch, whereas 5 centimeters is roughly 2 inches.

:) Heh. You're absolutely right, Antti. It seems that I copied the first cm reference from what obviously (well, it's obvious now) must be a typoed transcript of testimony and then rather mindlessly propagated that silly error. (This is what can happen when Americans are turned loose on the world with metric measurements.)

I've discovered that it was in my own text copy of the testimony of Dr. Akin, which is on the web here. It's in the second line on that page where either the testimony is mistranscribed or Dr. Akin misspoke.

Sorry for having spread the confusion. I'm off to correct it now in the posts and in my own copy of that testimony.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Charles, I am very chary of addressing this at all in this thread because it potentially could open the door to all manner of off-topic garbage. I am going to address it once to answer you briefly because I believe you're asking in good faith, but strictly speaking the question is not at all germane to this thread or to the very clear and inarguable evidence regarding the throat wound.

4. I've said it before and I'll say it again in yet other terms: It seems highly unlikely to me (not to say bunghole-plug dumb) that sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents would plot for months, if not years, to set up an assassination of the President of the United States, to set up a Communist patsy to take the fall for it, to set up the location for the patsy behind and above the target at the time of the shooting—and then have the real sniper(s) shoot from in front of the target. Could one possibly conceive of anything more stupid in terms of a sophisticated frame-up of Oswald?

I hope that answers your question, and now I hope that people responsibly will restrict discussion in this thread to discussion of matters related to the throat wound, which I believe deserves a great deal of attention all by itself. If the wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was not caused by a bullet or fragment, but by another device, it truly is proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a "lone nut assassin," and that there was, in fact, a sophisticated and far-reaching conspiracy to murder.

Ashton,

I thank you for your good faith answer, and I'll refrain from a follow-up discussion precisely because you are right in calling for discipline of focus in this -- and other -- threads.

Accordingly, I'll reproduce your paragraph 4 above in a new thread titled "Shots from the Front and the LN Construct."

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4. It seems highly unlikely to me ... that sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents would plot for months... to set up an assassination of the President of the United States, to set up a Communist patsy to take the fall for it, to set up the location for the patsy behind and above the target at the time of the shooting—and then have the real sniper(s) shoot from in front of the target.

I assume everyone on this forum has read BEST EVIDENCE by David S. Lifton. This is precisely the scenario that Lifton has outlined, based on many years of very careful research.

Any serious plot to murder a U.S. President would require the involvement of key members of the Secret service. There is reason to believe that this happened here.

Mr. Gray seems to have started this thread in an attempt to disprove Lifton's theory. I don't think Lifton's theory can be disproved just by Ashton Gray saying "it seems highly unlikely to me."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your favorite indoor sport is trying to figure out or "prove" whether the purported bullet wound that "everybody knows" was in John F. Kennedy's throat was an inny or an outty, this article is useless to you, so please pass on by and find something else to do.

It doesn't work that way around here.

But out of respect for you, Brother Ashton, I will simply note

a far more compelling counter-argument and withdraw.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alas, brainwashing is as useful a skill in the American south as barnicle scraping is in the Yukon.

Ashton, both you and I should live so long.

Charles

Alas, brainwashing is as useful a skill in the American south

We prefer to reference it as "brain cleansing".

We make certain that we slap everyone hard enough that they have little chance of growing up completely ignorant of reality.

And, we have little qualms as to demonstrating the need for such actions in other parts of the country where such ignorance has been allowed to grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is wandering all over the place in a manner unresponsive to

Ashton's initial proposition:

THE NECKTIE WAS IN THE PATH OF ANY BULLET FROM THE FRONT.

All messages which do not address that proposition are off-topic in my

opinion.

I am still looking for the slide I showed the HSCA in 1978 illustrating

this same thing, and will send it to Ashton when I find it, and he

may post it as a comparison to his illustration.

There is NO POSSIBILITY that a frontal bullet pierced the collar.

There is a very slight possibility that a glass sliver penetrated the

collar causing a "slit" in the fabric...but very slight.

I suggest that all responses to Ashton stick to the proposition that

a bullet did not penetrate the necktie.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is wandering all over the place in a manner unresponsive to

Ashton's initial proposition:

THE NECKTIE WAS IN THE PATH OF ANY BULLET FROM THE FRONT.

All messages which do not address that proposition are off-topic in my

opinion.

I am still looking for the slide I showed the HSCA in 1978 illustrating

this same thing, and will send it to Ashton when I find it, and he

may post it as a comparison to his illustration.

There is NO POSSIBILITY that a frontal bullet pierced the collar.

There is a very slight possibility that a glass sliver penetrated the

collar causing a "slit" in the fabric...but very slight.

I suggest that all responses to Ashton stick to the proposition that

a bullet did not penetrate the necktie.

Jack

Then why did Kennedy clutch at his throat as though he was choking?

Kathy

Edited by Kathleen Collins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is wandering all over the place in a manner unresponsive to

Ashton's initial proposition:

THE NECKTIE WAS IN THE PATH OF ANY BULLET FROM THE FRONT.

All messages which do not address that proposition are off-topic in my

opinion.

I am still looking for the slide I showed the HSCA in 1978 illustrating

this same thing, and will send it to Ashton when I find it, and he

may post it as a comparison to his illustration.

There is NO POSSIBILITY that a frontal bullet pierced the collar.

There is a very slight possibility that a glass sliver penetrated the

collar causing a "slit" in the fabric...but very slight.

I suggest that all responses to Ashton stick to the proposition that

a bullet did not penetrate the necktie.

Jack

*********

From Jack.....

B...

Edited by Bernice Moore

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

×