Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ashton Gray

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ashton Gray

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

32,281 profile views
  1. Daniel Ellsberg lit the fuse that exploded as "Watergate" with his release of the "utterly useless" Pentagon Papers. Without Ellsberg, there would have been no "Plumbers," and there would have been no Watergate. At all relevant times, Ellsberg had "higher than Top Secret" clearances. In league with two of the major CIA Operation Mockingbird mouthpieces, the New York Times and the Washington Post, Ellsberg leaked the documents with the singular knowing intention of getting E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy moved into position in the White House and Nixon administration in order to launch
  2. Hi Michael. Happy to contribute anything I can when and as I can. I don't have anything to add at the moment to the Liddy/Marathon Oil thread, but if I do, I will add it in that thread so this one can stay on-topic re: Baldwin.
  3. I cannot answer your specific questions about specific locations where The Amazing Mr. Baldwin may or may not have met with those you name, but I think it highly likely that Baldwin met with Hunt and with Liddy in 1971 and early 1972. As carefully planned as the operation was, it would be extremely naive to believe or assume that Hunt and Liddy ever would have gone into such an operation without meeting and coordinating with Baldwin well in advance, given Baldwin's crucial, pivotal role in initially selling the fraud to the world. I will assay now to lay out the best circumstantial case I
  4. *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
  5. 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
  6. 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 aga
  7. 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 l
  8. 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 c
  9. 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 directio
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. *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 twi
  13. *PLONK* Anybody else want to join him? The Kook File is infinitely expandable, so there is plenty of room. Just let me know. Ashton
  14. 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,
  • Create New...