Ashton Gray

Dawn, I am taking your points somewhat out of order so I can supply you with a number of links to different versions of the document I earlier posted. I also have taken the liberty of fixing the quotes so readers can have a chance of following who said what to whom. I believe you (and anyone else interested in the facts) should have access to it, so I'm now supplying it in a host of formats. First, here is a link directly to the .gif file, which should open at full size in it's own browser window. Here is a link to a PDF file of the same chart If none of that works for you, this is link to a web page with the same chart as an html table. And if anyone would like their own copy in Excel format, this link theoretically will download it to your default download location. And if all of that fails, you must be either on an Etch-a-Sketch or Windows. Your statement is false on its face and uncharacteristically irresponsible. Ashton: I stand corrected on that number (13). This was from something I read a very long time ago, written by a respected researcher (Vince Salandria). Whoever it came from, it's no less false, and I don't know how one achieves or maintains a reputation as "a respected researcher" issuing such gross perversions of fact, but thank you for correcting your own record and for identifying the source of the super-sized whopper. Well, right off the bat we have another distortion, which has a double twist: In the first place, Clark did not say at the press conference that the throat wound was of entrance, and the double twist on this distortion—which you'll easily find by reference to the chart I have suppled in many formats—is that Clark stated under oath that he did not see the throat wound. Therefore he has no foundation for any opinion whatsoever. This is dispositive, Dawn: any opinion Clark ever rendered on whether it was an entrance or exit wound has no more validity than the opinion of Mamie Glutz, seated on the third bar stool from the pool table at a dark dive in Hoboken, New Jersey at the time of the event. So scratch Clark from your list. You're preaching to the choir when you say that Malcolm Perry—who destroyed all the evidence of the throat wound—planted the idea of it being an entrance wound at the press conference. I covered this earlier this year in another thread. Then he softened it in the same press conference and said it "appeared" to have been an entrance wound. Then under oath, as the chart shows, he testified that it was consistent with an exit wound under certain circumstances, and was consistent with an entrance wound under other circumstances. Flip, flop. Perry made it a big "maybe," after he had made damned sure in the trauma room that no one would ever find out what kind of wound it was. (And please take careful note of this: I have not, and do not, stipulate that the wound Perry carved through was a gunshot wound at all. I am discussing Perry's statements and actions.) So, no: there is no unambiguous declaration under oath by Perry that the throat wound was a bullet entrance wound, and under oath he weaseled on his press conference statement. Let's please cooperate in keeping the record straight. Then why the hell didn't he say so under oath? Here's what was said under oath in re: Crenshaw: McClelland said under oath, as reflected in the chart, that Perry's incision had obliterated the throat wound by the time he, McClelland, arrived in the trauma room. McClelland further said under oath (not reflected in the chart, but I invite you to verify it) that Crenshaw was not in the trauma room when he, McClelland, arrived, Crenshaw and others arriving "subsequently or about the same time." Of course there is no testimony under oath from Crenshaw, so he is not reflected in the chart. Would you care to account for Crenshaw's alleged superior knowledge of the throat wound, when the evidence of record is that Crenshaw didn't arrive until after the tracheostomy incision? I'd certainly like to hear it. If not, scritch-scratch goes Crenshaw off the list. And isn't it a pity that Dr. Jenkins directly contradicted Jones, saying "I thought this was a wound of exit because it was not a clean wound." Here is what Jones first said under oath on the subject of the throat wound: DR. JONES: The wound in the throat was probably no larger than a quarter of an inch in diameter. There appeared to be no powder burn present, although this could have been masked by the amount of blood that was on the head and neck, although there was no obvious, amount of powder present. There appeared to be a very minimal amount of disruption of interruption of the surrounding skin. There appeared to be relatively smooth edges around the wound, and if this occurred as a result of a missile, you would have probably thought it was a missile of very low velocity and probably could have been compatible with a bone fragment of either--probably exiting from the neck, but it was a very small, smooth wound. It was in his initial report—which he made after Perry's statement at the press conference—that he wrote (in the passive case) it was "thought to be a bullet entrance wound." Upon questioning about that, he made the statement you quote. I'm very familiar with the record. But, hell, I'll even give you Jones. Mark your Excel worksheet accordingly and update the totals. (By the way, I genuinely hate to bring this up, but Jones is the doctor who flat-out lied under oath about the steroids in an attempt to hide Burkley's early presence in Trauma Room One. But if you want an impeached witness, let no one say I'm not a giver: here—you take him. Please.) A-hem. Pardon me: that would be one: Jones. And you are welcome to him. And with that, I will have to meet you in a second message, below, to continue our discussion, or else the board complains that I have overspent its niggardly allotment of quotations. See you below... Ashton

Any researcher of integrity not only can but will change his analysis when receiving more data that warrants it, or when finding new relationships in existing data. Of course I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is anything that could be leveled toward you. Ashton Gray

You would think that if the intelligent LN guys did it in the name of national security, they would want to know the truth - rather than protect the guilty. Heh. Not when the guilty are in charge of "national security" <SPIT!> and the "intelligent LN guys" (perhaps the supreme oxymoron of all time) are their sock puppets. Ashton

It's curious, isn't it, that elsewhere on the Mary Ferrell site there is this copy of the same letter, but that it has handwritten on the bottom—which had to have been added on or very likely after 22 November 1963—"File: Lee Henry Oswald". Ashton

Your statement is false on its face and uncharacteristically irresponsible. Here are the actual facts in this summary of the medical testimony to the Warren Commission on the subject of the throat wound: As is demonstrated above clearly and inarguably, 9 of 12 Parkland medical personnel who were in any position at all to put forward an opinion testified that they were uncertain or could not determine whether the wound might have been an entrance or an exit wound. A significant number of them didn't see the throat at all until after any "wound" had been obliterated by Perry's creative carving on the throat. Two doctors said it appeared to be an exit wound. Zero doctors said it was an entrance wound. One and only one relevant medical witness—one nurse—said she initially thought it looked like an entrance wound, and she has been counted in the "Entrance Wound" column only, even though the fact is she flip-flopped in testimony and said she had since gotten more information, and that it possibly could have been an exit wound. Although I'm frankly surprised, Dawn, that you so bombastically and emphatically would state as "fact" such a gross misrepresenation of the real facts in evidence, at least it demonstrates spectacularly the very point I was making before about the lamentable zealotry in people I otherwise respect when it comes to their ironbound faith in the Mythology of the Outdoor Shooter. It is more than merely lamentable, though, when such zeal reaches to material misrepresentations of important facts. At least you've got lots of company: there's plenty of smoke to peer at in this thread. Ashton

Jack, I have the greatest respect for your work, but I don't stipulate for a moment that we "know" that JFK was shot "from more than one direction." Assumes facts not in evidence. Ashton Well we disagree on this. I'm sorry, but you'll have to go to the back of the line of people who disagree with me on this. Allow me just to say this and no more: the LNs and the CTs use the exact same body of wounds and projectile "evidence" (so-called) and "testimony" (so-called) to arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions. What does this tell one immediately about the evidence and testimony at issue? Well, I've been called many things, but nobody's ever accused me of being one of your basic "most researchers." (By "most researchers," you of course are only referring to the CT researchers, but see what I said above about the use of the so-called "evidence" and "testimony" re: projectile wounds.) The "agreed on" part is exactly what I was referring to earlier about an idee fixé. Once one passes such a fork in the road of decision and conclusion, it determines the path from there on out. If it is the wrong path, it will lead nowhere. Where has it gotten anyone so far? As far as I can determine, it has gotten us into this very thicket where we stand, feeling around in the bushes for shooters that don't exist and never did. It's just a snipe hunt, and we are the ones holding the bag. There are no snipes. I say it's time to stop hunting snipes and go back and look for the fork in the road. That's where we all got lost. I've said before to great razzberries of raucous derision that the Warren Commission itself, run by the most vicious CIA madmen ever, seeded the CT poppy garden even while propping Oswald up in the center as the LN scarecrow. And I'll say it again. Okay. Then ask yourself this stinging question: what august body supplied that testimony for you? Oh, my dear Jack! Heavens no! Its very contradiction proves conclusively that there was a conspiracy, that it extended to tainting and manipulation of the wounds evidence, and that such criminal cover-up could not possibly have been carried out by anyone who was not in or working on behalf of agencies of the United States government. Anyone who steps back from the slaughter long enough to evaluate it against any other case in the annals of crime will see at once that 1/10th the evidence of evidence tampering that there is in this case would have had felony charges and indictments flying in all directions. Why is it not the case in this case? The evidence is tainted and compromised beyond use. That is its own crime, and prosecution of it inevitably would lead to the perpetrators of the murder itself. But we can't expect them to try themselves, can we? And that is the current state of affairs, and the sole reason why such damning evidence of conspiracy and evidence tampering has not resulted in criminal charges and trial. Meanwhile, I've also said before that the only "rational" (no other word will do I'm afraid) scenario I can see for such a bold assassination and successful cover-up is that the conspirators would frame a patsy as a "lone nutter" who they had put in proximate location and position to where the actual shots came from. That's clearly why Ruth Hyde Paine set Oswald up at the book depository a month and a day after Buell Wesley Frazier started there on a Friday the 13th. Damn shame she didn't get him a job on the Grassy Knoll. Ashton

No. Without censure, I'm sick to death of just such wildly speculative wanderings. My position is that both the editorial insertion of such patently false statements and the irresponsible propagation of such falsehoods is thoroughly reprehensible and that it poisons the groundwater. The only "excellent point" in my view is that Bowers never said any such thing. Period. That is a fact of record. All who agree sing one chorus of "Kumbaya," and let's move on. Ashton

No apology at all necessary, but I accept your gracious acknowledgment of an innocent misunderstanding, which is all that occurred. Oh, lordy, no—please don't do that! If I can't stand scrutiny on the pertinent facts at issue, I will stand down. Ashton

Jack, I have the greatest respect for your work, but I don't stipulate for a moment that we "know" that JFK was shot "from more than one direction." Assumes facts not in evidence. Ashton

Ms. Beckett, If you would take issue with me, please quote me; don't alter my words to create a straw man. Do you think there is a shortage? I said Miller had introduced the false bracketed words into this thread. That's exactly what he did. In this post, precisely as I stated. It is well established in that post that Lane was the author of the intellectual dishonesty; it is Miller who introduced it into this discussion and embraced and endorsed such intellectual dishonesty in amoral support of his insupportable spewings. Perhaps Miles Scull will re-evaluate his standards for "excellent points." Regards. Ashton

That is Mark Lane quoting the transcript of RTJ word for word. With just one major difference. Can you notice that the words "men behind the fence" are in brackets? Does that not strike you as slightly odd? Now read the the exact same portion of the transcript taken from Dale Myer's web page. The words in brackets are missing. Of course they are missing. They weren't spoken. The editorial insertion of such words without having established a citable foundation is inexcusable, and Bowers never said any such thing. It's that simple. There's little wonder that Bill Miller is the one who introduced such reprehensible intellectual dishonesty. There's little wonder that he would start this thread in the first place and firehose the forum with infinite "arguments" for an utterly hopeless position that has not a scrap of foundation or merit. It took me page after page after page in another thread to get him to stop his endless weaseling and finally state a location for his claims of the no-see-um "Hat Man," and when he finally had no choice and answered, I proved just how preposterous the entire pitiful "Hat Man" humbug is: Hat Man's Mythical Location and Miller's Magic Bullet. In another thread, after countless hours of studying in a 3D model every single proposed and asserted "location" for an outdoor shooter anywhere in Dealey Plaza, and posting 3D views from these purported "sniper" locations, I graphically demonstrated just how potty this cherished, beloved, Holy Divine Faith in the Outdoor Shooters really is: The Parking Lot Spectators' Gallery. The single most lamentable situation I know of in the entire JFK Assassination community today is this undead and undying Church of the Outdoor Shooter. It is a fanatic's religion. It has every attribute of religion, and is entirely devoid of a single documentable fact. It relies on "expert" opinions for its disciples and saints. People who I greatly respect and admire in many ways yet are militantly proselytizing zealots on this immovable article of faith in there having been one or more Mystical Outdoor Shooters, when there is not one mote of physical evidence anywhere in existence to support any such daffy myth, and when in all the oceans of "testimony" produced in over four decades, there is not even one actual unambiguous reliable eyewitness account of anyone taking a shot from an outdoor location at President John F. Kennedy. Not one. One reason that the situation is so sadly lamentable is that this zealous blind faith in mythological beasts with mythological guns consummately smothers to death sound and unbiased reasoning toward a real solution to the case. I understand full well the complexity of the desperation in clinging to this delusory faith, though. Every one of its adherents believes there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy—which of course there was. The utterly false idee fixé, though, is that without an outdoor shooter, from the front, there was no conspiracy. It is an infamously specious and fatally flawed premise, but it is the central article of faith of every person I know who believes there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. Not only is this core belief fatally flawed, it plays directly to the favor of the conspirators. The conspirators themselves have created two violently warring "camps" by floating two false "scenarios" as the only two possiblities—both equally absurd: the "LN" (Lone Nutters—Oswald alone did it) camp vs. the "CT" (Conspiracy Theorists—had to be an outdoor shooter) camp. Neither "theory" is true, so of course the only result is constant warring over two impossibilities, neither of which will ever fit the facts. And so, predictably, we get infinite spouts and fountains and deluges of sewage that flood page after page after page of the forum and drown reason. Of course there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. No other conclusion comes within 60% of embracing and accounting for all the facts of record. Of course such a conspiracy, to succeed, had to include factions and agencies of the United States government, including CIA and Secret Service personnel. No other conclusion comes within 60% of embracing and accounting for all the facts of record. But unless and until enough thinking people in the so-called "CT" camp break the black spell of fervent faith in non-existent snipers hiding under every bush and culvert outdoors in Dealey Plaza, unless and until enough rationality asserts itself to overthow forever this mythology of a "frontal shot" from delusional locations where no sniper possibly could have been, then the Mouthpieces of Chaos will continue to monopolize the discussion with pointless, idiotic, and intellectually dishonest "arguments," and continue to drown forums like these with their endless floods of bold-face offal. Ashton Gray

I saw them some time ago, Jack. Exceptional work, as always. The keystoning discovery certainly was technically brilliant detective work—once one was forced to deal with the sputtering madness that a body of "experts" would reach such an utterly asinine conclusion that two handheld shots could come anywhere close to the overlaid alignments of the backgrounds in those photos. (From my own experience, I'll suggest to you the possibility that the forgers might actually have used discrete shots of background and stand-in model taken a short time apart with a tripod, and that the keystoning was the result not of darkroom easel tilting, but of a very slight movement of the camera itself caused by manual film advancing, which can infinitesimally nudge the camera position even on a very locked-down tripod.) Even that sputtering madness of the moronic pronunciamento that they were "genuine" hand-held shots, though, comes long after the even-more-sputtering, cat-spitting insult to the intelligence of a rotted stump that the murderer of a President of the United States and of a local police officer would accommodatingly have photos lying around (AT RUTH PAINE'S HOUSE! CHRIST!) of him sporting the exact two types of weapons used both in the same day for infamous murders. The continuing awe—and downright terror—is to walk the same streets and sidewalks of a poplulation so gullible, so infantile, so suggestible, so hypnotized as to swallow such swill instead of grabbing pitchforks and torches and swarming after the purveyors of it. It's even a matter of record that Ruth Hyde Paine was at the Oswald Neely Street home not only on Tuesday, 12 March 1963 when Oswald ordered the rifle (with a postal money order, and Oswald reportedly didn't drive), but also on Wednesday, 20 March 1963—the day the weapons were shipped. And although it can't be nailed down with 100% certainty to the very day, there is an indication from the testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine that she picked Marina Oswald up on Sunday, 31 March 1963—the day the photos purportedly were taken—and drove Marina to the Paine home in Irving, Texas, then brought her back later in the day. This is the event during which Marina purportedly told Ruth Hyde Paine that Oswald wanted her, Marina, to return to the Soviet Union. The event had to have been +/- a day of that Sunday. The only extant records of anyone ever being in possession of the alleged "photos" [sPIT!] are of them being in the possession of the two most blatantly obvious CIA assets in the entire melodrama: Ruth Hyde Paine and George de Mohrenshildt. Ashton Sadly White's keystone work was a failure. I suggest that anyone who wants to check it out simply load the images into Photoshop and see if you can skew, twist or bend the all the different backgrounds to a common fit. Its not possible due to the fact that parrallex and perspective makes changes to each background that cannot be corrected when trying to align the images. As for the close position between frame, I suspect you have not taken enough frames with a camera with a waist level viewfinder. The very act of using such viewfinder forces the user to near the same postion with each frame. It's not as hard as you think. At least he spelled my name right. No, wait... Oh, yeah: I did that. Heh! And there for a minute I thought the boy got something right. Ashton

I saw them some time ago, Jack. Exceptional work, as always. The keystoning discovery certainly was technically brilliant detective work—once one was forced to deal with the sputtering madness that a body of "experts" would reach such an utterly asinine conclusion that two handheld shots could come anywhere close to the overlaid alignments of the backgrounds in those photos. (From my own experience, I'll suggest to you the possibility that the forgers might actually have used discrete shots of background and stand-in model taken a short time apart with a tripod, and that the keystoning was the result not of darkroom easel tilting, but of a very slight movement of the camera itself caused by manual film advancing, which can infinitesimally nudge the camera position even on a very locked-down tripod.) Even that sputtering madness of the moronic pronunciamento that they were "genuine" hand-held shots, though, comes long after the even-more-sputtering, cat-spitting insult to the intelligence of a rotted stump that the murderer of a President of the United States and of a local police officer would accommodatingly have photos lying around (AT RUTH PAINE'S HOUSE! CHRIST!) of him sporting the exact two types of weapons used both in the same day for infamous murders. The continuing awe—and downright terror—is to walk the same streets and sidewalks of a population so gullible, so infantile, so suggestible, so hypnotized as to swallow such swill instead of grabbing pitchforks and torches and swarming after the purveyors of it. It's even a matter of record that Ruth Hyde Paine was at the Oswald Neely Street home not only on Tuesday, 12 March 1963 when Oswald ordered the rifle (with a postal money order, and Oswald reportedly didn't drive), but also on Wednesday, 20 March 1963—the day the weapons were shipped. And although it can't be nailed down with 100% certainty to the very day, there is an indication from the testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine that she picked Marina Oswald up on Sunday, 31 March 1963—the day the photos purportedly were taken—and drove Marina to the Paine home in Irving, Texas, then brought her back later in the day. This is the event during which Marina purportedly told Ruth Hyde Paine that Oswald wanted her, Marina, to return to the Soviet Union. The event had to have been +/- a day of that Sunday. The only extant records of anyone ever being in possession of the alleged "photos" [sPIT!] are of them being in the possession of the two most blatantly obvious CIA assets in the entire melodrama: Ruth Hyde Paine and George de Mohrenshildt. Ashton

To quote a very wise person in regard to the outline you've provided above: "Thanks, but no thanks." Ashton

BZZZZZZZT! Disinformation Check: 1) There is not now, nor has there ever been, any shred of evidence that there ever was an actual, as opposed to staged, "break-in" at Fielding's office. 2) There is not now, nor has there ever been, any scrap of actual evidence that G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt were in Los Angeles at the time of the alleged "Fielding office break-in." Curiously, there is a record that they spent the night at the Hotel Pierre in New York City that same night--just blocks from the lab of CIA's Cleve Backster. (BONUS TRIVIA QUESTION: Which two famous political figures used the Hotel Pierre as "office quarters" during the Nixon transition in 1968, and who met with them there on Christmas Day 1968? Answer at the end of this post, but don't peek!) 3) The "confessed" participants--all CIA assets--claimed repeatedly in their "confessions" that there were no Ellsberg files found during their purported "break-in." Yet... 4) Fielding later testified that there had been a "thick file" on Ellsberg in his office, and that it had been "fingered," with papers taken out of envelopes that he was certain they had been in. 5) Fielding was a staff psychiatrist for the Veteran's Administration during the early '50s when the VA was supplying CIA with Korean War vets as guinea pigs for CIA's brainwashing and mind control programs. 6) Egil Krogh is a lying government mouthpiece. But I repeat myself. Now back to your regularly scheduled Disinformation Magpie Cut-and-Paste Service. Ashton Gray BONUS TRIVIA QUESTION ANSWER: Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger used the Hotel Pierre as their "office quarters" during the Nixon transition, and on 25 and 26 December 1968, Daniel Ellsberg (purported "patient" of Dr. Fielding), Harry Rowan, and Fred Ilké met with Kissinger and "Rand consultant" Thomas Schelling in Kissinger's room to go over a 27-page paper that Daniel Ellsberg had prepared--purportedly concerning "Vietnam options." Sure. Whatever.

I regret having had to scant the forum for lo, these many months, but I am jubilant beyond expression at having returned to discover this gem about the Stone in Gemstone; Clement, that is. My absence has been occasioned by deadlines for two books I was commissioned to write that I am relieved to report finally have been writ. During the process, I was persuaded to write a book on Watergate, which is nearing completion, and without too great an expansion here I have to say that this information is an electrifying complement to the analysis in the book. Hunt's outre bag-boy errand in early April 1972 to deliver cash to the W. Clement Stone Foundation in Chicago (where Dorothy Hunt later was bound when she was killed) has been given short shrift by Watergate investigators and analysts. And they uniformly have overlooked or dismissed W. Clement Stone's connection to the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR) and the Spiritual Frontiers Fellowship (SFF), both in New York City. To do so in the analysis of Watergate is a ruinous oversight. Ashton

Mr. Caddy, Of course I don't expect any substantive answer from you, and I realize that it's all about keeping up appearances at this point, but I have to ask anyway: don't you finid it rather unseemly that the best efforts from the biggest and best-funded intelligence agency in the entire world have become so boringly predictable and embarrassingly transparent as this desperation "Hunt: Redux" that you're in here flogging? It's all so "Amateur Night at the Spy Games Cafe." It's just tacky. It's like some over-the-hill diva trying to croak "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" in checkerboard muslin and curls with pancake make-up. Despite our differences—which I wouldn't care to reduce—still, even I hate to see a career lawyer so boxed in late in his career and life that all he can do is run around finding book reviews to copy and paste into forums. It's such a go-fer function. It seems like a sort of "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" legacy that's being forged right here before my very eyes. Well, I guess CIA has to try to save face somehow, but I just wanted say that it's not playing very well in the third row. The sets are falling down, the footlights are popping, the tuba is out of tune, and the stage manager is in plain sight in the wings, tearing his hair out. It isn't that you aren't performing your clipping service part very efficiently. You are, and no one should try to take that away from you. And no one hopes more than I that you soon have lots of good reviews to copy and paste. I'm just sorry to see that you're reduced at this point on your life to playing Musack on a falling elevator. Ashton Gray

Mr. Caddy, Of course I don't expect any substantive answer from you, and I realize that it's all about keeping up appearances at this point, but I have to ask anyway: don't you finid it rather unseemly that the best efforts from the biggest and best-funded intelligence agency in the entire world have become so boringly predictable and embarrassingly transparent as this desperation "Hunt: Redux" that you're in here flogging? It's all so "Amateur Night at the Spy Games Cafe." It's just tacky. It's like some over-the-hill diva trying to croak "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" in checkerboard percale and curls with pancake make-up. Despite our differences—which I wouldn't care to reduce—still, even I hate to see a career lawyer so boxed in late in his career and life that all he can do is run around finding book reviews to copy and paste into forums. It's such a go-fer function. It seems like a sort of "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" legacy that's being forged right here before my very eyes. Well, I guess CIA has to try to save face somehow, but I just wanted say that it's not playing very well in the third row. The sets are falling down, the footlights are popping, the tuba is out of tune, and the stage manager is in plain sight in the wings, tearing his hair out. It isn't that you aren't performing your clipping service part very efficiently. You are, and no one should try to take that away from you. And no one hopes more than I that you soon have lots of good reviews to copy and paste. I'm just sorry to see that you're reduced at this point on your life to playing Musack on a falling elevator. Ashton Gray

Why did an experienced writer need to collaborate with a journalist to write his memoirs. The question that is blaring like a stuck four-bell air horn is why E. Howard Hunt had to write a second set of "memoirs" covering the same events he already wrote his "memoirs" on long ago. Try to find a precedent. A wino in any alley could bend your ear for two hours dreaming up "reasonable reasons" for a collaborative effort. The only reason, though, for this death-watch rush to "new memoirs" is contained right here in this forum: exposure of CIA's Watergate hoax that Hunt was a pivotal component of. It has had to be rewritten in a desperate attempt to shore up the "Official Story" and to explain away the hopeless gaping holes in the stories told by Hunt, Liddy, McCord, and their accomplices, canyon-wide holes that have been being ruthlessly exposed over the past few years. That's exactly why a phony non compos mentis "Deep Throat" was suddenly trotted out not long ago in flagrant violation of the originally floated "terms" of exposure: so CIA could weave this new dead-end into the "New, Improved" Official Fiction and stamp Hunt's name on it in cheap foil. And that's why Douglas Caddy has been reduced to a clipping service to promote CIA's "New, Improved" Official Fiction, and has no voice. But I've loved marionette shows since Howdy Doody, so it all at least is entertaining. Ashton Gray

Pat Speer has opined in this manner concerning your relationship with the "totally amoral" felon, self-confessed forger, perjurer, and CIA founding member (but I repeat myself) E. Howard Hunt: "Mr. Caddy, in order to keep Hunt's involvement secret, probably lied to a newspaper about a phone call from Barker's wife... . It seemed obvious to me...that Caddy had lied... ." —Pat Speer Is Pat Speer correct in what he says? Ashton Gray

If the CIA was involved at all, in any way, in the Kennedy murder, it was not taking orders from, or acting in the exclusive interests of, or beholden to, or doing the bidding of, or reduced to a parity with, or in any way junior to: • Texas oil men • Texas politicians • The Vice President of the United States • Pro-Castro forces • Anti-Castro forces • Cubans • Castro • The Mafia, or any part thereof So was the CIA involved or not? Ashton Gray

The idea that CIA literally would control Secret Service is extreme. On the other hand, any idea that international banking and oil interests, discussed in this thread, would not have controls in place in the United States Department of the Treasury passes "extreme" like it was a road apple and slams head on into "daft." In fact, the Secret Service, in the Department of the Treasury, predates OSS as an intelligence branch of the federal government. As early as 1915 SS was ordered to investigate espionage in the United States (that's two years after 1913, an entire book in itself). The international banking and oil interests discussed in this thread vis a vis the CIA certainly have been invested in the Treasury Department far longer than in their disturbed, deformed bastard child, CIA. So however hypothetical your idea of interchange of critical operational information between CIA and SS in relation to the JFK assassination, and Don Jeffries's observation about SS involvement, it represents a hypothesis almost absolutely necessary to the postulation of any conspiracy at all, and certainly to one involving CIA. The presence of C. Douglas Dillon over Treasury and the SS at the time, and his connections to the Rockefeller and other banking and oil interests, certainly ratchets the hypothesis up several notches. And what no one so far has even touched (I mean other than C. Douglas Dillon) is the curious matter of the One Stop Car Shop on Saturday, 9 November 1963, when an automobile from Downtown Lincoln-Mercury was used under the pretense of a "test drive" to time the route from Dealey Plaza to Parkland Hospital, all while the phony Hobson's choice "controversy" was being played out between SS Dallas and SS Washington over the location for the Dallas luncheon (covered in some detail in The Route of Death). None of that little gruesome burlesque could have been staged without witting SS involvement on both ends. Ashton

Whoever controlled the Secret Service detail , on that day, was involved. Did the CIA have control of the Secret Service Agents in Dallas that day? Ah. And that brings us to Secretary of the Treasury at the time, C. Douglas Dillon—of the Dillon, Read & Co. banking family, close friend of the Rockefellers, and trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation 1960-1961. Indeed. Ashton

If the CIA was involved at all, in any way, in the Kennedy murder, it was not taking orders from, or acting in the exclusive interests of, or beholden to, or doing the bidding of, or reduced to a parity with, or in any way junior to: • Texas oil men • Texas politicians • The Vice President of the United States • Pro-Castro forces • Anti-Castro forces • Cubans • Castro • The Mafia, or any part thereof So was the CIA involved or not? Ashton Gray

Yes, and "ass" has several definitions, too. Anyone who can't tell the difference between them should never attempt to kiss a donkey. Ashton