Ashton Gray

For either an Admiral or a "full" Captain in the US Navy to admit a mistake, is about like getting the Pope to admit error in religious matters.

Must be something about like trying to get you to answer this: isn't it true that gaining officer and instructor status in the Special Forces 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.?

If so, 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.

You keep acting like this question isn't here. It is. It's relevant. It's important. It isn't going away. How about a straight answer.

Ashton Gray

Thank you, Tom, for posting all that info and proving I'm not nuts. I thought Burkley was in the bus because he was in the bus.

I guess if you're not, then Burkley is, since he thought he was in a VIP car. If only you'd been there to set him straight on what he was in.

I thought Burkley was taken to the Trade Mart because he was taken to the Trade Mart.

No one contested Burkley having been taken to the Trade Mart. Given that the Trade Mart is on the same road as Parkland Hospital, on the way to Parkland Hospital from Dealey Plaza, and less than a mile away from Parkland Hospital, it simply isn't the issue that you seem to wish it was relative to Burkley's presence at Parkland Hospital:

Ashton, I think part of your confusion comes from your interpretation of the following quote: "Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he got to the hospital." —Dr. Charles James Carrico, Warren Commission Hearings testimony, 30 March 1964. I suspect you think the "he"in this sentence means Kennedy; I interpret the "he" to be Burkley. I think Carrico is simply stating that Burkley got to the emergency room as fast as he could.

Pat, I think part of your confusion comes from your wishful thinking that I'm confused. I'm not.

And, no, Pat: I don't think for an instant that Charles James Carrico said "Admiral Burkley was there as soon as Admiral Burkley got there." You interpret it any way that makes sense to you, though.

Maybe Burkley did get there in time to talk to Carrico about the steroids.

Guaranteed. Do stay tuned. There's going to be a little movie soon.

Maybe Perry saw Carrico applying the steroids and assumed Carrico came up with this on his own.

Perry was present when Burkley said to administer the steroids in the drip.

But your assumption that Perry lied to hide Burkley's presence at Parkland is a bit fanciful, IMO.

Perry was present when Burkley said to administer the steroids in the drip.

Burkley's failure to tell Humes about the throat wound has been a mystery almost since the beginning. My suspicion is that Burkley 1) was not aware of the throat wound as there was so much blood on Kennedy's head and chest...

Other people present in the room saw it, and they didn't do a doctor's inspection of Kennedy's wounds. Burkley did on arrival. It was discussed while Burkley was present in the room. Burkley knew about the throat wound. Stay tuned.

...or, 2) arrived just after Perry conducted the tracheotomy...

Not possible. Wrong sequence re: steroids.

3) was well aware of the throat wound but was upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy when the autopsists inspected the neck. I suspect 3.

Burkley had ordered the United States Naval Hospital at Bethesda to be prepared for performing the autopsy, and supervised the autopsy himself, by his own admission in his own sworn affidavit. Burkley knew about the throat wound. There is no evidence at all that Burkley was "upstairs with Mrs. Kennedy when the autopsists inspected the neck," and if he was in the mop closet with an ensign nurse when the autopsists inspected the neck, it doesn't mitigate at all his withholding the fact of the throat wound throughout the entire autopsy—which he supervised.

Ashton Gray

Any actual and honest address to the record will demonstrate conclusively that my initial questions to both Alfred Baldwin and Douglas Caddy were polite and not remotely sarcastic. Both uniformly evaded the questions and refused to answer them. In fact, Douglas Caddy started a campaign to get me banned from these forums before I had asked him any questions at all, so the statement above is false on its face, as is proven by the record if anybody wanted to deal with actual fact.

Then Caddy jumped in on the tag-team with Pat Speer to smear me personally—which you condoned.

Alfred Baldwin joined the forum in December, 2005. Doug Caddy joined in January 2006. For the next six months they answered questions on the forum about their knowledge of Watergate.

Okay. They had never answered the questions I raised, or I wouldn't have asked those questions.

So to the point:

Do you have or know of any valid reason why the relevant questions I've asked them should not be answered by them—if, in fact, their purpose here is to candidly and truthfully answer questions?

So now there's a question for you.

Alfred made it clear there were certain questions he could not answer because of the deal that he made that prevented him answering some of these questions.

Okay. If someone will identify the specific questions I've asked that encroached on any such deal, and specify why it encroaches on any such deal, I will entirely set aside my native contempt for such "deals," and will withdraw and eradicate from existence those question. I assure you there will be plenty of perfectly polite, non-hostile, non-sarcastic questions I asked still outstanding. So if we could get some specifics brought to bear on this, rather than sweeping generalities, perhaps some actual progress could be made.

And if the issue actually is my gratingly abrasive personality and "style," I will submit the remaining outstanding questions to you, and you can see if you can get the questions answered. I will withdraw entirely from the discussion. All I want is to get the relevant questions actually answered. So are they here to answer people's relevant questions, or not?

Doug was an especially valued member. He had been one of the founders of the Young Americans for Freedom, an organization that I have been doing research on. Not only was he involved in the legal defence of people like E. Howard Hunt, he had also represented Billie Sol Estes when he claimed that LBJ was involved in the assassination of JFK. He also knew a great deal about Mac Wallace, another figure who was at the centre of my research. Alfred and Doug did not tell us everything the knew about Watergate. There were legal reasons for this.

If there are legal reasons, put them in evidence, so the parameters of such actual "legal reasons" can be known, and so it also can be known that claims of "legal reasons" where no actual binding agreement exists aren't being used as a giant smokescreen.

If there actually are binding agreements, the dates of and parties to the binding agreements at the very least can be made of record. If they are made of record, fine. Otherwise: I don't buy it. Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail.

Ashton Gray joined on 26th May, 2006. His aggressive style of questioning understandably upset Alfred and Doug. This included his insistence that Doug was a CIA agent. This put me in a difficult situation. I knew this behaviour would result in Alfred and Doug refusing to answer questions. However, because of my belief in freedom of speech, I did not delete Ashton’s questions or his membership. This upset Alfred and Doug and so they stopped providing me with information (both on and off the forum).

Pat Speer, who had also been questioning Alfred and Doug, understandably became upset by Ashton's behaviour. He tried to defend Doug and Alfred from your strident accusations and he then became a victim of your attacks. Once again, I defended you right to make these comments. In doing so, I risked losing Pat’s friendship. Luckily, Pat is a reasonable man and has forgiven me for my actions.

Well, I would like to thank you, Mr. Speer, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Caddy for granting me this overwhelming amount of empowerment. I'd also like to point out that I never asked for it, and don't want it.

And here I've never even warmed up in these forums, much less thrown a fast ball. I have to admit that I had no idea that the ten little fingers of a simple country boy dancing lightly across a keyboard possibly could wreak such havoc on four grown men—two of them world famous celebrities; one of those a corporate lawyer, the other a veteran FBI agent. Perhaps I should only type with one hand, or only use half the aphabet or something.

I have suffered a great deal for preserving your freedom of speech.

While I genuinely and deeply appreciate what you do to provide a platform for airing important social issues with worldwide impact, and have said so repeatedly, and have meant every word, I don't make victims, victims make themselves victims. And I haven't granted you, or this forum, or anyone stewardship or control over my freedom of speech. When and if I have to do so, then I have abrogated my own freedom of speech. It is not something granted, as a license: it is sovereign and integral to the individual.

That's one reason I find all this whining about me so absurdly disingenuous. I haven't stopped anybody from communicating at all. That's the fundamental lie. If they've stopped themselves from communicating, and want to use me as an excuse, that's their problem, not mine. If they've stopped themselves from communicating by signing away their own freedom of speech in an oppressive "legal agreement" with a lying federal government that uses such suppressive mechanisms while braying about championing individual freedom, that's also their problem, not mine. If they got themselves into a legal situation where they had to sign over their personal liberties with such a ridiculously oppressive agreement, that's their problem, not mine.

And if they signed such an agreement collusively with the federal goverment to hide the facts (which I consider the most likely reason), that's still their problem, not mine.

In return, you have accused me of defending the CIA.

Will you ask them the questions they won't answer? What price needs to be extracted from me? I'll pay it. Do they want me banned before they'll answer the questions? If so: ban me, permanently, and then make sure they honor actually answering the questions. I didn't ask the questions as some personal crusade: my purpose in asking the questions is to get the truth known. If my removal from these forums will get the questions answered and the truth known, then do it!

In fact, it seems to me, that you are in fact doing the work of the CIA by frightening off people from talking about their past experiences.

Ashton

The mafia connections were CIA connections.

The Cuban connections were CIA connections.

Resolution of connections: Done.

Now returning you to your regularly schedule on-topic continuation of this thread...

Ashton Gray

John is on the right track in banning forum members who continually show abusive behavior.

Ashton Gray's arrival in the Watergate section, with his instanteous personal attacks on other members, had the effect of ending that particular forum as a source of new information and valuable research concerning this history-changing scandal.

If abusive behavior is the standard by which a member should be banned, Ashton Gray easy meets and exceeds this criterion.

This raises the problem that I face. Doug Caddy and Alfred Baldwin were both answering questions about the Watergate affair. Then Ashton Gray arrived and employed his sarcastic style of questioning people.

Any actual and honest address to the record will demonstrate conclusively that my initial questions to both Alfred Baldwin and Douglas Caddy were polite and not remotely sarcastic. Both uniformly evaded the questions and refused to answer them. In fact, Douglas Caddy started a campaign to get me banned from these forums before I had asked him any questions at all, so the statement above is false on its face, as is proven by the record if anybody wanted to deal with actual fact.

Then Caddy jumped in on the tag-team with Pat Speer to smear me personally—which you condoned.

At this very moment, over six months later, there are still 52 (that's fifty-two) polite, non-sarcastic questions sitting in the topic I started last year called Who was Douglas Caddy representing, and When? He won 't answer them.

The excuse given for not answering relevant, polite, and extremely important questions is "Ashton Gray is sarcastic."

This resulted in Doug and Alfred withdrawing from the debate we were having.

What a load of crap. They "withdrew from the debate" because they encountered somebody who wouldn't accept their evasions and regurgitations of "The Official Story" as "answers," because they weren't answers, and so kept asking the questions.

Ashton...also spends a lot of time sending me emails complaining about members who retaliate

That's a damned lie. I sent you two (or three, maybe, in an exchange with you) PMs/emails in July of last year when Speer and Caddy were doing their tag-team smear job on me to help Caddy evade the questions I had asked him. Then several days ago, I sent six standard reports from one thread about the egregious personal attacks that were going on, and announced it in that same thread.

If this post of yours with the false and unupported parroting of the Caddy's smear job is the holier-than-though British concept of "justice," ban me the instant you read this. It won't be a punishment;. it will be a supreme honor.

Then you can curry favor again with the CIA puppets who helped pull off the biggest, most heinous CIA hoax in history.

Ashton Gray

However, on forums, some Americans behave as if they are in the movies. Therefore, I assume there is something cultural in all this. That it is not a bad thing to be very aggressive. After all, in foreign affairs you seem to take a very similar approach.

I may have to review, but I don't believe that the British Empire became at one time the largest empire in the world by winning cricket matches and sipping pints in pubs.

Be that as it may, based on the attention now being given to the actual forum issues—regardless of race, creed, religion, color, or place of national origin—and the apparent improvement since, I've removed the recent examples of rampant ad hominem from my sig.

I will say from my observation that ad hominem attacks are the single most virulent source of distraction and forum disruption, and that ad hominem begets ad hominem, and so is infinitely self-perpetuating. Ad hominem also is always off-topic. A particularly vicious and covert method of ad hominem is constantly to accuse a member of holding a position or making a statement he or she never held or made, then endlessly to demand that he or she "defend" or "justify" the non-existent "position" or "statement." An instantly identifiable hallmark of such tactics is that the target of the attack is not quoted in such accusations. The accuser just claims it without any evidence whatsoever. Of course this is a form of straw man, but a particularly odious use of the straw man indeed.

Ashton

Gary, I just know you have given up on me by this time...but here I am: wheezing, gasping, reeling; only this >< far from falling face-down on my keyboard and contracting QWERTY-face; nicked and grazed by the slings and arrows of festering, fuming, fulminating foes; one step ahead of more deadlines than the sorcerer's apprentice had water buckets—with nary a sorcerer in sight—and staring down the barrels of two (that's 2) books that both have to be finished by April (neither having diddly to do with any subject related to these forums).

But, by God, here I am.

So the question stands, one that each has to answer for himself: Was the CIA involved or not?

Because if the CIA was involved in the premeditated murder of the President of the United States, the CIA does not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor does it work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

If the CIA was involved, it works for, and at the behest of, and on the orders of whoever's will, premeditation, power, and malicious intent was exercised and carried out at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, 22 November 1963 in a picturesque park in Dallas, Texas, and has worked for that unseen hand at all relevant times, from its inception until this day, this hour, this moment.

And there lies the still undisclosed thought.

There lies the source of evil intent.

There lies the power.

There lies the unseen hand.

Ashton Gray

Hi Ashton,

Whilst not unfamiliar with the Cowboy vs... dichotomy, my intention was not to put this forth as a belief, however I can see how this can be misconstrued from my post.

A hundred mea culpas, and one for lagniappe. Yes, I was guilty of a cursory read and a quick hand to the keyboard on that part of my earlier reply to you. The whole Yankee/Cowboy thing was astir in a few threads at the time, and when you put "Texas oilmen" and "big finance/banking" in the same sentence, my knee jerked. It's always unfortunate when one's jerking knee breaks one's own nose.

The point you actually made—that they all came "from similar peerage and lineage"—is certainly worth a look, and I have no argument with it. I believe that the trump card to all of it, though, is what I mentioned somewhere (in the thread Paul Rigby started about Castro, etc., I think, where I cribbed from an early draft of this reply) concerning the inescapable interdependancy of oil interests everywhere and international banking. They are joined at the hip and head, and not one is going anywhere without the other, I don't care if their lineage goes back to Ra, the Sun God, or Rae, the trailer-trash hooker with a sunny disposition.

I do believe that the CIA was created as a vehicle for achieving the goals of this/these unseen hand(s).

I don't know how any serious study of CIA and its creation possibly can lead to any other conclusion. In fact, I've searched in vain for any rational justification for its creation. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the "Cold War" was created by CIA and its masters and minions, after the fact, to sort of reverse-engineer some kind of "reason" for its existence, and to provide "justifiable" cover for its rampant criminal activities all over the globe.

One of the most chilling insights into the kind of amoral thugs who knew how to hold their pinky fingers correctly while sipping tea, and who formed the core of this criminal organization from the beginning comes from E. Howard Hunt's "Undercover" autobiography. It isn't chilling by it's scope or infamy, because it just isn't. What's chilling about it, to me, is the off-hand, business-as-usual way Hunt writes the following about an event at the end of the war, in Shanghai (boldface added):

<SPIT!>

There you go. There's a glimpse into the writhing snake-pit of CIA standard-issue "ethics."

It seems a natural offshoot for these sources of evil intent to create a company which could protect and, also, facilitate their goals; the usual suspects power and money. The evil doers and the CIA not being mutually exclusive.

You can take that further. I believe the actual underlying thought is this: international oil and international arms and international banking could not operate internationally as monopolistically as they have without just such a covert international force.

So if it isn't CIA—who is it?

With a ready-made army of covert criminal OSS scum at the end of WW II—many of whom, like "the Oily Boys," had worked directly in the interests of the oil and finance barons throughout the war—CIA had to be created.

These kingmakers imo wanted Nixon and instead got Kennedy. From the offset or shortly thereafter a decision was taken that Kennedy could/would not serve the common aims of these folk and plans were put forth for his removal, however and whatever it took to achieve this.

I don't know how far I can follow you down that path. At this point, I'm not so sure it entirely mattered that it was Kennedy. (I just know that's going to win me a whole new batch of friends, right there.) I'm beginning to form a hazy consideration that it simply was a coup, and he happened to be there. I'm beginning to squint at all of the proposed "motives" for "getting Kennedy," per se, very narrowly. I'm beginning to believe that there was something larger at work than simply "John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

There's no question that ramping up war in Southeast Asia was on the CIA agenda. That's why CIA arranged for the Diem coup 21 days before they took out Kennedy. And there's no question that Vietnam did absolute wonders for the arms, banking, and oil worms. And there's no question that Kennedy was leaning toward bailing from Vietnam shortly before the assassination—but! There's also no question that the planning of his murder was in the works long, long before the events in October-November 1963 related to Kennedy's intentions to extract U.S. involvement.

Your belief, obviously?, is that the patriotis of the CIA do not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor do they work for the United States at all, nor in its interests.

Ayup.

Who do they work for?

International banking first, I think. Oil and armaments (oh, yeah: and drugs, all varieties) are their handmaidens.

Who holds this power to exercise the events on 22/11/1963?

See above.

and Why?

Because they are amoral scum who like to take $50 out of your pockets by loaning you $5. Then taxing you another $20 on all of it.

That's even easier than cornering the black market on Scotch and fleecing the U.S. fleet.

Ashton

Thursday, 16 April 1953

• On the same day, President Dwight Eisenhower delivers his "Chance for Peace" address of April 16, 1953, which is "the opening gun of the post-Stalin phase of the Cold War." The speech has been co-authored by C.D. Jackson—a friend of Allen Dulles (and the publisher of Life magazine, who later buys and suppresses the Zapruder film)—and Walt Rostow.Ashton Gray

Ashton,

Was the Eisenhower speech delivered according to the pre-published text? If memory serves, or merely half serves, Eisenhower either didn't deliver the speech or had to truncate it, omitting the key bits about peace, due to an untimely affliction.

The point, of course, was to ensure there was no swift U.S. echo of Churchill's expressed desire to respond to Beria's wide-ranging overtures. From the point of view of both CIA and the CPUSSR, Beria had to go before he gave away eastern Europe, and dethroned the Communist Party. We would have to wait another 40+ years for Gorbachev's backers to do that.

Paul

I simply don't know, and although finding out has been on my to-do list, it now has slid down below detailing the cat.

How's this for a hang-fire no-answer?

Ashton

Ashton, FWIW, I started a thread on Dr Burkley and his strange performance on the day, so to speak, several months ago. Unike this fine upstanding thread( a real credit to its Father) mine garnered little responce, except from one member who took it upon himself to berate me for attempting to diminish such a fine, upstanding military man as the good Doctor. I'll see if I cant dig it up, who knows, it may add some grist to your mill...Steve.

I'd really like to see it, Steve. Sorry I haven't ferreted it out myself, but my forum forays currently are almost on a drive-by basis. I'l be driving back around, soon, though...

Ashton

...my references to Ashton Gray's...

...Please refer to Ashton's...

...my criticism of Ashton.

...frustration which evolves when corresponding with Ashton...

*PLONK*

Ashton Gray

So you go ahead and wait on the bus. I'm moving on to Trauma Room 1.

Ashton Gray

If, and when you actually find your way there, you may also find some conflict in regards to exactly who it was that initially pronounced JFK as dead.

Oh, they're located. Very located. It's the conflicts that are getting resolved in this thread—not flung in people's faces like chaff in a whirlwind to confuse them.

Speaking of the psy-op of flinging conflicts in people's faces like chaff in a whirlwind to confuse them, I posted a direct germane question for you that you didn't answer. I'll ask it again: isn't it true that gaining officer and instructor status in the Special Forces 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.?

If so, 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.

Burkley would also like to take credit for this one as well.

And although Burkley may/ or may not have done so, it was a Parkland Dr. who first pronounced death.

And considering that it is documented that he did not arrive until some point AFTER 12:53, perhaps if you too hurry then you can beat him there.

You make your record; I'll make mine.

Ashton Gray

"Mrs. Lincoln, the President's Secretary, and I were in what Mr. Behn called the VIP car,"

Oh, good: he was in a car.

She said that she was with Dr. Burkley (then physician to the President) when they were somewhat suprised at being "shoved" back in the motorcade into a bus."

Oh, good: he was in a bus.

"Suddenly Dr. Burkley vanished.

• 
  

Oh, good: he was on the Magic Bus.

"Dr. Burkley, on the wrong bus and taken to the Trade Mart against his will, came into the room."

Oh, good: he was on the wrong bus, and it crashed into a room at the Trade Mart.

George G. Burkley, physician to the President, was in a car following those "containing the local and national representatives."

• 
  

Oh, good: he was in a car.

In event one has trouble with "forward" thinking, perhaps reverse order thinking may help.

Oh, good: yeah, that should help a lot.

Speaking of "reverse order thinking" (now that you brought it up), and very germane to what you spend a good deal of time doing in these forums (such as the above): isn't it true that gaining officer and instructor status in the Special Forces 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.?

If so, 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.

Meanwhile:

And it still doesn't alter by one jot when Admiral George Gregory Burkley was inside Trauma Room 1, no matter how many more second- and third-hand "sources" you run around chasing up to confuse people further. And it never will.

So you go ahead and wait on the bus. I'm moving on to Trauma Room 1.

Ashton Gray

Good grief. Has it really come to this?

Free speech is a guaranteed human right among civilized societies, but any right is accompanied by corresponding responsibilities. Not least among these responsibilites is the one that people have to well represent themselves and their "cause;" to comport themselves in a way that doesn't depict them in an unflattering light.

A few thoughts directed toward those who have trouble policing their own behaviour:

Rather than dash off a hastily composed nasty reply to somebody who has provoked your ire, re-read your reply prior to sending it. If you would be offended to receive such a reply, then perhaps you could and should revise it prior to pressing the "add reply" button.

When in doubt, leave your reply overnight and sleep on it. If you feel differently about it in the morning, revise it prior to posting.

Try to focus on the content of another person's post, rather than the underlying behaviour you infer from it. Attacking somebody's argument is to be encouraged; it's why we're here. Attacking the person is a low-rent move and diminishes the respect that other Forum members may have for you. It's a "debate" over points of view. Simply disagreeing is allowed. Trashing one's opponent as somehow unworthy of the debate only raises the question of why you bother to respond.

Rather than paraphrase somebody's argument, deal with it directly by citing the passages that you find untenable. That way you avoid concocting your own strawman argument, simply to knock it down. And avoid being accused of same.

The "remove" and "anonymity" of posting to each other encourages people to be more direct in words than they would be were they in the same room with the recipient of their posts. Imagine yourself sitting at the same table with your intended target, over a beer or cup of tea. If you wouldn't say it to their face, leave it out of your posts.

Please let it be understood that I have sniped at others in the past and grew to regret the tone upon re-reading it later. [Tim Gratz and Gerry Hemming were the targets, and I'm sure had I better taken my own advice listed above, I could have made the intended points without causing myself to wince at my own vehemence at a later date.] I mention this to ensure that others don't think I'm lecturing them from a pinnacle of condescension, but instead understand that I've tried to modify my own past excesses by using the tips listed above.

As always, my free advice is worth precisely what one has paid to hear it.

I wish you'd stop being so insufferably right all the time.

Ashton

I think you should do whatever is necessary to eliminate the kinds of wholesale scurrilous and gratuitous personal attacks reflected in my sig below. And those are just a few examples.

I loathe every second I have to spend deflecting and dealing with such reprehensible tactics, but it came to a point early on where it was clear to me that just such sleaze was condoned and allowed here, and that I was on my own to attempt to deal with that kind of counterproductive noise at least enough to let the signal get through.

Even so, I never post only a response to such garbage: I always post pertinent and relevant facts, while dealing in any way I have to with these kinds of attempted personal smear campaigns.

It became clear to me just how much it was condoned as far back as 13 July 2006, when Pat Speer was allowed to post in the Watergate forum the muckraking topic Question for Ashton Gray; Let's Meet.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Watergate, starting in the first sentence with: "Ashton, since a lot of my problems with your assertions is that I think you're a fake..." and goes downhill from there. The man actually had the unspeakable gall to say the following, like some lightning-bolted goose-stepper guarding the gates of Prinz-Albrecht-Str-8: "You can show me an ID verifying that your name is really Ashton Gray, and we can be on our way." As though he has standing to use this public forum to stalk me and to attempt to invade my privacy, and demand me to "produce my papers" for him. <SPIT!>

I wrote you urgently, John, asking you to pull the leeches off of me, and to stop the ineffable personal attacks. You wrote back that you saw nothing wrong with it—this as Douglas Caddy chimed in to ramp up the fishwife gossip-mongering with statements like: "Ashton Gray, a/k/a the Great Fake/the Great Flake, seems to be avoiding meeting you. One can only wonder why." In the Watergate forum. It's all still there in that thread.

It was then I knew that this kind of sewer-level personal attack—which wouldn't be allowed in even the yellowest tabloid rag—was considered business as usual here, and that if I was going to continue to use this forum to attempt to discuss actual facts and issues, I was going to have to deal with that kind of catty traducement and spiteful personal vilification myself, because no moderation was in effect.

So I have.

I now have what amounts to a personal entourage of Pat Speer, Charles Black, and Thomas Purvis following me around like a pack into almost every thread I start, posting direct or cowardly oblique cat-calls and personal insults at me—such as the ones I now have memorialized in my sig. For a while it included Bill Miller, but I finally had enough and took care of that. And got a public warning for it.

My supreme preference is to deal with and stick to on-topic facts at issue. Every minute spent discussing anything else is a minute wasted, and I only have so much time I can devote to the forum at all. But I'll be damned if I'll stand by mutely and be used as a whipping boy for these kinds of insupportable, indefensible, off-topic, debased personal attacks.

Because I don't just lie there and learn to enjoy getting kicked in a virtual alleyway gang-bang, I now have my own reputation for being ascerbic, sarcastic, rude, abrasive and (fill in the blank). And I can be—real good—when being jerked around, lied to, or insulted.

It's not my preference. And it doesn't happen at all with other members who honor and respect the purpose and function and topics of the forum, and are trying in good faith to get at and discuss the facts, not launching sanctimonious personal attacks.

I think anything that will focus the purposes of the forums, and will keep topics on-topic, and will move the distractions and sideshows off the line will elevate and enhance the value of the forums, and will entirely validate and vindicate all of your good work and expense in making such an invaluable resource available.

Ashton

Also, one should note his statement as to where Jackie Kennedy was located when he arrived at Parkland.

Oh, good! Let's do! Here's his relevant statement:

So let's see what your xxxx-Speak/Lawyer-Speak Comprehension Quotient score is, Private Bailey:

1. Is the verb phrase "was seated" active or passive?
   
2. Is the verb phrase "was seated" transitive or intransitive?
   
3. What is the inflection of the verb?
   
4. When was Mrs. Kennedy "seated in a folding chair directly by the door"?
   
5. By whom was Mrs. Kennedy "seated in a folding chair directly by the door"?
   
6. Was Mrs. Kennedy already "seated in a folding chair directly by the door" when Burkley went into Trauma Room 1, or was she seated there by someone at some indeterminate time after his arrivial?
   

You don't know any definite answer to a single question above, do you? You can't know from the wording of the report. It's impossible to know. That's not accidental. That's the way it was written.

It was written that way for the same reason that:

• Admiral George Gregory Burkley never once, in all his testimony and reports, gives even the slightest mention to the throat wound or the tracheotomy. If there were no other record than that of the personal physician to the President of the United States—who was there in Trauma Room 1—the world would know a sum total of zero about there ever having been any throat wound at all or any tracheotomy.
  
• Almost without exception, the testimony from all Parkland medical personnel is vague and evasive about the presence or absence of Admiral George Gregory Burkley at any particular time, and actual lies have been documented as having been told in testimony to cloud his presence and activities in Trauma Room 1.
  
• Certain medical personnel who, by the record, had to know that Admiral George Gregory Burkley was President Kennedy's personal physician, and who, by the record, were certainly aware of his presence, omitted all mention of his presence in Trauma Room 1.
  

And while I'm not prepared to post further evidence on these points at the moment, but will be soon, I think that while we're on this subject of Mrs. Kennedy, it only fair to draw your attention now to the following statement by Burkley:

We'll be revisiting it.

Ashton Gray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

Bus: Evelyn Lincoln, the President's personal secretary; Mary Barelli Gallagher, Jacqueline Kennedy's personal secretary; Pamela Turnure; Jacqueline Kennedy's press secretary; Marie Fehmer Chiarodo, the Vice President's secretary; Liz Carpenter, staff director for Lady Bird Johnson; Jack Valenti, in charge of press relations during President Kennedy's visit to Texas; a Dr. Barkley; and a few others

You're quoting Wikimockingbird as a "source" for a claim that Admiral George Gregory Burkley was on a "bus," when the Wikimockingbird claim itself cites not a single source, and they can't even spell Burkley's name right?

Is this some kind of joke? What, are you Beetle Bailey?

And you want to lecture me about research?

BURKLEY:...when we were in Rome, and we were in the VIP bus.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Here's a gentle clue, Seargent Bilko: The assassination happened in Dallas, Texas.

You oriented now? Do you need a compass and a map?

Because in Dallas, Burkley was in a VIP car.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...eport_0035b.htm

...Note: This reports that Burkley was in a car. He was not!

Really! He was not? Why was he "not," Kilroy? Because you say so?

This has already been answered conclusively. Why are you trying to create so much confusion where there is no confusion at all? It gets so tedious giving these remedial lessons. Try really hard to pay attention this time, will you please? Here it is again:

Now, of course, whether Dr. Burkley was in a car, van, bus, semi, VW bug, tank, troop carrier, shuttle, tram, trolley, or UFO doesn't change a thing about when he got to Parkland and into Trauma Room 1, so you can spend the rest of your life slicing and dicing vehicle descriptions, measurements, colors, models, makes, and chrome trim as far as I'm concerned. Meanwhile, the testimony of Burkley himself is that he was in a VIP car. Period.

Ashton Gray

Mr. KELLERMAN. ...By that time a medic comes into the room from President Kennedy's section and he asks if anybody knows the blood type of the President--President Kennedy. We all carry it. I produce mine, and that is what I believe they used; I am not sure.

Great. A big useless "maybe." Thanks.

The question has already answered conclusively three times. Did you fall asleep? Here, let me refresh your memory:

Hang in there; I just know you're going to be able to get this.

Ashton Gray

Ashton

I'm tired of this.

That's what you keep claiming. But you keep coming back, don't you?

Just two questions.

• 
  

We'll see if you can count.

1) Does this lengthy immediately prior post of yours explain to the forum, the manner in which the Parkland Trauma team, aided in the assassination of President Kennedy? And why they so assisted?

That's ONE question. And here's my final answer: I have no obligation to "explain to the forum," or to you, anything. I've posted evidence and my own conclusions about what's proven from the evidence, the latter subject to change at my whim, without your permission.

Is this the "proof" which you continue to promise?

• 
  

That's TWO questions. Quote where I "continue to promise" "proof" of anything. Here's a guaranteed prediction: you won't. You know why? Because fiction doesn't leave a paper trail, so you have nothing to back up your fiction with. I said I would document what I consider proven beyond any reasonable doubt. I said I would be methodically and mercilessly documenting those conclusions with evidence. I am, and I'm going to continue.

So just go ahead and make up as many phony charges to level at me as it takes to make you feel better about not being able to rebut the evidence.

2) Referring to your forementioned previous post:

Does this provide the proof which you promised that no missile entered the President's anterior throat?

That's THREE questions. So you can't count. Maybe that explains why you can't grasp the simple obvious proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, that no missile possibly could have entered John F. Kennedy's throat at the location of the throat wound, even when it's been posted repeatedly (for which you offer not a shred of effective rebuttal). So here it is again—not for you, because you've demonstrated conclusively that you can't grasp it, but for others:

Now, you be sure to ask me again, okay? Because I'm happy for every opportunity you supply me to post these again.

Or that Admiral Burkely lied to the Bethesda Staff, and also never left the autopsy room?

That's FOUR questions. You can count on your fingers next time and avoid these kinds of unseemly displays.

Until you start quoting exactly what I said, and then ask polite relevant questions concerning what you've actually quoted that I said, you will be studiously ignored. And I know for a fact that you won't quote me, because then you won't be able to fill up so much forum space with your armies of straw men and your hateful accusations.

Ashton Gray

As promised, here is my earlier post regarding George Gregory Burkley, personal physician to John F. Kennedy, with evidence and cites:

1. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was not at any relevant time on any bus—as you have been maliciously misled to believe, right here in this thread—but was in what was called "the VIP car" in the motorcade.
   
   "We, therefore, were put in a so-called VIP vehicle."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   Burkley Oral History interview, 17 October 1967
   
   
   "On arrival in Dallas, Texas there was a long motorcade. Mrs. Lincoln—the President's Secretary—and I were in what Mr. Behn called the VIP car, which followed the cars containing the local and national representatives."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   WH22 CE 1126, Report dated 27 November 1963 by George G. Burkley, Physician to the President, on his participation in the activities surrounding the assassination

   
   

2. 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.
   
   "I was there probably within three to five minutes of the time the President arrived. I went immediately in to see the President, and went to the table on which he was being treated... ."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   Burkley Oral History interview, 17 October 1967
   
   
   "Agent Roger commandeered a car and a police escort led us at a rapid rate to the hospital arriving there between three and five minutes following the arrival of the President."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   WH22 CE 1126, Report dated 27 November 1963 by George G. Burkley, Physician to the President, on his participation in the activities surrounding the assassination

   
   

3. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was indeed in the small Trauma Room 1 on Dr. Carrico's arrival in the room, just as Dr. Carrico has testified, and Jacqueline Kennedy was seated outside Trauma Room 1 on a folding metal chair during those early crucial minutes.
   
   "I went directly to the Emergency Room on the ground floor of the hospital and Mrs. Kennedy was seated in a folding chair directly beside the door of the
   small
   room in which the President was being observed. I immediately entered the room, went to the head of the table and viewed the President."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   WH22 CE 1126, Report dated 27 November 1963 by George G. Burkley, Physician to the President, on his participation in the activities surrounding the assassination
   
   
   "When I first observed him [President Kennedy] I was in the emergency room, seeing— Actually Governor Connally had been brought in first, as you know, Dr. Dulany and I had gone to care for Governor Connally, and when the President was brought in I left Governor Connally and went to care for the President. ...Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he got to the hospital.
   —Dr. Charles James Carrico
   ,
   Warren Commission Hearings testimony, 30 Marc h 1964

   
   

4. 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.
   
   "I...told them his blood type."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   Burkley Oral History interview, 17 October 1967
   
   
   "I checked the President's physical condition, gave the doctors working with the President the blood type... ."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   Affidavit, 28 November 1978
   
   
   "The team was working to supply 'O' Rh negative blood and I informed them that his blood group was 'O' Ph
   [sic]
   positive."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   WH22 CE 1126, Report dated 27 November 1963 by George G. Burkley, Physician to the President, on his participation in the activities surrounding the assassination
   
   
   From Warren Commission Testimony of Nurse Margaret M. Henchliffe:
   
   
   HENCHLIFFE:
   I found out who it was when I went out to get blood.
   
   
   SPECTER:
   About what time of day was that?
   
   
   HENCHLIFFE:
   Well, I guess it was
   about 2 minutes after he came in.
   
   
   SPECTER:
   Did you observe him at some place in the hospital?
   
   
   HENCHLIFFE:
   I was working with him in the emergency room.
   
   
   SPECTER:
   ...Were you in the area of the emergency room before he came there?
   
   
   HENCHLIFFE:
   Yes.
   
   
   SPECTER:
   Did you see him actually wheeled into the emergency room?
   
   
   HENCHLIFFE:
   Yes; in fact, I helped wheel him on into trauma room 1.
   
   
   SPECTER:
   And, where was he when you first saw him?
   
   
   HENCHLIFFE:
   He was between trauma rooms 1 and 2.
   
   
   SPECTER:
   ...Were you present all the time he was in the emergency room?
   
   
   HENCHLIFFE:
   Except when I left out to get blood.
   
   
   SPECTER:
   And how long were you gone?
   
   
   HENCHLIFFE:
   Oh, about 3 minutes or so; 3 or 4 minutes.

   
   

5. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY then was in Trauma Room 1 with Nurse Diana Bowron, who is documented as having lied about the throat wound.
   
   From Warren Commission Testimony of Nurse Diana Bowron:
   
   
   SPECTER:
   Where did Dr. Carrico join you?
   
   
   BOWRON:
   At the— I couldn't really tell you exactly, but it was inside major surgery. Miss Henchliffe, the other nurse who is assigned to major surgery, was in the trauma room already setting the I.V.'s—the intravenous bottles up.
   
   
   SPECTER:
   And were there any other nurses present at that time when the President arrived in the trauma area?
   
   
   BOWRON:
   I don't think so, sir.
   
   
   SPECTER:
   Were there any doctors present besides Dr. Carrico?
   
   
   BOWRON:
   I didn't notice anybody.
   There may have been.

   
   

6. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1 with Nurse Diana Bowron when Kennedy's clothing was partially removed, including his tie and the opening of his shirt.
   
   From Warren Commission Testimony of Secret Service Special Agent Roy H. Kellerman:
   
   
   KELLERMAN:
   ...While he lay on the stretcher in that emergency room his collar and everything is up... .
   
   
   FORD:
   But while he was on the stretcher in the emergency room you saw his face?
   
   
   KELLERMAN:
   That is right.
   
   
   FORD:
   But he had his tie and his collar still—
   
   
   KELLERMAN:
   Still on.
   
   
   FORD:
   Still on?
   
   
   KELLERMAN:
   Yes, sir.
   
   
   "When the President's clothing was removed at Parkland Hospital, his tie was cut off by severing the loop immediately to the wearer's left of the knot... ."
   —Warren Commission Report
   
   
   From Warren Commission Testimony of Nurse Diana Bowron:
   
   
   BOWRON:
   ...We tried to start an I.V. cutdown and I don't know whether it was his left or his right leg, and Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing... .
   
   
   From Warren Commission Testimony of Malcolm Perry:
   
   
   McCLOY:
   ...[W]hen you first saw the President, was he fully clothed, or did you cut the clothing away?
   
   
   MALCOLM PERRY:
   ...Dr. Carrico and the nurses were all in attendance, they had removed his coat and his shirt, which is standard procedure, while we were proceeding about the examination, for them to do so.
   
   
   McCLOY:
   But you didn't actually remove his shirt?
   
   
   MALCOLM PERRY:
   No, sir; I did not.

   
   

7. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1 and 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."
   
   "I went immediately in to see the President, and went to the table on which he was being treated... .""
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   Burkley Oral History interview, 17 October 1967
   
   
   "I saw President Kennedy's wounds at Parkland Hospital... . I checked the President's physical condition... ."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   Affidavit, 28 November 1978
   
   
   "I immediately entered the room, went to the head of the table and viewed the President."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   WH22 CE 1126, Report dated 27 November 1963 by George G. Burkley, Physician to the President, on his participation in the activities surrounding the assassination

   
   

8. 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.
   
   From Warren Commission Testimony of Nurse Diana Bowron:
   
   
   BOWRON:
   ...We tried to start an I.V. cutdown and I don't know whether it was his left or his right leg, and Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing... .
   
   
   "I checked the President's physical condition, gave the doctors working with the President the blood type and some adrenal medication (Sol U Cortef) to place in the intravenous blood and fluids which were being administered."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   Affidavit, 28 November 1978
   
   
   "I went directly to the Emergency Room on the ground floor of the hospital and Mrs. Kennedy was seated in a folding chair directly beside the door of the
   small
   room... ."
   —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
   ,
   WH22 CE 1126, Report dated 27 November 1963 by George G. Burkley, Physician to the President, on his participation in the activities surrounding the assassination
   
   
   "Mrs. Kennedy was sitting on a brown metal chair with left side almost in line with the trauma room door. She was composed but apparently in shock. She still had on her bloodstained gloves, her face was smudged and apparently nobody had done anything for her. This disturbed me deeply, and the first opportunity I had to catch Mrs. Nelson, I asked her to please do something; for Mrs. Kennedy. ...I offered to get Mrs. Kennedy, who was sitting outside of Trauma Room #1, a towel, and asked her if she would like to remove her gloves, which were saturated with blood. She said: 'No thank you, I'm all right.'"
   —WH21, Price Exhibit No. 7

   
   

9. 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.
   
   From Warren Commission Testimony of Malcolm Perry:
   
   
   MALCOLM PERRY:
   ...Dr. Jones and I went immediately to the emergency room to render what assistance we could. At the time of our arrival in the emergency room, the President was already there, and as I entered trauma room No. 1, Dr. James Carrico, the surgical resident on duty, had just placed an endotracheal tube to assist respiration.
   
   
   SPECTER:
   ...Did you observe any other doctors in the room at that time?
   
   
   MALCOLM PERRY:
   No, sir; I did not.
   There was somebody else in the room, but I don't know who it was.
   I remember only Dr. Carrico--
   
   
   SPECTER:
   What did you observe as to the President's condition at the time you first saw him ?
   
   
   MALCOLM 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. ...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. ...I determined only the fact that there was a wound there, roughly 5 mm. in size or so. ...At that point
   I asked Dr. Carrico if this was a wound in his neck or had he begun the tracheotomy, and he said it was a wound
   , and I, at that point, asked someone to get me a tracheotomy tray, and put on some gloves and. initiated the procedure.

   
   

10. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY not only was already in Trauma Room 1 when steroids were administered to John F. Kennedy, but 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. That's the same motive behind someone in this very thread propagating that exact McCoy-Perry supplied lie for no other purpose but maliciously to confuse and deceive you.
    
    "I gave them some hydrocortisone, to put in the intravenous which was being given... ."
    —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
    ,
    Burkley Oral History interview, 17 October 1967
    
    
    "I checked the President's physical condition, gave the doctors working with the President the blood type and some adrenal medication (Sol U Cortef) to place in the intravenous blood and fluids which were being administered."
    —Admiral George Gregory Burkley
    ,
    Affidavit, 28 November 1978
    
    
    Perjury (willful false testimony under oath) from Warren Commission Testimony of Malcolm Perry :
    
    
    MALCOLM PERRY:
    ...It is to Dr. Carrico's credit, I think, he ordered the hydrocortisone for the President having known he suffered from adrenal insufficiency and in this particular instance being quite busy he had the presence of mind to recall this and order what could have been a lifesaving measure, I think.

    
    

11. 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.
    
    DR. PETERS:
    When I arrived...Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter were present and that they were working on his throat. ...[W]e asked for a set of tracheotomy tubes to try and get one of the appropriate size. I then helped Dr. Baxter assemble the tracheotomy tube which he
    inserted into the tracheotomy wound that he and Dr. Perry had created.
    
    
    SPECTER:
    Were there any others present at that time, before you go on as to what aid you rendered?
    
    
    DR. PETERS:
    ...Mrs. Kennedy was in the corner with someone who identified himself as the personal physician of the President. I don't remember his name.
    
    
    SPECTER:
    Dr. Burkley ?
    
    
    DR. PETERS:
    I don't know his name. That's just who he said he was, because he was asking that the President be given some steroids... .

    
    

Spin that.

Ashton Gray

I have just submitted six reports on posts in this thread alone consisting of the kinds of ad hominem attacks on me for which I have been issued public warnings for saying anything similar to others (only after enduring their inane attacks on me indefinitely with not a whisper from an administrator).

I've been subjected to double standards before, so it's nothing new, but I've had enough and decided to make notice of it here.

I will report every future instance without exception, and will post about each report when made.

Ashton Gray

You know, there was an article in a newspaper years ago, which stated that the newspaper got a

bullet from a Dr. who had taken it from JFK's autopsy.

This paper made a huge squak about this piece of evidence, promised all sorts of testing would be

done, etc., and in the end..the story just kind of went away.

Maybe the Fink had a conscience after all? Too bad the newspaper learned the truth about "The Truth"

in America...

Paraphrasing Mr. Hunt...You don't have a right to know the truth..... I bet they were forced to drop everything.

I'd be very interested in anything else that can be turned up about it.

I find it so consistent with everything I know about these weasels that the story they flogged about the back wound bullet coming out on a stretcher in Dallas due to manipulations of the body was actually their brand of "truth"—just moved from D.C. to Dallas and from an autopsy table to a stretcher. In other words, they absolutely love to take a truth and twist it and pervert it so it becomes a trap like flypaper for anybody who touches it. It's the truth in it that is the attraction, and it's the lies in it that are gooier than any tar.

It's a sick, diseased sort of brilliance.

Ashton

OK, I found the files on my computer. Unfortunately, I still cannot upload anything with explorer or firefox...weird.

So, I went to the site and searched it manually until i finally found the files which mention the "other bullet".

Interesting stuff.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=311

There are 4 pages. Hope you can find more regarding what happened to the bullet in question.

Extraordinary. Thank you very much for this.

I will be posting the evidence of Burkley's whereabouts at relvant times this week.

The relentless ad hominem attacks, avoiding all pertinent facts at issue, and the very few sources of these attacks, are of abiding interest. More to come.

Ashton

You stated that "Burkely was present in Trauma Room 1 at all relevant times"

Yes, that is what I said. And that is what I am going to back up very thoroughly with documentation. Sorry you're going to miss it. Not sorry enough to lose sleep, though.

and "....had the conversation with Dr. Carrico about the throat wound" prior to the trach. incision.

• 
  

<BZZZZZZZZT!> No, that is not what I said at all. But thanks for playing.

Was Burkely standing there with closed eyes when the murderous throat puncture wound was inflicted?

Of course I couldn't answer any such smarmy rhetorical question with any certainty, since I wasn't there. But I'm happy to give you my opinion: no, I don't think he closed his eyes. The wound, after all, was precisely placed where a tracheotomy incision soon would be made.

As you noted, the Trauma Room was crowded.

• 
  

When?

You also stated that Admiral Burkely "actively supressed that knowledge" of the throat wound

Yes, that's what I said. I said that's what he did because that's exactly what he did.

Ashton....I feel that you are nothing more than a waste of forum time!

For all its many virtues and poetic prowess, the woeful inadequacies of the English language are refreshed to my attention at times like these when I search for a way to express how little I care.

But tomorrow's another day, and the sun soon will be over the yardarm again—somewhere. So: cheers, pal.

Ashton Gray

While the resident spin doctor spins like a dreydl dipped in sewage, spattering malicious filthy fictions on everything in its path, while the howler monkeys swing and chatter and fling their dung, adding nothing relevant or factual to the discussion, here are some incontrovertible facts that are going to be methodically, mercilessly, and inarguably documented in this thread:

1. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was not at any relevant time on any bus—as you have been maliciously misled to believe, right here in this thread—but was in what was called "the VIP car" in the motorcade.
   
2. 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.
   
3. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was indeed in the small Trauma Room 1 on Dr. Carrico's arrival in the room, just as Dr. Carrico has testified, and Jacqueline Kennedy was seated outside Trauma Room 1 on a folding metal chair during those early crucial minutes.
   
4. 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.
   
5. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY then was in Trauma Room 1 with Nurse Diana Bowron, who is documented as having lied about the throat wound.
   
6. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1 with Nurse Diana Bowron when Kennedy's clothing was partially removed, including his tie and the opening of his shirt.
   
7. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1 and 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."
   
8. 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.
   
9. 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.
   
10. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY not only was already in Trauma Room 1 when steroids were administered to John F. Kennedy, but 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. That's the same motive behind someone in this very thread propagating that exact McCoy-Perry supplied lie for no other purpose but maliciously to confuse and deceive you.
    
11. 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.
    

These facts are proven beyond any reasonable doubt as will be documented in this thread point-by-point, despite any and all efforts by the disinformation mechanics trying to keep the fictions alive and keep you confused.

These are the facts.

I pointed out some time ago that one of the most glaring omissions in all the so-called "investigations" of the Kennedy murder was the omission of a careful timeline of the events at Parkland Hospital. One of the Timeline Elves, I'm happy to report, has concentrated on constructing just such a timeline of those few hours, particularly the first crucial half hour, from every scrap of testimony and written reports and documentation that could be scraped up from anywhere.

As a result, the lies are being stripped off like bargain-basement shingles in a category five hurricane. What suddenly was found to be standing there starkly included the above incontrovertible facts about a man whose presence and activities inside Trauma Room 1 have been lied about, covered up, smoke-screened, hidden, obfuscated, and grossly omitted (where facts and testimony about his presence should have been) in extraordinary ways.

But from careful, meticulous timelining of miniscule facts scattered all over the case, it is proven now beyond even the slightest doubt that George Gregory Burkley was present inside Trauma Room 1 at all relevant times, and knew, at all relevant times, about the throat wound. It would have been utterly impossible for him not to have known about the throat wound. So George Gregory Burkley actively suppressed that knowledge throughout the Bethesda autopsy that night—which autopsy he supervised, according to his own sworn affidavit.

Other curious facts have emerged from the timeline:

• ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY became John F. Kennedy's personal physician in July 1963.
  
• DIANA BOWRON 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 arrived back at Parkland Hospital, after a year away in San Francisco, on or around 1 September 1963—about a month after Bowron's arrival at Parkland.
  

There are no "theories" in this message. None. There are only incontrovertible, documented facts. Any "theories" you are viewing are inside your skull, and are yours—not mine.

Ashton Gray

The autopsy was an out-take from a Fellini film.

It made the "tracheotomy" butchery look like ballet.

The participants certainly weren't in the pursuit of useful forensic evidence, producing a set of "evidence" and "testimony" that was "Larry, Moe, and Curly Do the Morgue."

So what were they looking for? Why all the lies about when the x-rays were made versus the removal of lungs and other organs? Why did the FBI's version of Tweedledee and Tweedledum—Sibert and O'Neill—cook up all the lousy spy-fi about the back wound projectile? Why did news of the serendipitous "finding" of CE399 (a.k.a. "The Stretcher Bullet," a.k.a. "The Magic Bullet") just happen to come through one of these lying FBI goons (but I repeat myself) at the very moment he went to make the spy-fi phone call, suddenly "explaining" why no back wound bullet had been found in the body during the autopsy?

What were they really trying to accomplish there in the bowels of Bethesda?

Simple enough: they had to locate the real back wound bullet and take it forever out of evidence and existence.

And they did.

Here is an excerpt from the testimony of Jerrol Francis Custer, the radiologist who actually set up and operated the portable x-ray machine for all the x-rays taken that night. It's probably the only true testimony that ever came out of that macabre room:

• JERROL CUSTER: When I lifted the body up to take films of the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis, this is when a king-size fragment—I’d say, estimate, around three, four centimeters—fell from the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took— That’s the last time I ever saw it. Now, it was big enough. That’s about, I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger; my small finger. First joints. ...
  MR. GUNN: Did you ever see a wound on the back of President Kennedy?
  JERROL CUSTER: That’s when I picked him up, and the bullet dropped out of there.
  

Along came the forceps, Simple Sibert made the spy-fi phone call, and just like that <SNAP!> the "throat wound" had an "explanation": CE399, found on the (wrong) stretcher at Parkland. Of course nobody has ever been able to make a particle of sense out of this "explanation," and of course it is utterly impossible that the "throat wound" was the result of any projectile going in any direction. But as soon as The Fink made off with the real back wound bullet, the world was handed the "Magic Bullet: happy solution for all your assassination needs."

The real bullet that was in the back never got to have a cute little "CE" number.

It's gone.

And we all lived confusedly ever after.

Ashton Gray

And we all lived confusedly ever after.

Ashton Gray

Is there an echo in here, or is it just me?

Oh: it's you, Lieutenant Purv. Hey there. Well, I'm back for the second lesson. I wanna' say again how kind you are to devote so much of your time and tooth-grinding energies attempting to rectify the deficiencies in somebody as Information Challenged as me. I think I'm going to have to submit your name for inclusion in the hallowed ranks of the Patient Rectifiers of Information Challenged Knuckleheads. It's a fine, fine organization for you to be in, I think.

Now, you have been busy, busy, busy trying to set my mind right (between bouts of you and that other Patient Rectifier of Information Challenged Knuckleheads, Mr. Black, stroking each other and frothing at the mouth about me), and because I am so grateful for all the attention you have devoted to me, I am going to devote my undivided attention in return to what you are trying to l'arn this ol' boy—me. So what was it you were trying to get me to comprehend, Cap'n Purv?

As most who have paid attention on this forum are aware, to include all who have actually done any research into the subject matter,

When the autopsy ended, the conclusion was that the projectile which entered the back/upper neck of JFK had only penetrated a short distance before stopping.

• 
  

You don't say! Really! So, lemme get this now: experienced pathologists determined that the bullet had stopped inside John F. Kennedy's body. That's what I have understood you to say.

Well, I'll be darned. So there should have been a bullet all up in there in Kennedy's back, then, right?

There was ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to this projectile having exited the anterior throat in the vicinity of the tracheotomy incision.

Whoa! None at all, huh? Now, I have to tell you, Major Tom, that's a head-scratcher right there. But don't let me stop you—I'll tell you why it's a head-scratcher in a minute. For now, you go on and explain it to me, and I won't interrupt. (And you do go on; I'll give you that):

The conclusion was:

1. Tracheotomy incision of the anterior throat. 2. Bullet into back which only entered a short distance and thereafter apparantly came out of the back due to external cardiac massage; etc; administered at Parkland Hospital, where the bullet was found.

Therefore, your lack of factual reporting is exceeded only by your lack of research into the facts of the case.

Had you reviewed the FBI Report of Siebert & O'Neil, then you would have had some inkling as to this autopsy fact.

AFTER the autopsy was completed, the body was gone, and Finck & Boswell were also gone, Dr. Humes spoke with Parkland and first learned of the anterior throat wound (which the autopsy surgeons had completely missed and originally reported as being ONLY a tracheotomy incision).

Thereafter, Dr. Humes more or less "recalled" Dr. Finck and Dr. Boswell to discuss this new knowledge and information.

Golly.

That's pretty darn amazing, Lieutenant Colonel Purv. So you mean to tell me that not a single soul in that whole autopsy, from the starting bell till lights out, not a-one of 'em knew diddly squat about there having been a round puncture wound in poor ol' JFK's throat where that tracheotomy butchery was?

Man! That's just—

Well, that's— Well, see, that's the head scratcher right there. And lemme tell you why it is, and solicit your superior wisdom on it—you being an expert and all.

See, it's this way: back at Parkland Hospital, Trauma Room 1—where JFK was treated till he died—was just a tiny little thing. I mean, I've been in bathrooms that was bigger, if you get my drift. You couldn't swing a cat in there without hitting everybody in the room.

So there he was: President of the United States, laid out on a stretcher mortally wounded in this little ol' cracker box of a trauma room. Now, you being an expert and all, I imagine that you'd be quick to tell me that Dr. Carrico was the first sawbones on the scene in Trauma Room 1, wouldn't you?

But here's a little wrinkle in that, Colonel Purv: he wasn't.

That's right. Carrico wasn't the first doctor in that little room. He was across the hall in Trauma Room 2, with John Connally, when JFK was wheeled into Trauma Room 1, and came over to Trauma Room 1 within a few minutes—but I'm sure you already know that, being an expert on "ALL the testimony" the way you are.

But ol' Doc Carrico himself said this about who was in Trauma Room 1 with JFK as soon as JFK got to the hospital:

• SPECTER: You have described a number of doctors in the course of your testimony up to this point. Would you state what other doctors were present during the time the President was treated, to the best of your recollection?
  DR. CARRICO: ...Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he got to the hospital.
  

O! Let me hear a diminished chord on the organ!

Damn! Just gives you goose bumps, doesn't it? Does me.

I know, I know: and what the heck, you're asking your patient self, does this have to do with the autopsy?

Well, remember, now, Brigadier General Purv, I'm a little slow. But you are such a grand Patient Rectifier of Information Challenged Knuckleheads, I know you'll bear with me while I get there.

So there comes Dr. Carrico, then, as Dr. Burkley is already present there in that little bitty ol' trauma room with the President. Now, if you'll recollect from your masterful knowledge of "ALL the testimony," one of the doctors who arrived soon after to squeeze his way into Trauma Room 1 was Malcolm Perry, who was about to slice open the throat of JFK.

But do you recall the details of how that happened, Major General Purv? Well, of course you do! Silly me for asking! But bear with me while I just recap that moment. So there they are snugged up in that little room: President Kennedy's own physician—Admiral Burkley—and Dr. Carrico, and Malcolm Perry. And here's what ol' Malcolm says happened:

• MALCOLM PERRY: 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 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...
  

So are you beginning to see my problem, Lieutenant General Purv?

Are you starting to see how this ties in with the claims you made so bombastically about the autopsy?

See, Admiral George Gregory Burkley (from Pennsylvania, for those keeping score) was standing right there in that little trauma room, pretty much close enough to reach out and goose, when Dr. Carrico and Malcolm Perry had their exchange about the throat wound that Perry was about to start hacking on.

Is it creeping up on you like a h'aint in a dark house now? Is "ALL the testimony" coming back to you sufficiently that you can see why the various claims in the record that "nobody at the autopsy knew about that throat wound" is nothing but a poke sack of damned lies?

If it hasn't hit you yet, let's go back to Bethesda now and hear what wisdom that ol' boy Jerrol Custer has on it:

• JERROL CUSTER: ...There was a four-star general in there. Plus, there was a civilian gentleman, which I took to be Kennedy’s personal physician because of the way he talked, particularly pertaining to the myelogram dye in the back. He knew exactly what it was. And the only person that would know situations like that would be the personal physician.
  QUESTION: And were this general and the person in civilian clothing giving directions to Dr. Ebersole?
  JERROL CUSTER: Correct. Absolutely.
  QUESTION: ...Was it your impression that Dr. Finck was taking instructions from one or more persons in the gallery, or he was—
  JERROL CUSTER: Absolutely.
  QUESTION: And from whom was he taking instructions?
  JERROL CUSTER: From the same two gentlemen that had kept controlling the situation all that night.
  QUESTION: You’ve previously referred to that person being a four-star general.
  JERROL CUSTER: ...There were two men that constantly stood up and directed which way things would go.
  QUESTION: That’s the general that you referred to and the other person—the civilian?
  JERROL CUSTER: The general and the plain clothes. Which, by deduction, I assumed that was Kennedy’s personal physician.
  QUESTION: Admiral Burkley?
  JERROL CUSTER: Admiral Burkley.
  

Did you get that, General Purv? Is it starting to dawn on you with a flesh-crawling realization of exactly what is going on here? Is it finally starting to eat its way into your brain?

Are you reaching for your keyboard even at this moment to lauch another wailing denial, another completely toothless, inept attack on me and my character, with some delusional hope that it's going to change the facts?

You're shooting blanks, Boy Scout; this is end game. Here's an excerpt from Burkley's own affidavit:

• AFFIDAVIT
  I, VICE ADMIRAL GEORGE G. BURKLEY (M.C.) (Ret.) living in Los Angeles, California, being duly sworn make oath as follows:
  ...I supervised the autopsy.
  

And Burkley knew all about the throat wound at Parkland Hospital while he stood there running the autopsy at Bethesda.

And Burkley knew all about the bullet found in the back at the autopsy.

And Burkley never was called to testify anywhere, was he?

So why don't you go start your 399th thread about CE399, and fill the forum up with 399 more pages of the same old yellowed, dog-eared pages of meaningless minutiae.

It's end game.

And you don't know who the four-star was with Burkley barking orders at the autopsy, do you, Admiral Expert?

Go run to page 2 of your cherished FBI 302 report from the cherished lying dirtbags, Sibert and O'Neill. I'm sure they'll solve it for you. They listed everybody who was at the autopsy, dontcha' know. Just ask 'em.

Oh, by the way: don't look for Custer's name there. They made sure they misspelled it.

HTH. HAND.

Ashton Gray

I get confused myself when I try to understand why the doctors were actually poking around and searching for a bullet in the body, when they had to know, by simply reading the x-rays, which, by the way, they said they took 2 complete sets of, that there was no bullet to be found in this body.

I believe that has a simple explanation, too, in the missing x-rays—two, I believe, but will get the actual cite for you—of the chest area.

The missing x-rays found the bullet. The bullet came out and was turned over by Finck to Sibert and O'Neill, who disposed of it.

I may be wrong, but, didn't the trach wound at autopsy look different than the trach wound as described by Dallas witnesses?

It was Ebersole who claimed in testimony that the tracheotomy wound was sutured when the body was taken out of the coffin at the autopsy. In a later phone interview, Ebersole said the tracheotomy wound had been open when the body arrived. Ebersole lied in testimony on that point.

Ashton