Ashton Gray

Many is the time I have been verbally battered and browbeaten for having repeated that the FBI agents signed a receipt for A MISSILE. Yes: fiction doesn't leave a paper trail, but this missing bullet did. And of course there had to have been just such a bullet as Custer reported and the receipt recorded. All substantive evidence in the case demands that another bullet had to have existed, and that it had to have been in John F. Kennedy's back. It's inarguable that a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's back and there was no exit wound. And of course it's inarguable that a bullet that went into John F. Kennedy's back did not end up on John Connally's stretcher at Parkland hospital. That's every bit as absurd as people have understood it to be. It's actually too simple. And of course the bullet found during the autopsy had to be made to disappear so there then could be an "explanation" for the throat wound, because the throat wound had not been caused by a bullet, dart, projectile, or "missile," but had been administered at Parkland Hospital. So you're absolutely right. I wouldn't worry too much about the verbal abuse; it's the last refuge for the hopelessly lost. Most of them aren't really bad, just confused. (A few, though...) Heh. Yeah, the kid slipped up and wrote the truth. He was in bad company to be doing that. The problem Sibert and O'Neill had is they couldn't insist that he rewrite it as simply "fragments," so had to sign it and then lie their asses off in the 302. In the first place it would depend on whether it was an actual court of law or a rigged "court of law." We have both kind, you know: there's just no easy way to tell them apart. The rigged ones can and will interpret black for white any hour of the day without blinking. In a real court of law, I don't know. "Missile" in that sense isn't defined in the edition of Black's Law Dictionary that I have, so I don't know where a court could turn for interpretation except to a standard dictionary definition, which is: "an object or weapon for throwing, hurling, or shooting, as a stone, bullet, or arrow." Hardly an attribution for the dinky little slivers Sibert and O'Neill purportedly had. Maybe one of the resident lawyers here can answer you better. Ashton

Thomas, I notice that in your contemptuous rant, you evaded every material fact of evidence and testimony in my post. When the bellowing fades away, the facts remain. More to come. Ashton Gray

Wull, gawrsh, Private Purv, I shore appreciate you bringing this poor ol' dimwit up to speed. Mebbe using your superior knowledge of "ALL of the testimony" you can explain to me and other dimwits who might stumble along this way how the back wound was "not found until well into the autopsy...until AFTER Pierre Finck had arrived," when Sibert and O'Neill claimed in their 302 that the photos and x-rays were taken before the autopsy started, with everyone except the relevant medical personnel having been asked to leave the room. Could you help a poor ol' slow-boy out there? Because there's a photo of the back wound. Or hadn't you noticed? You aren't sayin' that the nice, honest, trustworthy FBI <SPIT!> agents lied, now, are you? And how 'bout old Ebersole, the Top Dawg radiologist at the autopsy. 'Splain me what I ought to make of this from his sworn testimony on this very point: EBERSOLE: As we turned the body on the autopsy table there was a textbook classical wound of entrance upper right back to the right of the midline... . I would like to emphasize this was a textbook wound—round, smooth, purple-ish, no raised margins. ...At that point we had a wound of entrance, i.e., the back wound, and no known wound of exit. So prior to starting the autopsy we were asked to X-ray the body to determine the presence of a bullet. ...I would like to emphasize one thing. These films, these X-rays, were taken solely for the purpose of finding what at that time was thought to be a bullet that had entered the body and not exited. QUESTIONER: ...You took the X-rays initially, before any incision was made in the body? EBERSOLE: That is right. QUESTIONER: ...I see. When Colonel Finck came in these had already been taken? EBERSOLE: Yes, and repeated once. QUESTIONER: ...Now, you repeated the X-ray specifically because what you were after was to find a bullet? EBERSOLE: A bullet. QUESTIONER: Because there was an entrance in the back and no exit? EBERSOLE: And— At least no exit we could identify. QUESTIONER: ...I am not clear on the chronology. When you first started talking you gave the impression that everybody had the impression that there was a bullet hole in the back... . You gave me the impression that they rolled the body over almost immediately. Is that a correct impression? EBERSOLE: I don't know whether we looked at the anterior [front] or posterior [back] aspect first. I suspect it was the posterior. QUESTIONER: You looked at the posterior first? ...They saw the wound on the back of the neck almost immediately? EBERSOLE: Yes. At least immediately, yes. ...When both aspects of the body had been viewed, and I do not know in what order they were reviewed, we were faced with the problem of a wound of entrance and not a known wound of exit. ...We had certainly not to my knowledge planned to take any X-rays at this autopsy but when it became apparent we had a wound of entrance and no known wound of exit, this is when I was brought into the action. ...Does it seem reasonable that a pathologist would carry out an autopsy of this nature without looking at the front and back of the body? My remembrance is that we were aware of the wound of entrance [back wound]. ...I certainly feel we were aware of the background [sic: back wound] very early in the autopsy. QUESTIONER (to other panel members): That is what he said when he first started. The first thing he did is look at the back. When he first started today he said that. Now, 'course, if I was smart like you, and knew "ALL the testimony," I'm pretty darn sure I could blow hard like you have above. But being Information Challenged like I am, you're gonna' just have to show a little mercy, PFC Purv, and explain to me who the skunk-ass liars are in all this. Well, now, Corporal Purv, you—being an expert, and being up on "ALL the testimony"—surely musta' already known that Mr. Custer actually had said just such things. And, you—being an expert, and being up on "ALL the testimony"—surely musta' known about Ebersole's tale above. Right?So now you're gettin' me all turned around here. Can you help a hayseed out? Hmm. I think I'm startin' to get this a little bit now, Seargant Purv, and you tell me if I'm catching on: if we dimwits just listen only to the lilly white FBI agents <SPIT!> (Pardon me! Frog in my throat...), who could not tell a lie, we'll get our mulish minds right and won't be swayed by skunk-ass liars like Ebersole and Custer. Hell, I guess then we won't even have to bother with "ALL the testimony" at all, since experts like you have already put "ALL the testimony" through a sieve and thrashed out all that we dimwits need to know. And all we need to know is that nobody in that autopsy room saw a single blessed thing on the back of that dead body until "well into the autopsy," and not even until after Pepe La Finck come strolling in and picked up his clacking forceps. Whew! I tell you, Warrant Officer Purv, all this education has plumb wore me out. I think I'm gonna' have to take a little break and cogitate and cipher on this a while. I sure appreciate you being so patient with such an idiot as me, though. And please do stick around. I plan to be back so we can have another little lesson real soon. I think so highly of experts like you, it's good for me to have one to jaw with every now and then. Ashton Gray

Excellent work, John. It seems like it could be consistent with a good deal of the evidence, and seems not dissimilar to a category of half-load .22 that I mentioned recently in relation to the back shot, rumored to be in favor with some mechanics for certain applications. Why are the numbers in your lower illustration not keyed to anything? Ashton

Oh. I see the relevance: then it must have been a turkey bone and not a Christmas ornament that fell onto the autopsy table and was carried away by Finck's festive forceps. Then again, the sworn testimony of a man who was there and took and developed 14 x-rays of the recently murdered President of the United States says that it was a bullet that hit the autopsy table. Ashton Gray

Pat: I beg to differ. When someone has been THREATENED I believe it has a tendency to stick in one's mind. This is hardly the first time we have heard of important witnesses being threatened in this case. And how many have died? If the man says this is what he saw and was told to shut up or else face many years in jail I really do not believe this is something he was likely to simply "forget". Obviously he tried to, and then when witnesses started having heart attacks, karate chops, single car crashes and the like, I will bet that Custer's fear grew worse. Time does not dull memory where threats are involved. Dawn What seems to be missed entirely is that Speer has now admitted that he knew about the threats and gag order when he posted earlier: "Custer had been interviewed by the HSCA, Lifton, etc, for years before this and hadn't talked about any bullet falling out before." By their fruits... Ashton

Codswollop. It is CERTAIN beyond any rational doubt that John Connally was struck by a bullet fired from behind that entered his back near the right armpit. It is CERTAIN beyond any rational doubt that John F. Kennedy was struck by a projectile fired from behind that entered his back. It is CERTAIN beyond any rational doubt that the throat wound was not caused by any projectile whatsoever, the impossibility of which has been demonstrated repeatedly. The primary uncertainty remaining regarding wounds is the origin of the head wound, and given the CERTAINTY of two CERTAIN shots from behind, positing a shooter location for the head shot other than the one from which the two CERTAIN back wounds originated is wandering far. There is zero compelling or dispositive evidence that the head shot had to have originated anywhere other than from where the CERTAIN back shots originated. Zero. Ashton Gray

Sibert and O'Neill in the 302 report on the autopsy are bare-faced liars. Sibert and O'Neill are responsible for more false information and impressions about the autopsy than any other single source. Sibert and O'Neill mailicously planted the utterly false belief that the x-rays and photographs were made before the first incision, which is false on its face, and is proven beyond any doubt to be false by the record. Sibert at all relevant times has played both sides of the game. This thread promises yet another thorough and embarrassing exposure of who uniformly attempts in this forum to float and pump up the perverse fictions and falsehoods, and to lionize and validate the biggest liars in the record as having been the most pure and trustworthy sources. Don't touch that dial. Ashton Gray

Despite the whirling dervish efforts of the resident forum spin doctor to keep the fictions alive and tubulent and confused, and to keep the rather simple truth suppressed, there isn't the slightest mystery over why Jerrol Custer kept his mouth shut for decades about what actually happened that night in the Bethesda military morgue. It's right in his AARB testimony: MR GUNN: Was there ever a time at which you were asked or requested not to speak about the autopsy of President Kennedy? JERROL CUSTER: Well, there was two different situations. The next day, when Dr. Ebersole came back to Bethesda with the bone fragments and the bullet fragments that time; and the time in the morgue—there's three, actually—and in Galloway's office. MR GUNN: Maybe if we could go through those three events in order. The first time that you were asked not to discuss the autopsy was which time? JERROL CUSTER: In the morgue. MR GUNN: Okay, in the morgue. And that was when in the morgue? On the night of November 22nd or 23rd— JERROL CUSTER: On that night. MR GUNN: Okay. And who was it who asked you not to speak of— JERROL CUSTER: Dr. Ebersole. He made it perfectly clear that I was not to speak about this. MR GUNN: If you could convey the sense of the words that he gave to you as best you can, what— JERROL CUSTER: "Keep your mouth shut." MR GUNN: Okay. That's perfectly blunt. JERROL CUSTER: Plain and simple. MR GUNN: Okay. And the second time that you were asked, or requested, or instructed not to talk about the autopsy was when? JERROL CUSTER: That was the next day, after he had come back from the White House from being debriefed. MR GUNN: And that was, again, Dr. Ebersole who— JERROL CUSTER: Dr. Ebersole. MR GUNN: —who had said it to you. Then the third time was— JERROL CUSTER: Let's back up one thing. MR GUNN: Sure. JERROL CUSTER: At that time, he made it quite clear: this came from high level that I was not to say anything. And he reiterated "anything." If I did, I would be quite sorry. MR GUNN: Did he tell you whom he— You mentioned a moment ago that he had been to the White House. JERROL CUSTER: Right. MR GUNN: Did he tell you whom he had spoken with at the White House? JERROL CUSTER: Yes, he did. MR GUNN: Whom did he say he spoke with? JERROL CUSTER: The head of the Secret Service. MR GUNN: When he said that high-level people— JERROL CUSTER: Right. MR GUNN: —did not want anything to be discussed, did he tell you who those high-level people were? JERROL CUSTER: No. He just said high-level people. MR GUNN: ...You're acquainted with the name Edward Reed? JERROL CUSTER: Yes. MR GUNN: He was the one who's— The student whom you identified in the photograph. JERROL CUSTER: Correct. MR GUNN: Was Mr. Reed with you, either during the first time that you received the instructions from Dr. Ebersole or the second time? JERROL CUSTER: No. He was with me on the third time, when we were both in Dr.— Well, actually, Vice Admiral Galloway's office. MR GUNN: Okay. Could you tell me about the third time that you received instructions not to speak about the— JERROL CUSTER: Well, that was the most traumatic. After I signed the gag order, I was told if anything—no matter what—got out, it would be the sorriest day of my life. I'd spend most of my time behind prison walls. MR GUNN: And did that sound—that threat—sound credible to you? JERROL CUSTER: Very credible. MR GUNN: Let me show you a document that is marked Exhibit No. 195, and ask you whether you have previously seen that before? JERROL CUSTER: Yep, this is it. MR GUNN: Now, I note that that document does not appear to have a signature on that. Do you see any signature on it? JERROL CUSTER: No, I don't. MR GUNN: Is that the document—obviously, without the signature—that— JERROL CUSTER: Correct. MR GUNN: —that you ended up signing? JERROL CUSTER: Correct. I would not get out of that office unless I signed that signature, because there were armed guards. They were right behind me. And I know for a fact, if I did not sign that, I would have been gone. It was made quite clear. MR GUNN: Who else was— Who else received instructions about not speaking about the autopsy at the same time that you did? JERROL CUSTER: The only two people that were there was myself and Mr. Reed. MR GUNN: So, Dr. Ebersole was not there at that time? JERROL CUSTER: No, he wasn't. MR GUNN: Did you see Mr. Reed sign a statement similar to the one I just handed you? JERROL CUSTER: Yes, I did. He's another one that wouldn't have got out of the office, unless— MR GUNN: Okay. JERROL CUSTER: They don't have armed MPs standing there for nothing. MR GUNN: Is it your understanding now that the order of secrecy has been lifted? JERROL CUSTER: Yes, it is. MR GUNN: Do you have any hesitancy now about talking candidly about what you witnessed? JERROL CUSTER: Absolutely not. "The land of the free." Ashton Gray

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

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

Mockingbird. <SPIT!> Ashton Gray

That could be the case to some degree. However, I think the saddle-like lay of the yoke on the shoulders effects a restraint on any significant vertical motion of the bodice. How much, I don't know exactly, but the yoke is double-stitched across the back bodice, to both sleeves, and to the left and right front bodice pieces of the shirt, so I believe that the double-layered yoke resting on the shoulders has a determining influence on the position of the bodice that mere neck movement don't seem to change at all even with a buttoned collar and tie. The fabric of the collar folds to accommodate any neck movement without any significant effect on the position of the yoke as far as I can determine. That's my experience. Almost anyone can test this for themselves in front of a mirror. It would be good to have some photos with actual visible measurements done on just such movements. I may try to get that done if I can find the time and a willing model. Ashton

This exchange has gotten to the point where any attempt to respond meaningfully hits the forum's arbitrary limits on quote blocks. I think the limitations are as useless as teats on a boar hog, but be that as it may, I have to resort to absurd conventions to "quote" previous exchanges: You just made my case for me conclusively. Thank you for stipulating that the title was changed. Allow me to read your sentence back to you: "'Title changes' are only carried out by 'page moves' on Wikipedia." A title change was effected, period. I don't really care whether Wikipedia changed the title to fiction by "moving" the page, sprinkling it with fairy dust (which there seems to be no shortage of these days), or rattling gourds at it. As you have admitted, the original title of the article has been changed. Since you've made an issue of this non-issue of how the title change was done, though, let's explore it further: Of course, anyone can move a page from one directory to another on any server anywhere without effecting any slightest title change. Ipso facto, "moving" a page on the web does not equate to changing a title anywhere in cyberspace except in the Wikipedian universe and Wikispeak. Getting past the Wikispeak to the real world effects of what was done, I'll thank you again for admitting that the title of the article was changed, thereby supporting my contention for me. You did a fine, fine job. What you haven't yet admitted, though, is that the title it was changed to is a gross fiction, which is the seminal issue—not Wikipedia's doublespeak nomenclature. So let's get down to bedrock and find out directly and specifically: do you contend that there actually was a "first break-in" at the Watergate on Memorial Day weekend 1972? Turning to the discussion of the gang-bang WikiWhacking of the Remote Viewing Timeline: Thank you again for stipulating my point: there were as many as 100 articles on Wikipedia that were as long as, or longer than, the Remote Viewing Timeline. Ipso facto, the complaints against its length were an infamous double standard used as one more bludgeon in a travesty of "due process" in order to suppress the information the timeline contained and eradicate it from Wikipedia. If you keep making my case so well for me, I may have to nominate you for whistleblower status. So what steps will be taken to close the door on the possibility of any future such abusive double standards at Wikipedia? That wasn't the issue being discussed. You're attempting to change the subject. The issue being discussed was false, generalized, and unsupported accusations against the Remote Viewing Timeline falsely claiming that the cited sources "didn't adequately support the claims." (Couched in the passive generalized terms, "it was felt.") You still haven't given a single valid example to support any such accusation. I'm not going to be finessed by you into changing the subject, but I am going to address your attempt to change the subject. In that attempt, you didn't disclose the following from Wikipedia's own references on sources and cites for articles: First, from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style: Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia. And from Citation: Citations to a book generally include at least author(s), book title, publisher and date of publication. So in fact, there's not a single firm requirement anywhere in the entire length and breadth of Wikipedia that a book reference include page numbers, is there? And in fact, there are plenty of books referenced in Wikipedia articles where no book page numbers are supplied, aren't there? (I am prepared to list examples if you want to continue down this path with me. I wouldn't advise it if I were advising you, but I'm not, so you do what you think best.) Therefore the "issue" that you attempted to change the subject to is a non-issue, and just another infamous double standard, isn't it? So back to the actual issue: you still have not supplied even a single example wherein the sources cited in the Remote Viewing Timeline "didn't adequately support the claims," have you? Here's my opinion on why you haven't, and why you won't: because at all relevant time such accusations were never anything more than the most scurrilous falsehoods hurled like chum into a feeding frenzy without a shred of integrity or truth, and with the sole malicious intent of discrediting a very well researched and well cited artcle that exposed dirty truths utterly destroying the party line of fictions about Remote Viewing that Wikipedia represents and propagates. I mean, that would seem to me, on its face, to be the most obvious reason why you don't post a single example backing up the accusations that you posted here as being "felt," and instead tried to change the subject. Maybe you have another explanation? I'd be happy, of course, to hear it. I next addressed your claim that the Remote Viewing Timeline "was tarnished with 'original research.'" (Gotta' love that Wikispeak. Where else in the world can you find a sentence that contains "tarnished with original research"?): I had correctly predicted you would attempt to muzzle me once in a discussion of Wikipedia censorship, but I have to admit that I didn't think anybody could have reservoirs of chutzpah deep enough to try it a second time in a discussion on censorship. You continue to amaze me, and not only with your candid admissions. Allow me, though, to recommend that you do a refresher course on early American history: in the first place, witchery was extra-religious. I think you'll find that was the crux of the problem leading to the tactics so in evidence at Wikipedia in the instant matter. In the second place, the warrants were issued by the secular county magistrate. In the third place, the secular Governor, Sir William Phips, is the one who set up the "court of oyer and terminer" where the accused witches were tried. Is there anything else you'd like to try to censor me from saying? Oh, good! Then it should be nothing for you to quote a few examples here. (Of course, I hope you have a copy of the original Wikipedia article, because the webbed version has since been expanded and added to with quite a lot of images and captions, as well as new timeline entries. You wouldn't want to be building a "case" on material that wasn't even in the Wikipedia version, I just know in my heart. That would be the intellectual equivalent of jumping from a high ledge, and nobody wants to see that.) And now to the last matter you've raised, which has amazed me most of all: Well, well. At last we drill down far enough through layers of false accusations and non-issues to hit the nerve. At last we find out what was at work all along: a crusade to protect the world from "pseudoscience" by a group of self-appointed, self-annointed High Priests of the Cult of Final Arbitration on Science vs. Pseudoscience. Aren't we all fortunate to have such benign protection through censorship. Let me express, though, just personally, one tiny little reservation I have about such a noble crusade: that crusading "nominators" should not be countenanced who are so tree-stump stupid that they don't know the difference between an article on history and an article on science. Tell me, please, that you and I at least agree that this is a reasonable dividing line on levels of stupidity and ignorance: able to tell the difference between history and science. Work for you? The Remote Viewing Timeline is, and always was, a history of the development of CIA's remote viewing program. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being an article on either "science" or "pseudoscience." It has everything to do with being an account of historical events that actually happened, laid out in chronological order. So I'm not sure why you raised this point at all, given that it's totally irrelevant. Did you think that perhaps I was so tree-stump stupid that I don't know the difference between an article on history and an article on science? If so, I'm sorry if I've disappointed you. In fact, a simple search on the long timeline only turns up a grand total of five uses of the word "science" in any form, and two of those are in the titles of cited references, so couldn't be avoided under any circumstances. The remaining three instances where the word "science" turned up at all are as follows (the word "science" put in bold): (An entry regarding the slang name of a Soviet facility): "Special Department No. 8" is established at the Institute of Automation and Electrometry in Academgorodok, ("Science City"), near Novosibirsk, Siberia. (An exact quote from a publication of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA]): "The Soviet Union is well aware of the benefits and applications of parapsychology research. The term parapsychology denotes a multi-disciplinary field consisting of the sciences of bionics, biophysics, psychophysics, psychology, physiology and neuropsychology." (An entry from an article in a CIA publication that includes the name of a CIA department): Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ brief senior CIA officials at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia on their remote viewing research. The officials include Office of Technical Services (OTS) chief John McMahon and Deputy Director for Science and Technology Carl Duckett. That's it. That's the totality of uses of the word "science" in any form or context in the entirety of the Remote Viewing Timeline. It is an article exclusively on the HISTORY of CIA's remote viewing program. It makes not a single claim about anything being "science" or not. And yet your "nominator" had to save the world from "pseudoscience" by mounting an hysterical (and maliciously false) crusade for eradication of an article that was exclusively on HISTORY related to CIA and its remote viewing program? Does Wikipedia allow, support, condone, and defend "nominators" who are too ignorant to know the difference between an article on history and an article on science? Is that really what this boils down to? If so, it makes "1984" read like a bubble gum comic. If so, it makes Joseph Goebbels look like a sophomore high school newspaper editor. If so, I personally think that Wikipedia, with its worldwide reach and impact, has managed to plumb a stunning new nadir in the annals of censorship and suppression of knowledge, one that I hope will find eternal life in the infamy it richly deserves. That's just how I see it. Ashton Gray

I'm aware of the head tilt. I'm aware of the collar situation. You assert that the positions I am measuring from are are wrong. I think they are approximately very right. And one thing I know for a fact: if they are wrong, they sure as hell aren't 3 1/2-to-4 centimeters wrong. And that's the difference between the two marks at issue. Ashton

Yet another double post. (Was Andy so clever that he programmed the forum only to post the really good messages twice?)

Great, John. So am I. It seems that no matter how many times I say it though, you'll dismiss it. Your dismissal of it doesn't alter the fact that I am very interested in seeing any result you get, and if it substantively disproves what I have posited, I will be downright gleeful to the exact degree that it increases the level of certainty. The continued "maybe" that has persisted for however many years or decades is the barrier to forward progress. The only interest I have is in seeing it resolved satisfactorily. I don't care where the truth lies as long as it's the truth. That's the part that I can't seem to get across to you—but I also know when to quit trying. I wouldn't want to disturb the Wa of your efforts at amateur long-distance psychoanalysis. (But please don't quit your day job to pursue it.) Good. Agreement on sensible observations are the milestones of progress. And we were doing so well. The bodice of the shirt has the loose material. The yoke of a dress shirt is doubled and fitted across the shoulders. I don't think the yoke of the shirt had enough play to ride up the distance required to put the part of the bodice that has the hole up near the darker mark on the back, as some have insisted. Then again I may yet find out my estimations are off by a factor than can account for such a disparity in the natural fall and fit of the fabric. I have no idea what your foundation is for that, but okay. Okay. Here are some quotes of note: Sibert/O'Neill autopsy 302 report: The President’s body was removed from the casket in which it had been transported and was placed on the autopsy table, at which time the complete body was wrapped in a sheet and the head area contained an additional wrapping which was saturated with blood. Following the removal of the wrapping, it was ascertained that the President’s clothing had been removed... Paul K. O'Conner: He was wrapped in sheets around his chest and his torso, and when we received him he was not in a bed liner. He was in a body bag, but nothing wrapped around his torso. It was an unclothed body The only thing on his body was a bloody sheet around his head. I do understand that the testimony refers to the blood-saturated wrapping being around his head, and I take it you are confident that the blood from the head wrapping didn't make its way to the back during the trip from Dallas to the autopsy room. If it did, it seems to me that would account for the majority of coagulated blood patterns, as well as for the wrinkle-marks that seem to be visible on the back—having nothing to do with the shirt. That's why I haven't pursued it personally, but will be vitally interested in your results. Meanwhile, I'm going to direct your attention to several things that may or may not be of any interest to you. I described the following earlier in this thread. Here are the relevant images. First, a measurement on the shirt from the approximate location where the yoke meets the collar band down to the bullet hole in the shirt, using the ruler provided by HSCA (which naturally is in inches, but I've done the conversion to centimeters to match the image that follows): Now here is the autopsy back photo using the centimeters ruler that you supplied, moved up to approximate the position of the ruler I put on the shirt: I don't know if this is going to set off a new round of sly suggestions that I've cooked the books somehow because I wasn't potty trained properly and my id got jostled and lodged in my prefrontal lobes, causing severe bipolarity to a dysfunctional self-actualization process in projecting co-dependent empowerment. Or whatever. And whatever it sets off, there it is. I also don't know if you've ever taken any notice of what appears to be "cratering" around the lower back mark. It's visible in the photo without any enhancement, but I've enhanced the image you posted that has the marked ruler, using levels and contrast to bring this feature out somewhat: Finally, apropos to none of the above, in your own efforts I though you may or may not find this PDF file of some use. Ashton

If you're referring to blood patterns, does it include some way to plot them against time while JFK was being put onto the stretcher, and while he was on the stretcher throughout the Trauma Room One slidings and manipulations of the body before the shirt was finally removed completely, plus some paranormal way of comparing patterns on the body to patterns on the sheet the body was wrapped in (which isn't in evidence anywhere) during the trip from Dallas to D.C. and to the autopsy room? Also, what relevance will patterns on a shirt that had been half cut off, that was being scrunched all over in a pool of blood and gore on a body being given cardiac massage (among other things) in Trauma Room One have to do with where the shirt sat on the body at the moment of the bullet going through the shirt, when there was no blood on the shirt at all? From the testimony and evidence, there are countless variables and unknowns in such an excercise that doom it at the starting line as any measure of the back entrance wound. The neck opening of any man's correctly fitted dress shirt, on the other hand—unequivocally and unvaryingly indicated where the collar meets the body of the shirt—sits uniformly within fractions of inches of the same place on the back of any man's neck. And you have rulers—as you have made repeated point of—to measure with from such a perfectly valid proximate point to the hole in the shirt and the hole in the back. If and when you perform that simple test, you'll know in an instant that no amount of math or 3D manipulations ever is going to fudge the location of the hole in the shirt sufficiently to align it with the upper dark splotch on the back. The difference is so significant that it doesn't even require calibrated eyeballs. It's not even close. Of course you're going to invest as much of your life and time as you wish iin these complex and convoluted exercises you've embarked on, and I'll be happy to see any relevant results if any ever appear, but I personally view the dividing line between productive and counterproductive work being drawn precisely where methodology and math and measuring sticks become the masters instead of the servants to common sense and simple direct observation. Perhaps your results will disabuse me of that idea. Ashton

Thanks for the photos, Robin. Ashton

I don't know, Michael. Several people are inputting each from different sources, and I don't know exactly what's being used. I've seen entries sourced from the Warren Commission documents, HSCA, Weberman, State Department, CIA Historical Review FOIA documents, and lots of others but don't recall seeing that specifically cited. I'll pass it along as a suggestion. Ashton

Thanks for letting me know, Peter. I'm going to try to get it set up this weekend somewhere more permanent. Ashton

Ditto. Just kidding (private joke): Happy Birthday, Terry! Ashton

Tom, despite what you seem to have as a fixed and unwavering belief, I have no desire whatsoever to render unto CIA anything except that which is CIA's. As long as you hold the unwavering conviction that I have some one-note drum to beat, you're going to ignore, deny, and discredit in any way you can any amount of evidence, up to and including a smoking gun, no matter what the relative merits of the evidence. I feel certain at this point there is nothing I could say or do to convince you that my only interest is in getting at the truth, whatever that truth is. At the moment, my best dispassionate and disinterested assessment of the evidence to hand is that the lower mark on the back is the bullet wound. Can't you make a special effort to understand and believe that I have absolutely no vested interest in it being either mark? I'm not trying to twist data to fit some fixed-in-stone model. I'm trying in good faith to get to the truth. I've tried in good faith to demonstrate graphically and visually my foundation for that belief, which visual foundation is supported by my reading of a great deal of admittedly conflicting testimony and "expert" opinions. I have no beef with you. I'm not out to get you or to discredit your data. My effort has been, and will continue to be, toward reconciliation and resolution of what I consider to be intentionally contrary "facts." The only way I know to resolve such contradictory "evidence" is to approach it with an unbiased view, collect and compare, and reach what seems to be the most reasonable conclusion. I have no argument with the fact that CE399 ricocheted off of something before being "found" and introduced into evidence. I find all of your data on that compelling and truthful. What has not been proven satisfactorily or dispositively is that that bullet entered the back of John F. Kennedy at all, at any time, so it certainly has not been proven dispositively that that specific bullet (or any bullet at all) entered the back of John F. Kennedy at the point of the dark splotch near the top of his back. My failings in life are legion. They are strewn like a train wreck in my wake. I determined early on that if I could be 51% right, I was ahead of the game. I am not trying to be "right" at the expense of someone else being "wrong." If that's a game you're playing, you ain't playing it with me. I'm not in that game at all. I'm trying to get to the truth. In my experience, when the truth is found, everybody winds up being right who has been on a path in good faith of getting to the truth. So: do we both want to get to the truth, whatever it is? Ashton

You could usefully put the vitriol away, also. I keep the bottle of vitriol handy only as an antidote to condescension and apply it in direct proportion. I have exchanges with people here in this forum that one easily could mistake for an English garden tea. One lump or two? Okay. You seemed to know the article, since you knew the name of Beek100 (who worked with enormous industry and resources to sabotage it), and the name of the article has since been changed from its original "Watergate first break-in" (as I recall) to the fictional "Watergate burglaries." It has therefore been so thoroughly sabotaged and fictionalized that I feel certain any attempt to make it reflect fact is beyond hope at this point.And it is fiction masquerading as "fact." And that's a fact. It's fully documented in these forums. It also is my perception and belief that you will not address this on the facts, ever, but will steer the discussion toward such things as whether you had the right title or not—a complete go-nowehere merry-go-round, of course, since the title has been changed to propagate the CIA fiction. What I described was not a "page move." It was a significant title change to propagate a CIA fiction. Propaganda by redefinition of terms is also a CIA gimmick. It is a very handy evasion not to do so when a position is indefensible and facts are inarguable. I'll grant you that. As was pointed out in the discussion, there were many longer articles on Wikipedia at the time (on less controversial issues, of course), and it violated no hard and fast rules on length, so that was an entirely specious issue used as an excuse. Not a single actual example was given, only claims that the sources "didn't adequately support the claims." So post an actual example instead of simply repeating a false claim, and I'll be happy to discuss and document facts, not answer recitations of generalized and unsupported allegations. That's what injustice thrives on.You don't want to champion such egregious injustices, surely. Another false and unsupported allegation. Repitition of false generalized charges don't make them any more true today than they did in Salem in the seventeenth century. Same tactics, different day. Please post some kind of specific evidence for such sweeping indictments. Without evidence in support, such generalized smearing (gratuitously using words like "tarnished") is exactly the kind of kangaroo court mentality reflected on the page itself. And as it stands, to this moment, not one valid reason for deleting the Remote Viewing Timeline ever was put forth there or here with a shred of factual evidence. Yeah, I know, that's the official line and you're sticking to it. But here are my personal opinions about that in general, and the Remote Viewing Timeline article specifically: Generally, on certain controversial subjects there is a core of "Wikipedians" who can be counted on to industriously attack any article that strays from "The Official Story" that the government's Operation Mockingbird has invested millions in shoving down people's throats. Generally, Wikipedia is rigged from the ground up with every kind of excuse and method to accomplish exactly that. The "Watergate First Break-In" article exposed that in truly hideous ways, as anyone who actually studies the history of that article can see. Specifically on the Remote Viewing Timeline, it was far too extensive and well researched and documented for even the full-time efforts of an anonymous mechanic like "Beek100" (who, by the way, had very strange immediate access to an almost infinite number of rare sources) to be able to "fix" with mere edits. The only way out was to mark it for death, and whistle up enough cronies who would smear it with the exact kind of unsupported allegations that you've repeated here so that it would be erased out of existence (at least on Wikipedia). The pathetic exposure of the exact intention to do just that came when someone webbed it, and a "Wikipedian" editor had to go so far as to forbid anyone even linking to it. That was a truly embarrassing revelation about just exactly what was going on. The real reason the timeline was erased and banned with censorship so egregious and blatant and heinous that I can't even think of a comparative is because it exposes incontrovertibly and inarguably that the CIA's remote viewing program was founded and developed in late 1972 and early 1973 by three high-level Scientology OTs working at the time on a Top Secret contract with CIA that was extended under various covers for over twenty-five years. And that's something that no one at Wikipedia could or would address on any factual basis, and is something that you cannot and will not address here or anywhere else, because the primary documentation comes from CIA's own documents and publications and cannot be argued on the facts, only on the basis of hysterical rants of denial against the truth such as are memorialized on the "discussion" page at Wikipedia. And so it shall remain. But even intellectual impotence and dishonesty won't stop or alter the truth. Ashton Gray

Apparently you define "those who actually know how to evaluate factual evidence" as those who will select the same set of directly conflicting 'evidence' and ambiguous 'evidence' that you, in your infinitely superior expert wisdom, have selected to keep forcing everyone to accept whether it makes any sense to them or not. I've waded through every excrutiatingly pedantic and redundant thing you've posted, and at this point it's my personal opinion that you're in freefall on this question of the back shot, lost in space, and that you have been ever since long ago you fell down that largish "D" shaped rabbit hole (that isn't a hole at all) depicted in the upper portion of John F. Kennedy's back in the autopsy photo. I think that's why you never, ever can provide a simple, direct answer to anyone, but instead infinitely and repetitively post the same screeching screed over and over and over and over, never even bothering to select relevant portions—just hurling huge masses of it in people's face post after post after post, hoping, I guess, that repitition and volume somehow will make what is false true. It won't. You were duped. You were hornswoggled, bamboozled, conned. You bit the apple. Okay. So what? Who doesn't get taken in this life? This is the wake-up call, but I ain't gonna' kiss you. It wasn't any "accident" that two marks were prominently featured in that back autopsy photo, either one of which could be taken for a "hole." And it wasn't any "accident" that the phony one is "D" shaped. It seems to me that you fell right into it, and have been in free-fall ever since, because it isn't a "hole" at all: it's a dead-end splotch on the back. It goes nowhere but to infinite free-fall through the winds of space, and leads to reposting page after page after repetitive page of attempts to prove haughty "rightness" for having been tricked. There's everything right about having been tricked. It speaks of trust. On the other hand, there's nothing very right at all about tricking others. Let it go. Nobody's going to be mad at you or ridicule you. You can climb out of that rabbit hole full of fraud tar easily: it doesn't even have any depth. The only thing stopping you is yourself. And the way it's beginning to seem to me, Tom, is that you no longer even are able to consider that the bullet hole could have been the lower spot on the back. That's the make-break point. Do you even have objectivity any more? Can you even answer that question with a simple yes or no at this point? I'm not asking you this or saying any of this to be demeaning in any way. All I'm suggesting is for you to do some soul-searching and determine if you've left enough bread-crumbs along the path just to be able to find your way back to Square One on the issue. Come on back. The weather's fine at Square One, and you'll have lots of friendly company. Ashton