Ashton Gray

Deleted by me as irrelevant. It happens. Posted prior to coffee. Admins please delete if convenient. Ashton

More on sources: I stand corrected. The references about Thurston being recalled from Haiti and the Chargé being sent to Haiti apparently came from State Department records on the web, and the info concerning National Security Memorandum No. 246 came from a collection of Kennedy administration NSMs also on the web somewhere. I'll post actual links when I get them plus any more sources that may be applicable as I get them. Ashton

I'll pass it along to where it's actually due, although may already have gotten a lurk look or two. Man, between him, Tosh Plumlee, Douglas Caddy, and Alfred Baldwin, I've got more unanswered questions than a Zen S.A.T. Well, that's just the way it is. I'm a grateful hanger-on to the development of the timeline, contributing a little when I can. Speaking of which: on the sources question that was raised, I don't yet have a fully updated version of the database with all the entries in it that are in the text version that I got and reproduced above, but I was given to understand that every event and date in the first post in this thread came from Warren Commission records and/or HSCA records and/or Weberman Nodules 10 and 11 (those references side-checked against each other), with the single (I think) exception of the WUBRINY/1-WUSALINE incident—although I'm told that Weberman even has that document in Nodule 10, but somewhat different, with "WUBRINY/1" presented as "(Deleted)." (I find that interesting, that there was a redacted version that Weberman got.) Anyway, when I get a fully updated actual database timeline with all these newer entries I'll spot check and confirm, but I believe anyone can find every event in the text timeline I posted above publically available in the WC, HSCA, and Weberman materials with no problem. Ashton

John, it's only out of my fundamental respect for you and your very impressive work in several areas of research that I'm going to respond to you on this message, and then, yes, I'm done chewing it to rags. Yes. Warts and all. No, John, not at all. I haven't even looked at your former work on that, as I said above. It just was brought to my attention, and I am trying to get some grasp on what this is all about. Because it seems clear to me that something else is at work here below the surface manifestations. I can't make any sense of it and I'm trying to. There's not a soul in this world who can't start with the two images I started with and create a very similar anim. If anybody is qualified to do just that, you are. And you won't. Here is my final word on your pointing out "image problems" with my gif: There it is. Take it or leave it. It's just too simple. Any and all "image problems," real or imagined, raised by you or not raised by you, are fully within what I consider to be ACCEPTABLE TOLERANCES for what is being demonstrated. I don't know how else to get this across to you. From my considerable work on this, I don't think that there's a chance in hell that anybody is going to find a way to line that shirt hole up with the upper dark spot without GROSS DISTORTIONS so far beyond any complaint you've managed to nitpick with my work that it will look like a Salvadore Dali painting. And, frankly, I think that's exactly why you won't post a comparable anim. I understand that my ACCEPTABLE TOLERANCES are NOT within YOUR acceptable tolerances. Get the idea that nobody is stopping you from doing your own version that IS within your acceptable tolerances. Why won't you just do that, John, and quit trying to prod me to do something I have absolutely no interest in doing to YOUR specification? Why, John? You obviously, from your earlier posted gif, have already done the work to the HSCA shirt to the exact dimensions and to your satisfaction. So WHY won't you just take the simple next step and show your superior version of the shirt overlaid on the back? Well, then, I sure don't ever want to be on the receiving end when you are trying. That must be a party. Ummm, no, John, I'm not the one introducing all the irrelevant complexity. Here's the entirety of my simplicity on it: Come on, John. What is this really all about? Yes: it's just too simple for all this needless huffing and puffing. Ashton

Well, I can see you simply are not going to post an image with your version, and instead are going to talk it to death and continue with innuendo against what I did. Although I haven't followed this up, it's recently come to my attention that some time ago (before I came along) you did some involved series with blood stains on the back and and on the shirt, pointing to the conclusion that the larger "D" shaped mark on the back was the bullet hole. Do I have this correct? Is this the "ego" issue that's actually involved here, and why you simply will not post your own anim of the elements at issue, but instead just go on and on and ON finding any way you possibly can to attempt to discredit my results? Whatever the reason, go on and gum it to death. I'm not wasting another second of time on it. When and if you get around to putting results where your mouth is, let me know. (And I'm not going to hold my breath, because it's become pretty clear why you won't post a comparable anim, as I've requested repeatedly.) Till you do, just yap on. Ashton

I'll allow that that's possible, since I do have several versions of the back photo, but I thought I had started with the image linked to above at Lancer. If not, I was wrong on that point. That said, I consider it immaterial. (Thank God I wasn't talking about a shirt image when I said "immaterial.") The concept was introduced by you by implication, whether that was your intention or not. I'm only dealing with the concept already introduced by you. I've said till I'm blue in the face that all that was done to either image in the "flat" anim was uniform scaling and rotating. You've consistently implied that that what I had said was not true by insisting that the images in that anim were distorted. Okay. If that's the result you're getting, that's the result you're getting. If it's a matter of our using different base images, one (or both—who knows?) of which have some inherent distortion (relative to what other than each other, I couldn't say), okay. Such distortions were NOT introduced here. I have no reason or desire to argue the point at all. And all of the above goes back to my original statement: What I did was within reasonable acceptable tolerances to ->MY<- satisfaction. And that includes your latest posting of your images indicating what you feel so strongly is some kind of distortion in one (or both? I can't tell) of the base images. I look forward to your results. We have nothing to resolve. I did something I felt answered a question to my own satisfaction within acceptable tolerances and posted the results for others to consider. Those tolerances obviously aren't to your satisfaction. By all means please set up the experiment using any of the image versions you feel are applicable and acceptable, and size them by any scale you feel applicable and acceptable, and post the results. Please. You certainly can do this independently of anything I've done. Ashton

In the "flat" anim, no skewing or "compressing" or any other operation was run on the images of either the body or the shirt except to brighten them, size the shirt approximately to the body, rotating the shirt to the shown position. Period. Do you have your monitor calibrated for pincushioning, barreling, or skew? And why won't you show an anim with your results instead of continuing to obliquely accuse me of lying? Why won't you show where the shirt hole falls in relation to the back with your results using the same two images? I keep urging you to post them. Ashton

Utter Bosch? That "Operation Red Cross" ever was aimed at Cuba? Yes, utter bosch. That there ever were any "Soviet defectors" to be expatriated? Yes, utter bosch. That CIA continuously, obsessively, compulsively, inescapably uses "documented" stories of "failed" operations to cover up their actual dirty business? No: not utter bosch. They do that as regularly and predictably as they pull on trousers to cover up their shorts. It is yet one more bloody hand print. Ashton

No, they are not distorted. They are exactly what was pulled off the web, HERE for the clothing, and HERE for the autopsy photo. With those, anybody at all can duplicate what I did in the flat-shirt version, or do their own experiment to their heart's content. Thanks. Having spent 20+ years in the handling and editing of images, I'm fairly well aware of what can be done and what can't be done. I also understand fundamental concepts of intent: whether to deceive or to help undo the effects of deception. And with that understanding, I don't mind saying that I resent your implication in ways that not only this forum, but the limits of human language itself, prevent me from adequately expressing. I have some ideas for what you can do with it. Because I respect your work, I'll very much look forward to your version of a match. Ashton

Based on a few other things inconclusive that have turned up, I'm currently inclined to think that WUBRINY/1 may have been Poppy himself, given the later known 12 June 1963 date for Devine being brought on board—at least in an "official" sense. Ashton

Greetings Mr. Hemming. A group of researchers that I have periodic correspondence with have been collaboratively engaged in creating a timeline of important data related to the Kennedy assassination. I have been advised that this group now concludes from the timeline that Operation Red Cross was a CIA op having nothing whatsoever to do with either Cuba or any Soviet defectors, while having everything to do with the arrival of the DeMohrenschildts and Clemard Joseph Charles in Haiti at the beginning of June 1963, and with the events of April and May 1963 leading up to their arrival in Haiti. The group of researchers have penetrated to their satisfaction the CIA subterfuges in early April 1963 meant to make the so-called "Red Cross" op seem to originate elsewhere, and to make it appear that CIA was just "going along" with it (their tired, pathetic, theadbare usual M.O.). The timeline has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the machinations you have provided information about, involving CIA's Sturgis and Shackley, extending to Weyl, Pawley, and Martino, et al., between about the first of April and culminating on 18 April 1963, are exactly what led to: The 19 April 1963 departure from Dallas of George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt for Washington, D.C., then on to New York—where James McCord was stationed—to meet and coordinate with CIA personnel, a Chase Manhattan bank vice president, and Clemard Joseph Charles. The 19 April 1963 letter purportedly by Lee Harvey Oswald to the Fair Play Committee for Cuba office in New York City. The 20 April 1963 "picnic" in which Ruth Hyde Paine briefed Marina and Lee Harvey Oswald on what had been planned. The 23 April 1963 announcement of a Kennedy trip to Dallas. The 24 April 1963 departure of Lee Harvey Oswald for New Orleans. The 26 April 1963 CIA op to stage a phony "kidnapping attempt" of the Duvalier children in Haiti. The 26 April 1963 expedited request by CIA Domestic Operations Division case officer Gale Allen for a check on George DeMohrenschildt from CIA Office of Security. The 26 April 1963 meeting of WUBRINY/1 (reportedly Thomas James Devine), Clemard Joseph Charles, and George DeMohrenschildt in the New York office of Wall Street investment firm Train, Cabot and Associates (a.k.a. WUSALINE). The 29 April 1963 clearance from CIA Office of Security for DeMohrenschildt to accept a contract from Duvalier regime in Haiti (which contract DeMohrenschildt already had accepted months earler, in March 1963). The 2 May 1963 memo from Acting Director CIA Marshall S. Carter to Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy urging "secrecy" on the Lisa Howard interviews with Castro et al. (when the interview with Castro was going to air on national television eight days later). The 2 May 1963 meeting between CIA and Clemard Joseph Charles in New York City. The 5 May 1963 (Sunday) meeting between Chase Manhattan Bank vice president Jerry W. Johnston, Clemard Joseph Charles, and an unknown French partner who had flown into New York for the meeting, resulting in a guarantee from Chase Manhattan of million dollar loan to Charles in conjunction with the CIA front, Agency for International Development (AID). The 6 May 1963 meeting between CIA and Clemard Joseph Charles in New York City. The 7 May 1963 meeting in Washington, D.C. between Clemard Joseph Charles, George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, Dorothe Matlack of Military Intelligence (a Tosh Plumlee contact), and CIA's Tony Czaikowski. The 7 May 1963 meeting (later that day) in Washington, D.C. between Clemard Joseph Charles, the DeMohrenschildts, and the CIA "Western Hemisphere Division representative"—almost certainly Rockefeller crony J.C. King, head of CIA's Western Hemisphere Division. The 9 May 1963 meeting at National Airport in Washington, D.C. between Clemard Joseph Charles, the DeMohrenschildts, and an unnamed CIA operative. The 10 May 1963 memo from State Department's Haitian Desk characterizing Clemard Joseph Charles as someone close to the Duvalier government and an "undesirable character." The 14 May 1963 closing of Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box 2915 at the Ervay Street facility in Dallas (after Oswald was in New Orleans). The 20 May 1963 Top Secret meeting between John F. Kennedy and McGeorge Bundy in which Bundy secures from Kennedy agreement not only to recall the U.S. Ambassador-to-Haiti Thurston (see 10 May 1963 memo from Thurston re: Clemard Joseph Charles), but—vitally important for the CIA "Red Cross" op to Haiti—to withdraw U.S. fleet units positioned off of the island of Gonaive after 23 May 1963. The 22 May 1963 sending by the State Department (covertly arranged by CIA in collusion with Bundy) of an unnamed Chargé to Haiti under the pretext of attending Duvalier's self-coronation. [NOTE: This is the day before the issuance of National Security Memorandum No. 246 memorializing the 20 May 1963 Top Secret meeting between Bundy and Kennedy.] The subsequent 22 May 1963 call from Pawley to CIA's JMWAVE Chief of Station (COS) Ted Shackley in Miami. The 23 May 1963 removal of U.S. fleet units from the real target area for CIA's phony "Operation Red Cross." The 25 c. May 1963 arrival of Gerry Hemming and Loran Hall in Dallas from Miami (where "Operation Red Cross" will launch). The 26 May 1963 recall to Washington, D.C. of U.S. Ambassador-to-Haiti Thurston, leaving the U.S. Embassy in Haiti under the control of the just-sent Chargé. The 30 May 1963 return of the DeMohrenschildts to Dallas (where Hemming and Hall have already arrived days before) to hurriedly pack. The 1 June 1963 flight of the DeMohrenschidlts for the Dominican Republic, en route to Haiti. The 2 June 1963 arrival of the DeMohrenschidlts in Haiti. The 5 June 1963 departure at about 6:00 p.m. from Miami of William Pawley's yacht, The Flying Tiger, launching the phony "Red Cross" operation as a cover for the actual CIA op bound for Haiti, not Cuba. And, just hours later... The 5 June 1963 meeting at the Cortez Hotel in El Paso, Texas involving John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, John Connally, Cliff Carter, And Fred Korth, in which it is determined that a presidential trip to Texas will take place on 21 November 1963. The 6 June 1963 confirmed presence of Gerry Hemming back in Miami from Dallas. The 8 June 1963 rendezvous of the CIA craft Leda and CIA PBY with the Pawley yacht near Hogsty Reef to effect the covert transport of illegal CIA materials by Haitians (not Cubans) into Haiti for DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles. (The men who left this area on the phony "Operation Red Cross," purportedly to Cuba, but actually to Haiti, are not heard from again.) The 12 June 1963 approval by CIA's DO/CO Gale Allen for George Bush's friend Thomas Devine to be used in Project WUBRINY operations. And that will do for now. So there it is, Mr. Hemming, spread out like the entrails of an animal. It's ugly, I know, but then I didn't create it and wasn't involved in it. You clearly were involved with some of the principals and the events described herein, so here are a few questions the associates who are putting this timeline together proposed, just to start bridging some gaps, if you know: What was CIA transporting to DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles under the phony cover of "Operation Red Cross"? What, if anything, did this have to do with MK-NAOMI and biological warfare? Was the purpose of your trip to Dallas at the end of May 1963—which coincides with the arrival of the DeMohrenschildt's arrival back in Dallas for one day—actually for you to brief them on the details of the CIA's phony "Operation Red Cross" and how it would connect with them in Haiti? Of course there's much that I haven't included here, which I feel sure you're aware of—such as, e.g., your May 1963 meetings with General Edwin Walker in his home—and I do want you to know that all of this information in timelined format, in addition to these parts now having been made public, is securely stored at all times in no fewer than 8 locations internationally. I didn't want you to have any concerns about it becoming misplaced or lost to posterity by mishap. Any further light you can shed on these troubling matters and any possible relationship you can see that they might have had to the murder of John F. Kennedy of course would be greatly appreciated. Ashton Gray

This may be a sputteringly naive suggestion, but might there be any possible value in searching for two different sync point for Z/MM that would resolve two discrete sections of the films bookending the MM problem area (one from beginning of MM toward the middle, the other from end of MM toward the middle), and thereby possibly be able to isolate more narrowly where/how much won't sync? Ashton

I'll try to do even better than that. Here is the original anim I did and at first was going to upload, with the HSCA shirt in all its pristine, totally "flat" glory. This was my first effort in the series: That is exactly what I discovered when I first assayed to perform this excrutiatingly simple and obvious test, with the collar line being where I thought it approximately correct, taking into account considerable differences in the angles of photography of the torso and shirt. I then further tried numerous experiments to visually mold the extremities of shirt to conform as naturally as possible to the torso to see how that would affect the crucial relationships. After a great deal of experimentation, I found that the shirt hole at issue never strayed more than what appears to be about 1/4" (relative to real-world body size, not literally 1/4" on the image) from the apparent hole in the body indicated by the white arrow. I took what I felt was my best good-faith effort approximating such conformity to the body, including "perspective" down the length of the back, and uploaded that. I believe the anim I first uploaded earlier in this thread is much more true to life than the "flat" shirt demonstrated above, but take your pick. Or, choose option C: "None of the above." Either way, flat or conformed, it was utterly impossible for me to find any reasonable configuration of the shirt that brought the shirt hole anywhere near the larger dark "hole" higher up on the torso. This resolved long-outstanding questions for me, so I posted the results. I get the clammy idea that once again I find myself in the curious position of addressing the most simple, obvious, fundamental, and what to my mind should have been primary comparisons of freely available data, and coming up with simple results that somehow clash violently with views that approach religious faith so closely that I'm sometimes hard pressed to discern a difference. It's never my intention. It wasn't my intention with the alleged "throat shot," but damned if I was going to come down the aisle to kneel at the alter before I had put it to my own real-world test. And the faith came up wanting. I've invited you to post your own results on such a test. I would love to see someone find a way to conform that shirt to make the shirt hole fit the higher, larger purported "hole" in the torso. I spent enough time with it personally that I don't believe its going to happen, but anybody and everybody else in the world is encouraged to stand there between those two rabbit holes in the back of the torso for the rest of eternity for all I care, scratching their heads and wondering. I don't have a dawg in the fight. As for me, it's a resolved issue and I'm moving on. Ashton

Okay. Can you post your results? Of course not. The top right shoulder is covered by someone's hand. I silhouetted the three hands and the ruler and put them on a separate layer so they could be shown above the shirt as they would be if the shirt were actually on the body. The pathologists have the body "torqued," which you can see better if you run (referring to Photoshop) Levels or Shadow/Highlight on the base autopsy photo and brighten it up considerably. The shirt also was shot flat—not on a human form. All of these pose difficulties in getting any "exact match" everywhere. Something close (at least visually) could be attained with a hell of a lot of work, using Warp and Liquefy on the shirt, too much of which could start majorly compromising the shirt image itself and the relationships of the "hot" area at issue: the bullet hole in the shirt relative to the major visible points of the torso—right shoulder line and neck line—and the several dark spots on the torso, any of which might or might not be a bullet hole in the body. The point of the exercise for me was to get a close enough approximation of the "ride" of the shirt, and then look to find out where the bullet hole in the shirt fell in relation to the several dark spots visible on the back. And where you see it is where it kept aligning. In moving the shirt at various sizes and rotations and torques around the back, I found it impossible to "force" the hole in the shirt to line up with the large top dark spot without doing gross distortions of the shirt. It became ridiculous to me and a waste of time. The situation simply became obvious: the nearest reasonable alignment always was in very close proximity to the indicated small dark spot on the torso. My purpose was to find out for myself an answer to several questions that have bothered me ever since I first saw that autopsy photo of the back: Why the visual ambiguity of several spots that could be holes? Which "hole"? It's been my experience in life that it's always a good idea to find the right hole. YMMV. In fact, it surprised me that I couldn't find any record of anyone having already done this fundamentally simple comparison. I've answered the question for myself, to my own satisfaction, and thought I would post the results of my findings for others to consider. Based on what I kept seeing while going through the exercise, I personally don't believe that any amount of further fiddling around is going to change the result to any useful significant degree. So while I'm all for a workable and justifiable level of accuracy for each exercise, I don't need busy-work. Ashton

Gary, I was just pulling your leg—in a sense. (See, if I use smileys, I get accused of smiley abuse, and if I don't use 'em, I get taken too damned seriously). Mine was a shameless opportunist's commentary on the "shot in the throat—but lookee thar: missed the shirt!" school of... Well, I can't with good conscience call it "thought." So, no, I wasn't offended at all, but thanks for your concern. Ashton

I feel yer pain. Worse than that: I keep wondering why they used rulers that have no discernible markings on them, at least the way the prints were made. On the sizing and rotation of the shirt: having spent a good deal of time trying different sizes and rotations, I feel confident that what's depicted is within reasonable tolerances. I'm happy to try other things with it, and of course the same photos are available to anyone who has any kind of image editor and wants to try their own hand at it. But it is what it is. Ashton

For whatever it would be worth, my opinion would be that this exercise is only marginally better than that utilized by others in determination that the rifle held by LHO had the sling swivel mounted on the bottom of the rifle. In fact, the relationship is about as close to a practical zero as can be approached. If it makes you feel better to say there's some similarity where there is none, though, I wouldn't want to deny you the comfort. I felt it was germane in this thread, too. If the Posting Police give me a citation, I'll pay it. Well, yes, I think you've identified its basis in fact rather precisely. I read John's opinion. Having spent some considerable time sizing the shirt in relation to the body, and having seen with my own eyes what the relationship is even with +/- 10%, I consider it within wholly acceptable tolerances, as I stated when I posted it. In both cases, + and -, the shirt had to be moved well up his head and off to the right a pretty ridiculous amount to get the shirt hole to align with the higher dark spot. I didn't make it be that way. That's the way it turned out to be.As the whole thing developed, all I did was overlay the shirt, size and position it as well as I could, then turned that layer off and found that the shirt hole was right in alignment with the hole in the back you see it aligned with. It came as something of a surprise to me, actually. I tried increasing and reducing the size in varying degrees. Very little changed at all about where the shirt hole fell on the back when positioned in alignment with the neck and right shoulder. I consider posting it here for all the world to see the best "peer review" possible. I consider that others have a right to see the results of the work, no matter who might find it objectionable for any reason. I hope others will find it helpful toward dispassionate factual understanding of the elements at issue. I did, which was why I posted it at all. Ashton

"A.J. Hidell" is an anagram for "Jade Hill." The Jade Hill Pagoda is a landmark on a small island in Hoan Kiem Lake, in the heart of Hanoi, connected to the shore by a red arched bridge. Hoan Kiem Lake is more than the geographical heart of Hanoi: it long has been the spiritual heart of Hanoi, called simply bo ho—"the shore of the lake"—by the locals. Considering what was coming, I'm sure that Oswald's CIA handlers had a good snicker up their sleeves when they had him use the name. (Let's see: LBJ probably did it—do I have that right, Everett?) Ashton Gray

In the anim below, the photo of the back of JFK's shirt was overlaid on the autopsy photo of the back wound, and a good faith effort was made to get the shirt situated in a reasonable approximation of correct size relative to the body, with attention to JFK's right shoulder and the neck line. The effort was hampered, of course, by the somewhat twisted position of JFK's body and the angle of his neck, but it is believed that the experiment is completely within acceptable tolerances for what is being demonstrated: Ashton Gray

In the anim below, the photo of the back of JFK's shirt was overlaid on the autopsy photo of the back wound, and a good faith effort was made to get the shirt situated in a reasonable approximation of correct size relative to the body, with attention to JFK's right shoulder and the neck line. The effort was hampered, of course, by the somewhat twisted position of JFK's body and the angle of his neck, but it is believed that the experiment is completely within acceptable tolerances for what is being demonstrated: Ashton Gray

In the anim below, the photo of the back of JFK's shirt was overlaid on the autopsy photo of the back wound, and a good faith effort was made to get the shirt situated in a reasonable approximation of correct size relative to the body, with attention to JFK's right shoulder and the neck line. The effort was hampered, of course, by the somewhat twisted position of JFK's body and the angle of his neck, but it is believed that the experiment is completely within acceptable tolerances for what is being demonstrated: Ashton Gray

Why... Gary, have I posited a theory that's "far out"? If you mean the theory that JFK was shot in the throat (from any location) by a projectile that could pass through a shirt and tie without leaving a hole, that theory is not mine. Please don't ever associate any such nutty ideas with me. I believe that idea must have issued forth from the bowels of Bedlam itself; just look at the feverish popularity it has earned. Ashton

Jack, I went to Sibert's testimony and excerpted this for you. Compare it to how I summarized it versus the complete whole-cloth spy fiction you were fed: From Deposition of James W. Sibert, Assassination Records Review Board, 11 September 1997: QUESTION: Now, just a moment ago, you referred to the telephone call that you made to Mr. Killion. Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket? SIBERT: Oh, that was after the body was removed. It was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There's no exit to this back wound," and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. ...So, that's when I called and thought maybe there was some type of bullet that would disintegate. There just was no bullet that could be located. ...When I talked with Killion that night, "Chuck," I said, "is there any kind of a bullet that would completely fragmentize? Maybe hit a bone and go down in the lower extremities of the body?" And I said, "They— The doctors can't find a bullet" and "they're at a loss to account for the bullet causing the back wound." He said, "Well, you heard about the bullet that they found on the strcteher over in Dallas." And I said, "No, I hadn't." He said, "Well, the Secrct Service is bringing that bullet in to the laboratory." They didn't know whether it was on Kennedy's stretcher or on Connally's, but it was on its way in. So: with this information I went back and relayed this to Humes immediately, because I thought it was something that he'd probably want to know. I thought he might even want to call Burkley or others. ...I came back with the Killion statement about the Dallas stretcher bullet. It's in my 302, that when I was told about this bullet being found on the stretcher over at Parkland, I relayed this information to Humes. Humes said it was clear that—about these bullets—and the one in the back had been probably worked out by cardiac manipulation over there at Parkland. That was in my 302. Maybe he was satisfied then, and decided that was his conclusion. Hope that helps. Ashton

FWIW, I agree with Cliff...to a certain extent. FWIW, I agree with Charlie...to a certain extent. My opinion...we don't really know, do we? A brilliant scenario which is still a mystery 40 years later. Jack What Cliff Varnell just gave you was a completely fictionalized account of what took place in the autopsy room. This is what you've been induced to agree to by having been given whole-cloth spy fiction presented as though it were "fact." The facts—according to the testimony and 302 report—are that FBI agent Sibert independently left the autopsy room immediately after it was noted that the probed back wound was shallow and no bullet had been found (the autopsy was still in progress), went out to a phone and called to inquire of another FBI employee about the possibility of some sort of dissolving projectile, and while on that phone call was told about a bullet having been found on a stretcher at Parkland. Sibert came back into the autopsy room and delivered this news about the found bullet, at which time the doctor conducting the autopsy (which was still in progress) opined that the bullet likely had come out at Parkland during efforts to revive the President. The two FBI agents left at a disputed time, but soon after—when they considered the autopsy "done"—and there was no such post-autopsy "huddle" of "five men," no such "general feeling" about any Sooper Spy Magic Bullet. You are being fed pure unjustifiable fiction when the record is available. The absurdity of the CIA plotting for months to effect what has proven to be a very well-executed assassination, only to leave their calling card of a type of projectile that only could have come from them is too ludicrous to entertain—particularly from the very person going around claiming that at the same time the CIA purportedly were trying to frame a patsy (who had no record of even having been to Cuba) as being the trigger man for Fidel Castro in order to set off a military... I'm sorry: I simply can't compose a complete cogent sentence about anything this barmy. Please get your BS Detector calibrated. Ashton

The alleged crank damage occurred on November 1, 1961, over two years before the assassination. Thanks for the correction, Ron. Yes, and he says they were doing repairs to the crank in 1961 (unless I still have this confused)—but no crank is apparent there in any photo at all. So I wonder what the visual anomaly is in the "Nellie's Head" photo. I can't find any other similar visual artifact in the photo to lend credence to the idea that it is photo-processing related. Ashton