Ashton Gray

I have restored quite a few classic cars over the years, and I can tell you from experience that window trim chrome [especially on a convertible] is pretty heavy stuff.

Based on your experience, can you think of any plausible reason why the Secret Service wouldn't try to repair this damage to a presidential limo? Too much work? Too expensive? You'd have to junk the whole car? What?

As I understand the relevant testimony, the broken crank was something that happened when there was pressure to get the limo elsewhere. If that actually were the case, there might have been time required to get a replacement part and dissasemble the housing, and it could have been a complicated job for which there simply wasn't time.

If it were in fact sabotage specifically for the assassination, that would be consistent: it would have been effected when the perpetrators knew there would not be time to repair it prior to Dallas.

I think it worth adding just as an aside here that the timeline has James McCord attached to the Manhattan office of the CIA in 1963.

Ashton

Not to belabor the point but I find something quite interesting. In "my" immediately prior post I stated : "If you stay tuned to this topic, you will find that the questions which I presented in my immediately prior post ( #89 I think ), will not receive any "credible" answers.

You completely ignore every credible answer given to you. You've been given credible answer after credible answer to your wholly incredible hypothesis that a shooter with a silenced and concealed handgun stood in the midst of a large crowd in broad daylight and shot from the hip without aiming, hitting the President of United States in the throat at a place that is 100% impossible, having been completely covered by shirt and tie—which has been demonstrated conclusively and repeatedly with photographic evidence against which you have not mounted a single cogent argument.

I'm not the only one who has rationally and reasonably and politely pointed out the overwhelming arguments against your grotesquely preposterous "theory," and no matter how many reasonble and entirely credible answers you get, you categorically refuse to consider any of them and go right on insisting and complaining that no one will give you a credible answer.

Apparently you haven't stopped to consider that "credible answers" aren't your divine right: they require a credible hypothesis.

So by all means go right on filling the forum with page after page after page of self-righteous bewailing over the fact that no one will validate your fantastic and wholly impossible theory that you apparently feel the whole world ought to be rushing to embrace.

Meanwhile, I have my own solution to such fatuity:

*PLONK*

Ashton Gray

In the montage below I've put a cropped section of Bernice's "Nellie's Head" photo in the upper left corner, repeated it, and processed it in various ways to bring out what appears to be some kind of anomaly in the chrome strip that has features that could be analogous to the post-assassination damage:

I've put an arrow pointing to a round feature that could be the round "center" of the dent visible in the post-assassination photos. To the left and right of the round feature are other visual indications of something other than an uncompromised chrome strip, but given the resolution and the vagaries of the play of light and shadow on chrome, it's difficult to tell with any certainty how they relate to the central round anomaly.

I think this is an important issue and not one to be dispensed with hastily.

In addition to what is visible in the images above, several things are of persistent interest to me on this question:

1. Attempting to determine any motive for the garage mechanic to have lied about a crank having broken off there.
   
2. The omissions in questioning other occupants of the limo about the anomaly of the hole in the chrome strip.
   
3. The absence of photos that would dispositively settle the question.
   
4. The centered location of the round hole, consistent with where a crank would have been placed.
   
5. The possibility that the broken crank was sabotage done by a person or persons unknown to prevent any possibility of the convertible top being put into place.
   

It would be in the interests of any co-conspirators to perpetuate a myth—if it were one—about the chrome "damage" being a bullet hole. This would be particularly true if the breaking of the crank was, in fact, pre-assassination sabotage. That would lead to a short list of persons who might have had opportunity.

Perpetuating a myth of a bullet hole obviates any investigation along those lines, and also multiplies the number of bullets to have to consider in assessing what happened in Dealey Plaza, introducing another level of confusion.

Ashton

...

What that timeline doesn't say is that the facility in Hershey, Pennsylvania is the Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Penn State having 20 campuses all over Pennsylvania, including the Delaware County campus in Philadelphia.

...

Ashton

Ashton,

If memory serves me correctly, the alliance between the Hershey Medical Center and Penn State is a relatively recent event -- perhaps the mid-late 1990's... I don't know with whom, if anybody, HMC was aligned prior to that. Again, going from memory, various medicare/medicade reimbursement changes in the early 90's hit a number of hospitals very hard. Many had to reduce force, some closed, others merged as a result. I believe that this was the impetus for the eventual merger and association with Penn State.

Only in the Education Forum. Thanks, Frank.

Now does anybody know the spark plug gap for a '49 Austin Healey Silverstone? Just curious.

Ashton

In the narrative above, I mention that Dorothe Matlack had arranged to meet with Clemard Joseph Charles at the Hotel Willard in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, 7 May 1963, and also had arranged for another meeting for Clemard Joseph Charles at the same hotel later that day with a "Mr. Green" from CIA. The first meeting was a noon luncheon meeting attended by Ms. Matlack, the CIA's A.J. "Tony" Czaikowski, Clemard Joseph Charles, and George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt.

When the luncheon was over, Ms. Matlack and Czaikowski left, with Charles and the DeMohrenschildts still waiting there for "Mr. Green" to arrive for a separate meeting at 2:00 p.m. that "Mr. Green" had specified.

So just who was "Mr. Green"?

An overlay and comparison of a number entries in the timeline points to the high likelihood that "Mr. Green" actually was J.C. King, long-time crony of Nelson Rockefeller, and head of CIA's Western Hemisphere Division. This, I believe, is the "Western Hemisphere representative" so coyly and anonymously referred to in the reports and testimony concerning this crucial meeting, only ever named once as "Mr. Green," which almost certainly was a pseudonym.

I believe this is the same person referred to so coyly and anonymously in the Warren Commission testimony of Richard Helms only as the "Western Hemisphere desk."

I believe all of this is starting to split open like an overripe melon in the noon summer sun.

Ashton

I'm going to post below the same message that I just posted in the thread Bill Kelly started on MKNAOMI, because these Pennsylvania trails, including and primarily concerned with Philadelphia, cross and overlap in dizzying ways, and I believe this information is crucially important and should be in both of these threads.

With apologies, here is that message just as I posted it there:

Operation Mosquito [etc., excellent information]

Thanks very much to you and Bill for this information. This has legs, kids.

I'm going to get to an interesting likely connection to MKNAOMI, Operation Mosquito, and even—yes—Pennsylvania in this message, but bear with me please for several paragraphs, first, about the activities of George DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles in May 1963.

From information I'm receiving in dribs and drabs, it's beginning to look like this thread may have a great deal indeed to do with Clemard Joseph Charles being "in a fine frame of mind" on Monday, 6 May 1963 in New York City, during his four or five hour meeting with CIA New York (at which James McCord, it seems, almost certainly was present), because Clemard Joseph Charles had just "received a promise from Jerry W. Johnston, assistant Vice President, the Chase Manhattan [bank], for a million dollar loan." This was for "business ventures" in Haiti—all associated with George DeMohrenschildt, of course. One of the two "conditions" for the loan (the other entirely phony and immaterial, as is proved by later documents) was "a 90% guarantee of the loan by the Agency for International Development." The acronym for that CIA front, of course, is "AID." Don't you just love it.

Compare the above ebullient demeanor of Clemard Joseph Charles in his 6 May 1963 meeting with CIA New York to the description supplied by Ms. Dorothe Matlack (a.k.a. Dorothy Matlack) of Clemard Joseph Charles in his meeting the very next day—Tuesday, 7 May 1963—first with her, and subsequently with one or more CIA representatives (including a "Mr. Green") at the Hotel Willard in Washington, D. C:

• When the HSCA interviewed her about the meeting, Dorothe Matlack "described Clemard Joseph Charles as 'frantic and frightened.'" ...Dorothe Matlack said she felt George DeMohrenschildt dominated Clemard Joseph Charles in some way. Dorothe Matlack said that, despite George DeMohrenschildt's subterfuge—that he and Clemard Joseph Charles were in the jute business together—she did not believe this to be the real reason for George DeMohrenschildt's presence at that meeting: "I knew the Texan wasn't there to sell hemp." The HSCA reported that the CIA maintained contact with Clemard Joseph Charles after this meeting." —A.J. Weberman Nodule 10
  

Yeah, I just bet they did.

The CIA had further contact with Clemard Joseph Charles two days later, on 9 May 1963, at National Airport in Washington, D.C. There, Charles was described as being "nattily dressed in a gray silk suit," outbound with DeMohrenschildt, purportedly for Chicago. But DeMohrenschildt is known to have gone to Philadelphia, so apparently Charles did, too. (This is not of record anywhere and was brought out in the timelining of these events.)

Without going into all the details at the moment, which several people are working on organizing, this is looking like it has everything to do with a covert operation being run on JFK at the exact same time by CIA and Bundy that culminates in a Top Secret meeting between Bundy and JFK just 11 days later—on Monday, 20 May 1963—resulting in an order for the Ambassador of Haiti to be recalled to Washington, D.C. (memorialized in National Security Action Memorandum No. 246, written by Bundy on Thursday, 23 May 1963).

Just two days after the meeting, on Wednesday, 22 May 1963, an unnamed Charge is sent to Haiti, purportedly to attend Duvalier's "self-coronation." (There is no record so far found in the State Department docs of who this Charge is, but stay tuned...)

Just four days later, on Sunday, 26 May 1963 (one month to the day after the phony staged attempted "kidnapping" of Duvalier's children, almost certainly a CIA op), U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Thurston is recalled to Washington, D.C. for "consultation," leaving the U.S. Embassy in Haiti in control of the Charge d'Affaires. Thurston will not be returned to Haiti.

And just four days after that, on Thursday, 30 May 1963, DeMohrenschildt arrived in Dallas, hastily packed up his belongings, and tore off to Haiti, arriving on Sunday, 2 June 1963. The U.S. Embassy in Haiti of course now was in control of the unknown Charge d'Affaires.

This is a very, very dirty mess, and the timeline reveals that JFK was being kept in the dark and played like a lute by CIA, State, and his own national security advisor McGeorge Bundy.

Whoever the anonymous person was that e-mailed Greg Parker and said something to the effect that "the key to the assassination is Clemard Charles" probably knew just exactly what they were talking about—which brings me back to MKNAOMI and Operation Mosquito.

Consider these few data and the dates from a timeline of AIDS development and CIA connections:

• In 1962, under the cover of cancer research, the United States charts a path to commit premeditated murder, the "Special Virus" program begins on February 12th. Dr. Len Hayflick sets up a U.S. mycoplasma laboratory at Stanford University. Many believe the "Special Virus" program began in November 1961 with a Phizer [sic-Pfizer] contract.
  Beginning in 1963 and for every year thereafter, the "Special Virus" program conducted annual progress reviews at Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA. The annual meetings are representative of the aggressive nature in which the United States pursued the development of AIDS.
  

What that timeline doesn't say is that the facility in Hershey, Pennsylvania is the Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Penn State having 20 campuses all over Pennsylvania, including the Delaware County campus in Philadelphia.

Finally, I'll mention that I have information, pending confirmation, that Haiti was the source of the first known heterosexual transmission of AIDS, and has a history of a very heavy concentration of AIDS.

All of this information hasn't been fully processed and evaluated and more is coming in from a variety of sources very rapidly, but this is germane to several current threads and I thought it important to get this information, even raw, into this one right away.

Ashton

Operation Mosquito [etc., excellent information]

Thanks very much to you and Bill for this information. This has legs, kids.

I'm going to get to an interesting likely connection to MKNAOMI, Operation Mosquito, and even—yes—Pennsylvania in this message, but bear with me please for several paragraphs, first, about the activities of George DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles in May 1963.

From information I'm receiving in dribs and drabs, it's beginning to look like this thread may have a great deal indeed to do with Clemard Joseph Charles being "in a fine frame of mind" on Monday, 6 May 1963 in New York City, during his four or five hour meeting with CIA New York (at which James McCord, it seems, almost certainly was present), because Clemard Joseph Charles had just "received a promise from Jerry W. Johnston, assistant Vice President, the Chase Manhattan [bank], for a million dollar loan." This was for "business ventures" in Haiti—all associated with George DeMohrenschildt, of course. One of the two "conditions" for the loan (the other entirely phony and immaterial, as is proved by later documents) was "a 90% guarantee of the loan by the Agency for International Development." The acronym for that CIA front, of course, is "AID." Don't you just love it.

Compare the above ebullient demeanor of Clemard Joseph Charles in his 6 May 1963 meeting with CIA New York to the description supplied by Ms. Dorothe Matlack (a.k.a. Dorothy Matlack) of Clemard Joseph Charles in his meeting the very next day—Tuesday, 7 May 1963—first with her, and subsequently with one or more CIA representatives (including a "Mr. Green") at the Hotel Willard in Washington, D. C:

• When the HSCA interviewed her about the meeting, Dorothe Matlack "described Clemard Joseph Charles as 'frantic and frightened.'" ...Dorothe Matlack said she felt George DeMohrenschildt dominated Clemard Joseph Charles in some way. Dorothe Matlack said that, despite George DeMohrenschildt's subterfuge—that he and Clemard Joseph Charles were in the jute business together—she did not believe this to be the real reason for George DeMohrenschildt's presence at that meeting: "I knew the Texan wasn't there to sell hemp." The HSCA reported that the CIA maintained contact with Clemard Joseph Charles after this meeting." —A.J. Weberman Nodule 10
  

Yeah, I just bet they did.

The CIA had further contact with Clemard Joseph Charles two days later, on 9 May 1963, at National Airport in Washington, D.C. There, Charles was described as being "nattily dressed in a gray silk suit," outbound with DeMohrenschildt, purportedly for Chicago. But DeMohrenschildt is known to have gone to Philadelphia, so apparently Charles did, too. (This is not of record anywhere and was brought out in the timelining of these events.)

Without going into all the details at the moment, which several people are working on organizing, this is looking like it has everything to do with a covert operation being run on JFK at the exact same time by CIA and Bundy that culminates in a Top Secret meeting between Bundy and JFK just 11 days later—on Monday, 20 May 1963—resulting in an order for the Ambassador of Haiti to be recalled to Washington, D.C. (memorialized in National Security Action Memorandum No. 246, written by Bundy on Thursday, 23 May 1963).

Just two days after the meeting, on Wednesday, 22 May 1963, an unnamed Charge is sent to Haiti, purportedly to attend Duvalier's "self-coronation." (There is no record so far found in the State Department docs of who this Charge is, but stay tuned...)

Just four days later, on Sunday, 26 May 1963 (one month to the day after the phony staged attempted "kidnapping" of Duvalier's children, almost certainly a CIA op), U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Thurston is recalled to Washington, D.C. for "consultation," leaving the U.S. Embassy in Haiti in control of the Charge d'Affaires. Thurston will not be returned to Haiti.

And just four days after that, on Thursday, 30 May 1963, DeMohrenschildt arrived in Dallas, hastily packed up his belongings, and tore off to Haiti, arriving on Sunday, 2 June 1963. The U.S. Embassy in Haiti of course now was in control of the unknown Charge d'Affaires.

This is a very, very dirty mess, and the timeline reveals that JFK was being kept in the dark and played like a lute by CIA, State, and his own national security advisor McGeorge Bundy.

Whoever the anonymous person was that e-mailed Greg Parker and said something to the effect that "the key to the assassination is Clemard Charles" probably knew just exactly what they were talking about—which brings me back to MKNAOMI and Operation Mosquito.

Consider these few data and the dates from a timeline of AIDS development and CIA connections:

• In 1962, under the cover of cancer research, the United States charts a path to commit premeditated murder, the "Special Virus" program begins on February 12th. Dr. Len Hayflick sets up a U.S. mycoplasma laboratory at Stanford University. Many believe the "Special Virus" program began in November 1961 with a Phizer [sic-Pfizer] contract.
  Beginning in 1963 and for every year thereafter, the "Special Virus" program conducted annual progress reviews at Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA. The annual meetings are representative of the aggressive nature in which the United States pursued the development of AIDS.
  

What that timeline doesn't say is that the facility in Hershey, Pennsylvania is the Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Penn State having 20 campuses all over Pennsylvania, including the Delaware County campus in Philadelphia.

Finally, I'll mention that I have information, pending confirmation, that Haiti was the source of the first known heterosexual transmission of AIDS, and has a history of a very heavy concentration of AIDS.

All of this information hasn't been fully processed and evaluated and more is coming in from a variety of sources very rapidly, but this is germane to several current threads and I thought it important to get this information, even raw, into this one right away.

Ashton

No doubt to the relief of many, I will soon be completely out of the scanning as well as posting business.

Thomas, I don't know if you include me in the "many," but if so, please remove me from that set. I greatly respect your work and it is an enduring important contribution to the research.

If evidentiary trails couldn't lead to different conclusions, we wouldn't need courts. Such divergence of analysis and opinion and conclusion sometimes are divisive indeed, but good faith work in collecting and assessing evidence and seeking logical explanation always is a contribution that advances toward the truth.

Even attempting to cross a field of evidence strewn with the landmines of so many malicious falsehoods and omissions as the Kennedy assassination is an act of courage and dedication, which you have demonstrated consistently, and have had the integrity to stand by your observations in the face of sometimes fiery rhetoric and the near impossibility of achieving consensus.

Pride in such work and personal integrity—not consensus—is the reward, and the fruits of such work always endure, and always ultimately contribute to paving a path toward the truth.

So whatever our differences in analysis or conclusion at this stage of the game, my hat's off to you for your fine work (avatar photo notwithstanding).

Ashton

Ok. I understand we are in agreement there now. It mayseem petty in some way, but, with that cleared up one can approach the issue with more confidence.

I still would really like to study the weave of the fabric of the poor quality photo, which is near impossible as it is. If you come across a better clearer (color pref) image please find a way of scanning and posting.

The shirt JFK was wearing clearly has a much higher thread count than the contol photo, and probably was Pinpoint Oxford which usually has a thread count 140+ per square inch.

Ashton

First they exhume Robert Gates, then Poppy and Poppy Jr. both break down and cry on TV, and now this?

The Dynasty must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to prop up the last flimsy, rotted walls of cover-up now, huh?

Ashton Gray

I'm posting this anim below regarding the throat wound and then I'm done with this topic. To anyone who I haven't responded to and should have, I apologize. No slight is intended. I'm just done with this subject.

I've also posted this anim in the Why was there a back wound topic, because it has relevance to my original premise in the first post in that thread: that the shot to the back was inflicted in order to provide a "reasonable" or "plausible explanation" for a wound to the throat that would be seen at Parkland Hospital (only), which I have said was not, and could not be, a bullet or projectile wound at all.

The anim starts with a silhouetted (cut out of its original background) left profile image of JFK. It is superimposed over the left profile autopsy photo of JFK.

A red-orange outline of JFK's left ear appears, then the image switches to the autopsy photo (with the suit coat, shirt and tie left in place) to demonstrate how the images were matched as closely as possible in size and orientation using the left ear and the Adam's Apple as the two primary references.

That switches back and forth to establish the relationship, then an arrow appears showing the location of the tracheotomy opening, which was incised directly through the throat wound. As can immediately be seen, it is impossible beyond any shadow of a doubt for any projectile of any description to have entered John F. Kennedy's throat at the indicated location without piercing the tie and the shirt.

In the next image the suit coat, tie, and shirt are removed to show the exact location of the so-called trachaeotomy opening. The bottom of the autopsy image is the exact place the only available image is cropped and there was nothing I could do about it, but it unquestionably provides the top line of the opening and shows the midline of the opening, where the cut went through the wound.

That switches back and forth with the suit coat, shirt, and tie on and off.

Finally, it switches to an image showing where JFK's shirt collar and tie would have had to be being worn for there to be any chance of a projectile of any description entering the indicated wound location over the top of the collar. If it weren't such a tragedy, it would be downright funny.

But it isn't funny. It's premeditated murder of the President of the United States, with malice aforethought.

And it isn't funny at all how far people have gone to sell you the fraud and the hoax that John F. Kennedy was shot in the throat in Dealey Plaza. It isn't funny at all how many millions upon millions of tax dollars were invested in selling you this hoax and this fraud. It isn't funny at all the millions of dollars of blood money that have been made off of peddling this lie.

And it is a lie. It is a vicious lie. It is a lie designed specifically and solely to protect the perpetrators. It has done so for over 40 years.

If you want to go on listening to and mypically and microscopically studying and believing the lies, and believing in the liars who have lied to you on this, be my guest, and Godspeed to wherever you end up.

I have done all I can to demonstrate the impossibility of this ridiculous, malicious, murderous "throat shot" hoax in an effort only to arrive at the truth. I hope this helps you get there.

Ashton Gray

Double post. A twosie. Must be contagious.

I guess I'll post this now. I'm posting this anim below regarding the throat wound here in this thread because it has relevance to my original premise in the first post in this thread: that the shot to the back was inflicted in order to provide a "reasonable" or "plausible explanation" for a wound to the throat that would be seen at Parkland Hospital (only), which I have said was not, and could not be, a bullet or projectile wound at all.

The anim starts with a silhouetted (cut out of its original background) left profile image of JFK. It is superimposed over the left profile autopsy of JFK.

A red-orange outline of JFK's left ear appears, then the image switches to the autopsy photo (with the suit coat, shirt and tie left in place) to demonstrate how the images were matched as closely as possible in size and orientation using the left ear and the Adam's Apple as the two primary references.

That switches back and forth to establish the relationship, then an arrow appears showing the location of the tracheotomy opening, which was incised directly through the throat wound. As can immediately be seen, it is impossible beyond any shadow of a doubt for any projectile of any description to have entered John F. Kennedy's throat at the indicated location without piercing the tie and the shirt.

In the next image the suit coat, tie, and shirt are removed to show the exact location of the so-called trachaeotomy opening. The bottom of the autopsy image is the exact place the only available image is cropped and there was nothing I could do about it, but it unquestionably provides the top line of the opening and shows the midline of the opening, where the cut went through the wound.

That switches back and forth with the suit coat, shirt, and tie on and off.

Finally, it switches to an image showing where JFK's shirt collar and tie would have had to be being worn for there to be any chance of a projectile of any description entering the indicated wound location over the top of the collar. If it weren't such a tragedy, it would be downright funny.

But it isn't funny. It's premeditated murder of the President of the United States, with malice aforethought.

And it isn't funny at all how far people have gone to sell you the fraud and the hoax that John F. Kennedy was shot in the throat in Dealey Plaza. It isn't funny at all how many millions upon millions of tax dollars were invested in selling you this hoax and this fraud. It isn't funny at all the millions of dollars of blood money that have been made off of peddling this lie.

And it is a lie. It is a vicious lie. It is a lie designed specifically and solely to protect the perpetrators. It has done so for over 40 years.

If you want to go on listening to and mypically and microscopically studying and believing the lies, and believing in the liars who have lied to you on this, be my guest, and Godspeed to wherever you end up.

I have done all I can to demonstrate the impossibility of this ridiculous, malicious, murderous "throat shot" hoax in an effort only to arrive at the truth. I hope this helps you get there.

Ashton Gray

Ashton...you are proposing an "answer" to a question I have had for more than thirty years.

One of the everlasting mysteries of the case is HOW the bullet made a throat wound in the

described location WITHOUT PIERCING THE TIE AND COLLAR. For years I made this point

with slides in my slide show. The WC tried to pass off a collar "slit" and a necktie "nick"

from the inside out as a solution...but that dog don't hunt. Every doctor said it was an entry

wound, not an exit wound also. It MUST BE AN EXIT WOUND TO SUPPORT THE SB THEORY.

But like you, I cannot believe it is either entry OR exit because of the lack of BULLET HOLES

in the tie and collar. So I have always considered it an UNSOLVED MYSTERY.

Your theory is interesting, but lacking in credibility for reasons others have cited:

Rumors of my lack of credibility have been greatly exaggerated.

I'll attempt to answer your questions in good faith to the best of my ability:

1. Was a wound inflicted after the body was undressed, but before witnesses arrived?

I believe it could have been inflicted while the body was still fully dressed, in a manner that anyone can duplicate with the forefinger test I described above. Any man wearing a dress shirt and tie can demonstrate it to his own satisfaction, and any woman can demonstrate it to her satisfaction if she only finds a cooperative man wearing a tie (which shouldn't be too terribly hard to accomplish).

Testimony about who was where when in the first few critical minutes is incomplete and contradictory. No careful timeline of the arrival ever was done (despite utterly false claims made in this forum to the contrary). With the available testimony, a detailed accurate timeline is impossible because of omissions and contradictions. I don't think this is at all by accident.

Some things that can be known: Carrico was across the hall with Connally when Kennedy first was rolled in. Nurse Henchliffe left at some early point to go get blood. Clint Hill left Trauma Room 1 very soon after arrival, and Kellerman followed not long afterward. When Kellerman left, the shirt and tie were still on Kennedy. One or more people there were engaged in trying to convince Jacquie to leave Trauma Room 1, which she did, waiting outside throughout. It was a confused scene, and up until the time Kellerman left, the shirt and tie were still on. Carrico says he removed the tie and opened the shirt. He does not say he did it while Mrs. Kennedy was still in the room or not. The record is silent. When Malcolm Perry arrived, he says, "I think there was another doctor present [other than Carrico], but I don't know who it was, I don't recall." Someone already had set up a tracheotomy tray. Perry further says that just before starting the tracheotomy he "asked that someone call Dr. Kemp Clark, of neurosurgery, Dr. Robert McClelland, Dr. Charles Baxter, assistant professors of surgery, to come and assist." So Clark, McClelland, and Baxter were not yet there when Perry was starting his butchery.

The short answer is that it appears to me that there would have been ample time and confusion for someone practiced to insert a device—not dissimilar to what I showed above—under the tie knot, in the opening of the shirt between the top and second buttons while in the acts of preparation for the doctors.

2. By whom?

Well, of course I couldn't possibly say with certainty. I think it would be a very short list, though.

3. When?

See 1. above.

4. Were witnesses lying/mistaken about seeing a throat wound?

I think the few who actually saw the wound have tried their best to say honestly what they saw, but all had very little time at all to look at it. The one consistent part of their testimony is that it was a small and round wound, with estimates varying between, I think, 4 and 7 mm. (I've posted the actual statements on estimated size recently, I think in the Throat Shot thread.) I've also made a record, though, of at least two proximate personnel who very definitely lied specifically about the throat wound, one of whom also destroyed all evidence of the throat wound. I'll go back and find those earlier posts for you and post the relevant sections again if you need me to.

5. Why was a wound made which simulates a frontal shot instead of a rear shot?

It obviously was a wound that could be endlessly interpreted and argued over either way for maximum possible confusion. That is exactly what has happend for forty+ years. I think it was very effective.

6. How could any perpetrator be prescient enough to know such a wound was needed?

Well, it seems to me that they would have had to been a knowing actor, and also would have to have known in advance that a tracheotomy would be done to destroy the evidence. Recall, if you will, that someone accommodatingly had set up a tracheotomy tray before Perry was about to ask for one (or so he claims). And the wound itself guaranteed a justification for just such a tracheotomy. It was a very complete little package.

7. The time frame allowed to inflict such a wound seems impossible.

See 1. above.

I think it's far more possible than a projectile shot into the throat in Dealey Plaza. Which clearly is impossible.

Ashton

Don't be so dismissive of the UFO, Philadelphia Experiment and Skennectecty Knights connections without having read them, as UFOs are more than a diversionary dismissal, the Philly experiment concerned a time traveling weapons affecting military battles, and the SKnights are mentioned in Dick Russell's TMWKTM. Corso is a military historian who is a major source of recognized disinformaiton on JFK assassination.

The UFOs were used as a cover for the U2s and Nazi Paperclip ops, and thus appear in JFK assassination as an overlap of their networks.

The SKnights are also, like Yale frats of interest, located near other central nervous sites - The US Army War College for instance - and Philly Central.

Project Bluebook, the USAF UFO unit, was commanded by Gen. Cabal, brother of the mayor of Dallas.

Why not include that in your Wayback Machine? - which I think a very important project and from which I anticipate great things.

Everything you named is in the "Wayback Machine" and more, including all the roots and rootings of the Robertson Panel, which I could lay out here chapter and verse. But I'm not.

I'm not dismissive of any of it. I'm selective about it, and at the moment, with this thread, I'm trying to get some useful and practical information concerning the overlay of two Gladys Palmers, two predictions of the Kennedy assassination, De Mohrenschildt, Paine, McCord, Oswald, and other very immediately pertinent vectors crossing in Philadelphia in 1963.

And at the moment, that doesn't include, for me, a chase off into UFOland or back to the Philadelphia experiment—both of which, if you haven't noticed, the CIA has fully staked out and controlled with disinformation nut-case associations. If you haven't noticed, try the internet. I also am not particularly interested—in this thread—in discussing the win/loss/tie record of the Eagles in 1963. (It was 2/10/2, by the way.) That doesn't mean others can't. But it also doesn't mean I can't at least attempt to keep what I started here on the rails.

Speaking of which: I'm just going to note here for the record in this thread that Arlen Specter and Richard Sprague both were in the District Attorney's office in Philadelphia in 1963, Specter being Assistant D.A. from 1959 through to 1964, Sprague having joined the D.A.'s office in 1958. What a cozy little place it must have been.

Frank Forini Sturgis enlisted in the USMC in Philly, his hometown, also home to LICOVY3- the Philly student in Mexico City who was a KGB-CIA double-agent.

Thanks.

Ashton

Top photo... .

Second photo... .

Third photo... .

And, the bottom photo... .

Um, there are no photos.

<Sigh>

Ashton

Maybe I'm dense, but for all the verbiage I'm having a hard time understanding what you're driving at. Is there a theory involved here? Are you implying that someone shot JFK in the throat, or stabbed it with an ice pick or some ER utensil, after he arrived in the hospital, and then Perry covered it up? Tell us what you think may have happened, beginning with the manner in which this wound was inflicted at Parkland. Or have you already done so and I missed it?

Hi Ron. I'm quite certain it has notihng to do with you being dense, everything to do with my presentation.

I have not been attempting to be coy or opaque, merely trying to proceed in as orderly a fashion as possible through a swarm of agenda hornets to establish the foundation for what I posed in my first message in this thread. I said there:

• ASHTON: I believe the back shot was to provide a "reasonable explanation" for a small throat wound. (And I didn't say bullet wound.) And that is exactly what it was used for by the Warren Commission.
  

In the Throat Shot thread, I posted this image of one device perfectly capable of very quickly rendering just such a throat wound as has been described in testimony:

While not suggesting that this is the implement that might have been used to create such a wound, I say not only that something like it very easily and quickly could produce such a wound, but that something similar also could provide a delivery system for, e.g., some colorless, odorless substance that provably could kill in short order, one for which, at the time, there was no forensic test, and one which never would be suspected in the slightest even if there had been such a test.

(One symptom of such a toxic substance might be rapid onset of respiratory failure.)

The next time you wear a tie (if you do), simply slip your forefinger under the knot and into the space between the top and second button of your shirt. You'll find you have touched just to the right side of the centerline of your throat below the Adam's Apple, precisely where the wound was seen and where the so-called tracheotomy was inflicted.

The certainties are:

1. Not one eyewitness says they saw any wound to the throat before John F. Kennedy was inside Trauma Room One—the sole exception being nurse Diana Bowron, who years later claimed she had, but who priorly had contradicted herself in sworn testimony on this exact point.
   
2. Not one eyewitness ever saw a bullet hole through the shirt or tie anywhere near the throat.
   
3. Not one investigator or trier of fact ever found a bullet hole through the shirt or tie anywhere near the throat.
   
4. A bullet wound to the throat in the indicated location is impossible without a bullet hole through the shirt and tie.
   Therefore it is impossible that John F. Kennedy was shot in the throat with any projectile of any description in Dealey Plaza.
   

However: the Shamans of the Cult of Impossibilities are in full feathers, paint, and dance, so for the moment now I'm just going to enjoy the floor show.

Ashton

Double post remnant

despite all the visual evidence that demonstrates beyond any rational doubt that no projectile possibly could have entered the man's throat at the claimed location.

This appears to be true, i.e. the WC lied about a bullet going through the front of JFK's shirt. There is no bullet hole in the front of the shirt, only slits that were caused by a scalpel, not a bullet. So the "claimed location" of the wound is a government lie.

I believe that what will be found to be the case when the wrists tire of the few who are waving hands in everybody's face, the fact that a number of proximate medical personnel saw the wound, and none felt that the tracheotomy butchery was anywhere other than where they had seen a wound, will prevail.

There was a wound. It was a small wound. It was a puncture wound at least consistent with a bullet wound, which led the medical personnel present to assume that it was a bullet wound of some description.

And of course it's absurd that a projectile could have entered where the Perry cover-up was performed without damaging not only the collar, but destroying the knot of the tie as well. It's utterly impossible.

Soon now, when all the manic, strident assertions to the contrary have had their run, I'm going to post an image I've had sitting her for some time that shows exactly where JFK's collar would have had to have been for there to have been any remote possibility that any projectile of any description could have entered the throat at the location shown by the tracheotomy butchery and described by the medical personnel. I'll just say about this image that if I had been one of the people trying to shove such nonsense down people's throats page after page after page after page, I would be so humiliated that I couldn't make another appearance. But then I am capable of shame at trying to deceive people.

Yet there was undeniably a wound in the front of JFK's throat (unless this too was part of the mass hallucination, or mass orchestrated lie, at Parkland and Bethesda that produced a large exit wound in the back of JFK's head).

Yes, inarguably there was a wound in the throat.

Its known period of its existence is from the time the shirt inside Trauma Room One from was opened to the time Malcolm Perry electively sliced straight through it and destroyed all evidence of it. It was a very short period of time. All prior "existence" is completely conjectural.

The sum total of evidence of any existence of any such wound prior to arrival at Parkland Hospital is zero. No matter how loud the Furies scream, no matter how many ASCII tantrums they throw, no matter how many oblique cowardly comments any of them make about my sanity, not one of them can produce a single witness or a scintilla of evidence for there having been any such throat wound prior to arrival at Parkland Hospital. Not a mote.

The inescapable conclusion is that this throat wound was above the collar, hence no hole in the collar or shirt.

That conclusion is not inescapable at all.

I ask you and any reasoning person to pause and consider the real odds of a throat bullet wound (that left no damage to any clothing) just happening to be at the precise location where Malcolm Perry would carve—on the justification that the location was "customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy." I warrant your odds are better at hitting the lottery.

If the wound was created at Parkland Hospital—the only place it ever was seen—with the intention that all evidence of it would be eradicated by a "tracheotomy," then the only place it would have been delivered is precisely where it was, allowing for just such justification as Malcolm Perry supplied.

Ashton

Connally, it appears to me, was hit with a high-velocity round only seconds or fractions of a second before JFK was hit with a high-velocity round to the head. The simplest explanation for this, to me, is that Connally's wound resulted from a missed head shot aimed at JFK with a semi-automatic high powered rifle, and the next shot hit its intended mark.

It seems to me that Connally is being hit right after appearing from behind the freeway sign - and apologies to whomever created the moving gif, I have neglected to retain creator info.

Well, this thread is about the back wound to JFK, but: no matter where in the Z film sequence Connally gets hit, he inarguably was hit in the back near the right armpit, the bullet traveling through his torso and exiting lower on his chest, creating a sucking chest wound. And if you'll watch the Z film a little longer, you'll see that he's talking (or shouting) as he turns around, and stays turned around talking before rather suddenly dropping backwards onto his wife.

If he was turned around talking that way with a sucking chest wound, I think somebody ought to submit it to Ripley's and to Guiness World Records, just in case.

Ashton

Ashton,

You have the wrong idea about what is going on here.

I've worked on this evidence for 15 years and I'm presenting it now.

Sorry you overlooked all that I've been posting about.

You are a wonderful foil.

Don't take it personally.

• 
  

I reply to your posts when I need a light break from serious research.

Aren't you over-looking the statements of another half-dozen people -- two reports written 11/22/63 -- that corroborate the throat entrance wound?

Even then I don't respond to your spin. If you want to discuss actual evidence, post it. What you'll be posting is reports of extremely brief and cursory observations of people who did not have any opportunity at all to inspect the throat wound (before Malcolm Perry electively hacked it out of existence), people who were dealing with attempting to save the life a man who they had been told had been shot several times, people who assumed that the small round wound they got a glimpse of was a bullet wound.

And you won't be posting anything else. And you know it, and I know it. But you'll spin it as some kind of phony "proof" that there absolutely was an entrance wound to the throat, despite all the visual evidence that demonstrates beyond any rational doubt that no projectile possibly could have entered the man's throat at the claimed location. So go ahead: post away.

While you do, I'm sure that you won't keep ignoring the physical evidence of the physical impossibility of a projectile having entered the throat there at all, will you? Unless, of course, your paralytic projectile is far, far more magical than the lowly Specter Vector Rejector and actually could meld its way amongst and between the molecular structure of cloth, penetrating two layers of shirt (well, five, actually, because a collar of that class is double-sided with a stiffening fabric sown in, and the collar yoke is doubled) and leaving no mark at all of its passage.

Will you go right on ignoring the physical impossibility? Or are we finally all about to learn the long-kept dark secret of the incredible CIA trans-matter bullet? (Or, excuse me: dart. Let's do be precise.)

Now, back to the evidence...

• 
  

Back? I haven't seen you get to any yet.

I've just seen you go on and on and on about T1 transverse yadda yadda yadda right lung bibble-dee-bobbity-boo blood soluble yabba-dabba-doo metallic debris field ad infinitum ad nauseum paralyzed paralyzed paralyzed with monotonous repetition blah-blah-blah. You talk it to rags, but you don't post it.

Points right to the CIA

• 
  

Yes, doesn't it though.

I had a little pool going on how long before you finally were going to shoot yourself in the foot and blow your entire "paralytic dart" nonsense into a glittering, evanescing metallic debris field.

Very nicely done. (Some will understand this at once, some it will catch up with in a day or two, and for others it eventually will get explained to them. You, Varnell—I predict—will go right on taking the remaining few on a pony ride, round and round and round and round and...)

ASHTON: One of those two people destroyed that evidence.

VARNELL: But don't you say this evidence never existed?

Go back to the beginning of the thread and read all the way through as many times as necessary for you to figure out what the thread is about and what I've actually said about the throat wound in relation to the back wound—which the subject title will start to give you a clue to. It's okay to have others explain it to you. When you figure it all out, get back to me then. Who knows: I might be looking for some light entertainment.

Ashton

When you manage to arrive at a point—any point—send up a flare.

Ashton

Don't you think you should have something a little more solid than a hunch before making these kinds of accusations?

I didn't post a "hunch." I've posted documented evidence of two people in critical positions each telling self-contradictory stories about critical evidence in the murder of the President of the United States. One of those two people destroyed that evidence.

You can spin it and apologize for it and attempt to discredit me all you want. The record stands and the record speaks for itself.

And I speak for myself, and I'll call it as I see it. Since two self-contradictory stories cannot possibly both be true, in each case—that of Bowron and that of Perry—one of the stories they each told is a lie, or both of the stories they each told are lies.

In your next spin cycle, spin this: Malcolm Perry elected to make the tracheotomy incision straight through the throat wound. He didn't have to. He elected to. Not only that, someone there—someone—anticipated the tracheotomy before it was called for by Perry:

• 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... I asked someone to secure a tracheotomy tray but there was one already there. ...I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.
  SPECTER: Why did you elect to make the tracheotomy incision through the wound in the neck...
  MALCOLM PERRY: The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy. This is one of the safest and easiest spots to reach the trachea. ...Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway.
  

Malcolm Perry, alone, elected to destroy the throat wound evidence, and could have made the tracheotomy opening somewhere that would not have destroyed it.

Spin that.

Ashton Gray

Here you go, starting mid paragraph on page 377.

[Etc.]

This is the relevant text and I hope you and other members found this helpful.

Well, Nick...

I...

Well, I really, genuinely, and deeply appreciate all that typing—by both you and Weisberg.

It's one of the great tragedies of literature that after all the time invested in interviewing, Malcolm Perry wasn't allowed to wedge a single word of his own into all that Weisbergian paraphrasing other than "as they always are."

But at least that was quoted twice. That's very nice, and was a generosity on the part of Mr. Weisberg.

Ashton

Well, Ashton, I'm genuinely touched by your ......appreciation.....or is it lack thereof??

Nick, was I that transparent? I think my report card is going to say "Needs work on social skills."

IMHO, in spite of the excess verbiage, Weisberg did come up with some very valuable information.

Well, I wasn't being at all facetious when I said I really did appreciate your effort, because I do, but value is where you find it, and in my own research efforts I generally use a steamshovel to sweep interpretations, paraphrasings, hearsay, philosophical musings, opinions, and conclusions into the dumpster by the cubic ton. I try wherever possible to go to primary sources. Where and if I have to turn to other sources, I have a rule of two to compare, preferably three—or dumpster bound.

It's a brutal method of research and not for everyone. Also isn't worth a damn for a leisurely rainy-day read.

BTW, your research is much appreciated and sometimes your writing style as well.

Touché.

Ashton

Dr. Malcolm Perry's news conference, 11/22/63 (well before the formation

of the Warren Commission):

(quote on)

There was an entrance wound in the neck...It appeared to be coming at him...

The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes,

that is correct...The exit wound I don't know. It could have been the head or

there could have been a second wound of the head.

(quote off)

Malcolm Perry's testimony under oath:

• 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...
  

Under oath, Malcolm Perry says he didn't know whether what he saw in the neck was a wound, or the start of a tracheotomy.

To the press, and to the world, in the most crucial moments, Malcolm Perry proclaimed unequivocally that there was an "entrance wound" in the neck.

So did Malcolm Perry lie to the press, or did Malcolm Perry lie under oath, or both?

Why did nurse Diana Bowron—the person who first got to John F. Kennedy at the limo and accompanied him into Trauma Room One, and was there throughout—lie about the throat wound?

Why did Malcolm Perry—the man who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound—lie about it?

Ashton Gray