Ashton Gray

Here is a possibility to consider for discussion: The President's back wound could have been caused by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository.

I guess it's possible, but I don't think the angle of record supports it.

That rifle was never intended as the primary killing weapon, because no serious sniper would have used it.

It was a throw-down gun, a diversion, but someone fired it nonetheless.

I think that's probably not unlikely, and was necessary to set up the patsy, but I personally haven't gotten there yet. I'm attempting an orderly approach to analysis in the sense of separating the whole into its constituent elements and addressing each. Since this has been brought up here, though, I'll mention a vague idea I've only half formed (and certainly haven't thought through) that the Mannlicher may have been the source of the Tague bullet and the damage to the windshield chrome. (I reserve the right to weasel on all that.) One thing that concerns me still is the number of reports, but I'm certain that has an answer.

Old military surplus ammo can have what is called a "dud round" whereby not all of the powder propellant burns. This results in a low-velocity discharge, with a rapid bullet drop rate. This would explain the shallow back wound.

It could also explain the so-called pristine bullet found at Parkland Hospital. I realize that bullet was not found on the President's stretcher, but the person who found it could have been mistaken. The bullet could have been forced out during resuscitation efforts.

Yes; I don't think that such a possibility is entirely as outré as some have made it out to be, but you're still way out ahead of what I've been trying to focus on here. Don't know when I might catch up, either.

Ashton

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 is the man who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound.

The seeker of fact weighs the evidence judiciously.

Good: Malcolm Perry is the man who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound.

One autopsy photo has been cited, the Stare of Death with that big ugly trach incision.

The size of that incision is inconsistent with another autopsy photo -- left lateral -- that appears to show a smaller, neater wound.

In fact, it is a canyon.

The size of the SOD wound is inconsistent with some Parkland witness testimony, most notably Dr. Perry's insistence that the trach incision was sufficient to put in the tube and no bigger.

But actually it was this:

So in addition to destroying critical evidence in the murder of the President of the United States, did Malcolm Perry willfully lie?

Ashton Gray

I started this thread based on several certainties:

1. John Connally inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward trajectory while passing through his torso.
   
2. John F. Kennedy inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward path into his torso.
   
3. Therefore, there inarguably was a shooter somewhere behind the motorcade in a somewhat elevated position.
   

There are other points that I feel have a very high level of relative certainty that bear consideration for any rational and objective analysis:

• 1. No projectile penetrated John F. Kennedy's collar.
  
  2. It is impossible that there could have been a projectile wound where the tracheotomy butchery took place without there having been penetration of the collar. This is supported by eyewitness testimony stating that the small round throat wound (and I specifically do not say projectile or bullet wound) that was seen by several people inside Trauma Room One before the tracheotomy was below shirt line. A visual recreation confirms this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
  
  

With these paving stones of certainty, it is an impossibility for there to have been a projectile wound to the throat in the indicated location.

Therefore, it becomes a very high relative certainty that the small round throat wound observed only by a few people, only in Trauma Room One, and only for a very brief time, was not a wound from a bullet or dart or any other type of projectile.

These high-level certainties are the foundation for the hypothesis that the back wound to JFK might well have been only to provide a "plausible explaination" for a small round throat wound that would only be seen for a brief period of time by a small number of people, would not be closely inspected, then have all evidence of existence almost immediately eradicated by Malcolm Perry.

Ashton Gray

Do I understand correctly that you theorize the "back wound" was not

created by a bullet, but by the hand of someone at the hospital or

later? That would account for:

1. no bullet in the wound

2. autopist probe could not find path of bullet

3. angle of wound not correct

The corrollary to your theory would be that the shirt and coat holes

were not bullet holes either, correct?

Just wondering.

Jack

Just the opposite, Jack. I think it's inarguable that JFK was shot in the back at a downward angle. All back-wound evidence is consistent with that: coat, shirt, and hole in body.

The premise of the thread is that Kennedy possibly was shot in the back solely to later provide a "plausible explanation" for a throat wound that would be seen only very briefly in one location: Trauma Room One at Parkland hospital. With a wound in the back from a gunshot (an entrance wound), that could be used to "explain" something that was assumed to be a bullet hole in the throat—which almost immediately was carved out of existence by Malcolm Perry.

The very fact of its eradication is what has not only allowed, but promoted, eternal conflict over whether it was an "entrance wound" or an "exit wound," with the Official Story, of course, being that it had to be an exit wound from the same bullet as the back wound.

If the throat wound wasn't a bullet wound at all, then it was neither a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound. But it has been able to be "explained" as a bullet exit wound precisely because there was a handy back wound proximate enough to justify just that "explanation."

Pause for a moment and consider all the "coincidences" involved in the back and throat wounds. These are truly amazing "coincidences," the final one, of course, being that the throat wound just happened to be in the precise location where it could be erased out of existence by ham-handed butchery passing for a "tracheotomy."

Ashton

Ashton,

Since it is "most likely" that a method called "soft edge matte" or I`ll say it bluntly.... one "altered" photograph is known to exist in the archives,have you considered the "possibility" of that number being higher? (blurry shirt photograph)

* I assure you that I am not trying to be a wiseguy.

I've considered it for all the photographs, Michael. I doubt, though that the original of the shirt photograph I've reproduced a section of, blown up, is blurry. I started with the largest image of it I could find on the web and took all the care I could not to alter it myself when blowing it up, but there is no escaping artifacts once an image has been saved as a JPEG.

So I believe the fuzziness in that blowup almost certainly is attributable to that.

Still, I thought there was sufficient detail to be able to determine whether there was a hole in that shirt that could account for a bullet passing through it or not, or I wouldn't have posted it. I also consider what I see in that image to be consistent with the majority of other information that's available, and it's the cumulative consistency of the available evidence arguing against a throat shot that I find compelling.

If you know of any source for getting a TIFF file of that photo, please send it my way and I will gladly blow that up as big as is feasible and then save the blow-up in a suitable format for posting here.

Ashton

I started this thread based on several certainties:

1. John Connally inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward trajectory while passing through his torso.
   
2. John F. Kennedy inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward path into his torso.
   
3. Therefore, there inarguably was a shooter somewhere behind the motorcade in a somewhat elevated position.
   

There are other points that I feel have a very high level of relative certainty that bear consideration for any rational and objective analysis:

• 1. No projectile penetrated John F. Kennedy's collar.
  
  2. It is impossible that there could have been a projectile wound where the tracheotomy butchery took place without there having been penetration of the collar. This is supported by eyewitness testimony stating that the small round throat wound (and I specifically do not say projectile or bullet wound) that was seen by several people inside Trauma Room One before the tracheotomy was below shirt line. A visual recreation confirms this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
  
  

With these paving stones of certainty, it is an impossibility for there to have been a projectile wound to the throat in the indicated location.

Therefore, it becomes a very high relative certainty that the small round throat wound observed only by a few people, only in Trauma Room One, and only for a very brief time, was not a wound from a bullet or dart or any other type of projectile.

These high-level certainties are the foundation for the hypothesis that the back wound to JFK might well have been only to provide a "plausible explanation" for a small round throat wound that would only be seen for a brief period of time by a small number of people, would not be closely inspected, then have all evidence of existence almost immediately eradicated by Malcolm Perry.

Ashton Gray

For those coming in late and encountering references to UFOs and the "Philadelphia Experiment," I'd like to make a note that this thread began with, and contains, very tangible and documented connections between central and key figures surrounding the Kennedy assassination and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

It also contains a record of a rather odd trip at a significant period in 1963 by the wife of CIA's James McCord, featuring a stop in Philadelphia before flying to Dallas, then a return some time later to Philadelphia, while James McCord purportedly was attached to the CIA Manhattan field office.

It's noted where the thread is being taken.

Ashton

At the time of Joseph Dryer's testimony he was said to be a stock broker from the Loeb & Rhodes Co. in Palm Beach, Florida.

This Dryer was also a Marine who fought in WW2.

Dryer below.

Hmmmm...

Ashton

At this point in this discussion I am going to point out several facts that I believe the majority of people engaged in these pursuits and these discussions can agree on:

1. John Connally inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward trajectory while passing through his torso.
   
2. John F. Kennedy inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward path into his torso.
   
3. Therefore, there inarguably was a shooter somewhere behind the motorcade in a somewhat elevated position.
   

Anyone who wants to argue these points will argue them with someone else. I believe these facts above have a very high degree of consistency of evidence, and therefore approach a very high relative certainty.

It is my informed belief that the path to truth is paved with certainties. In the matter of shooters and locations, the above are very solid pavestones of certainty.

All other extant theories I am aware of concerning postulated locations of shooters are uncertainties based on little or no physical evidence—and some of these theories are wild indeed.

Of course anyone is fully within their right to chase as many uncertainties as long and as far as they want, and I wouldn't wish to dissuade them. But for me, I will pave my path with as many certainties as I can find and establish, and it's my experience that such a path leads to more certainties.

Ashton

More on Mr. Dryer:

Joseph F. Dryer lived in West Palm Beach, Florida (often just called "Palm Beach"). I think it perhaps germane to post, first, this excerpt from "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography":

• The unique, bizarre setup on Jupiter Island began in 1931, following the merger of W.A. Harriman and Co. with the British-American firm Brown Brothers.
  The reader will recall Mr. Samuel Pryor, the "Merchant of Death." A partner with the Harrimans, Prescott Bush, George Walker, and Nazi boss Fritz Thyssen in banking and shipping enterprises, Sam Pryor remained executive committee chairman of Remington Arms. In this period, the Nazi private armies (SA and SS) were supplied with American arms—most likely by Pryor and his company—as they moved to overthrow the German republic. Such gun-running as an instrument of national policy would later become notorious in the "Iran-Contra" affair.
  Sam Pryor's daughter Permelia married Yale graduate Joseph V. Reed on the last day of 1927. Reed immediately went to work for Prescott Bush and George Walker, as an apprentice at W.A. Harriman and Co.
  During World War II, Joseph V. Reed had served in the "special services" section of the U.S. Army Signal Corps. A specialist in security, codes and espionage, Reed later wrote a book entitled "Fun with Cryptograms".
  Sam Pryor had had property around Hobe Sound, Florida, for some time. In 1931, Joseph and Permelia Pryor Reed bought the entirety of Jupiter Island.
  This is a typically beautiful Atlantic coast "barrier island," a half-mile wide and nine miles long. The middle of Jupiter Island lies just off Hobe Sound. The south bridge connects the island with the town of Jupiter, to the north of Palm Beach. It is about 90 minutes by auto from Miami—today, a few minutes by helicopter.
  

Next, I think it of some interest to point out these quotes of note from the currently MIA Mr. Tosh Plumlee:

• Wednesday, 20 November 1963
  Beginning November 20, 1963, I was assigned to be a co-pilot on a top secret flight, which was attached to a Military Intelligence unit and supported by the CIA. Our mission, we were told, was to 'Abort' a pending attempt on the President's life which was to take place in Dallas. ...Our team was based out of South Florida. My pilot for this operation was Emanuel Rojas. We had flown together before. I was the co-pilot for this operation. The first leg of the flight would be from Lantana, Florida (about five miles south of West Palm Beach)...
  Monday, 25 November 1963
  The post-mission debriefing was held on November 25th...in West Palm Beach by Rex Beardsley, Bob Bennett and, I believe, Tracy Barnes. ...The report was transmitted to field headquarters Miami to JM/WAVE Headquarters, and the CIA’s Miami Cuban Desk.
  

Ashton Gray

Who was Joseph F. Dryer—really? I mean who was he in the grander scheme of things?

I think I have available to me most of what was made available arising from his testimony, but it seems to skim the surface, and doesn't explain in any small way why he was in a position to provide credible letters of reference for Clemard Joseph Charles to top government officials, or how or why Dryer would have been in a position to provide Charles with contact information for Dorothe Matlack (sometimes Dorothy Matlack).

In a related research project, something rather odd turned up associated with a Joseph F. Dryer, Jr. that I feel I should at least mention.

Jr. is listed as being Chairman of the Board and CEO of a curious corporation called Autosafe, Inc., about which precious little can be found. Jr. also is listed as having come to this position from having been a Senior Vice President of Shearson American Express with "extensive European experience."

There is another Dryer listed as a director of Autosafe, Inc., Gregory C. Dryer, whose sketchy background is, if anything, even more interesting: "Head of European Private Equity for Robertson Stephens International and former Head of Private Equity, North and South America, for Banque Paribas, France's second largest bank."

This froze attention because of the following passage in the documents referenced in the George Bush of the CIA thread:

Of course there may be no connection. I'm hoping someone can help open this Joseph F. Dryer issue up more for closer inspection.

Pursuant to that, I'm seeking several NARA documents cited in A.J. Weberman's Nodule 10 that he only partially quotes and that are listed as:

NARA 1993.07.29.17:17:58:710028

NARA 1993.08.05.14:10:03:090007

NARA 1993.07.3111:53:12:340047

NARA 1993.07.31.11:51:57:280047

Any help would be appreciated.

Ashton Gray

Okay -- trying this again!

Here is the same "head movement" sequence, except in this case, I have aligned Z291 = MM20 as the "zero point":

And here is a 4-frame loop slowed down to show the sync:

With this alignment, M42 occurs almost immediately after N22, but slightly before Z313.

Masterfully done, Frank. Your work demonstrates the genius of honesty.

Ashton

The dart was designed to dissolve without a trace.

We have our hands around yet another twosie: It was veteran FBI agent Sibert (of "orange-sized hole in back center of head" fame) who introduced the idea of a magic dissolving projectile—but in relation to the back wound, not the throat wound (which, by the time Sibert saw the body, had been conveniently hacked out of existence by Malcolm Perry).

It was Sibert who purportedly took a little break from the autopsy vigil to go to a phone and call HQ to inquire about a magic disappearing bullet when the back wound was probed and determined to be shallow, with no bullet having at that time been discovered.

So here we go: vast clouds of confusion over not one, but two purported magic disappearing projectiles. Let's all go on a snipe hunt, kids: there are at least two for everyone to go on chasing endlessly for the rest of their lives.

Two No-See-Ums to chase. It's not just a twosie: it's a No-See-Um twosie. It's a floor wax and a dessert topping.

The snipes are waiting.

"Run, boy! Run!" [sUNG] "In Camelot..." [/sUNG].

Ashton

Where did the alleged dart go?

Ashton

Hello Ashton

I must agree that what you pose is "possible"

Good. I find "possible" a very good place to start after eliminating as much of the impossible as...well, possible.

however I don't think it be the most probable and most likely explanation. I feel, as I have stated so many times previously on this forum, that JFK's hand and arm actions as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign, may be one of the few discernible realities of the extant Z film. I feel that he was reacting to throat trauma which was caused by a wound inflicted by an upward angled, small caliber concealed handgun, which was wielded by an Elm Street spectator / assassin.

I've read this hypothesis you've presented several times in the throat shot thread(s).

I started this thread specifically to discuss the back shot, and to consider some sort of rationale (if that word can be perverted enough temporarily to fit the thinking process of debased murderers) for any such back shot having been delivered at all.

However, since I've presented the throat wound (allegedly a "throat shot") as a possible reason for the back shot, I'll address your model of the purported "throat shot" here. But first...

ASIDE: There is an aspect of CIA operations that is one of their most covert, subtle, and insidious tricks, and is pervasive in everything I've ever studied where they are known to be involved: the insinuation of fictions, which by their very discussion, even in attempts to "disprove the negative," perpetuates the fiction. The seeker of fact encounters something that must be addressed and discussed, but that has no reality or substance. The act of attempting to demonstrate its lack of reality and substance lends it reality and substance. The act of describing the no-thing requires describing it only in terms of a thing. That is at work here. But moving on...

Your model of an alleged "throat shot" (to which I do not and will not stipulate) requires a shooter premeditatedly to position himself standing on the north side of Elm near Houston, surrounded by a thick crowd of spectators and traffic police on every side at that location, then take out a hand gun while so surrounded, and while in full view of a group of Secret Service agents on second limo, assume some sort of a handgun shooting position, aim the weapon at the President of the United States in broad daylight, and fire the weapon, creating a loud report and causing the President of the United States to react visibly and dramatically. Then, to continue the model, the shooter walks away without ever having been seen or identified by any eyewitness, and without anyone standing next to him or across Elm from him or across Houston from him having seen this blatant attempted murder happening right in their midst.

Additionally, there is no verifiable physical evidence, not a scrap anywhere in existence, of any shot to the throat at all: not in the shirt, not in the tie, not in the man's throat.

Additionally, there inarguably was at least one shooter positioned somewhere in a hidden and protected location above and behind the motorcade with a high-powered rifle that inarguably shot John Connally in the back. This means that the perpetrators, while having such a sniper in a secured position, yet would have placed a hand-gun shooter in the midst of a very considerable crowd near Elm and Houston—literally surrounded on all sides by spectators, police, and Secret Service agents—to take the very first shot at the President of the United States with what I compute to be about a 98% probability of being immediately caught, which immediately would have compromised every person involved in such a conspiracy to the highest levels.

Without disrespect, I find the proposition sufficiently in the realm of impossibility that I have no interest in pursuing it further. Others may see it differently.

Ashton

Robin Unger has recently posted (The Throat Wound) a photo from the National Archives which demonstrates the bullet entry through the back of JFK's shirt.

It is my hope that he will again post this photo here, and then perhaps some semblance of rational discussion can occur in regards to this bullet hole.

I would further ask of Robin, (in order to save my digging through boxes), that if you have the original FBI closeup photo that you also post it as well for comparison.

Anyone interested in a few facts----stay tuned!

I'm certainly interested both in facts, and in "some semblance of rational discussion."

So the facts are in evidence: There's a hole in the back of the coat, there's a corresponding hole in the back of the shirt, and there was a corresponding hole in the man.

All facts in evidence are entirely consistent with a projectile having been fired into the man's back.

The one person known to have probed the hole in the man's back said it was shallow, and appeared to have entered on downward trajectory at between 45 and 60 degrees.

My semblance of rational discussion on this set of evidence only: JFK was shot once in the back by a shooter somewhere behind and above.

What's yours?

Ashton

The back wound is indeed difficult to understand in some respects, TP, among others, has provided very useful documents, discussions and ideas on a deflected, tumbling shot.

Antti brought this up, too, and I find it a stretch for reasons I explained.

I can't though subscribe to the low velocity shot change weapons and fire alternative you have suggested.

Having read your throat wound/Parkland evidence and thesis. I find a lot of your detail very persuasive. I believe, and this has been reinforced here, you posit the throat wound was going to occur, no matter what??!!!

I don't know that I would go so far as "no matter what." For instance, if there were no vital signs at all, if it conclusively was a case of DOA, perhaps not and there just would be a back wound.

But what was supposed to happen if by any ill luck (to the murderers) no fatal shot were scored? Just chalk it up to a bad day at the office?

And pursuant to that: why did the One-Stop Car Shopper on 9 November 1963 get on the Stemmons freeway and go tearing off in the direction of Parkland Hospital at speeds approximating those the limo took to get there? That's one to give some long reflective thought to.

I find this difficult to absorb. A predetermined low velocity wound to the back, to accommodate a predetermined wound to throat, which through happenstance also permitted the great lie of the SBT to facilitate the Connally wounds!!!

Maybe they actually could have sold the back wound/throat wound scenario without trying to skewer Connally three times with it, but I haven't worked out every combination they might have had available, or every argument against this hypothesis.

You know: I could just be all wet.

I appreciate, precision and calculation were undoubtedly required, but to say to a sniper one in the back with this gun and then take the head off with this one in 8 seconds or so???? too big an ask. No?

Well, what I'm hypothesizing doesn't have any of the liabilities of the bolt-action nut-case Specterama Drama. Also, from the several building windows where I feel such shooting might be possible (which I've shown in several other threads), there is no interference at all, all the way down Elm. So I think the time frame is realistic for the back shot, then the delay, then two shots in quick succession (and, really, with time left for more if necessary further down Elm).

And of course this is all mere hypothesis, a bit farther out than I usually go, but I am endeavoring to find a hypothesis that fits the facts rather than bend facts to fit a favorite hypothesis, so I'm very interested to hear anything that argues against this, and will happily watch it go up in smoke if it doesn't have merit.

Ashton

A sound theory regarding the back wound. As a slight deviation, I would suggest the possibility that the back wound could have been caused by a ricochet, thus explaining the lower velocity, possible tumbling at entry and therefore resulting in a shallow wound.

An interesting follow-up question would be what element would cause such a ricochet effect? I believe one of the trees in the line of fire would do as potential candidates.

This may have been a theory presented by other Forum members and/or researchers prior to this, so I apologize in advance if I'm re-phrasing someone's theory.

FWIW

There has been some discussion (heated, at times) of the possiblility of a richochet off a tree branch, what that would have done to a jacketed bullet, etc., but it's certainly worthy of revisiting.

Part of what led me to this very hypothesis, though, is the relatively clean roundness of the back wound and the corresponding holes in the back of the shirt and coat. None give the impression of the type of damage I think more likely to be done by a tumble, so it would have to have been a very luckily timed tumble indeed to enter that way.

The idea of a richochet off of a tree limb also tends to posit a pretty iffy marksman. I don't think that's the case. I think it was someone very good indeed. I think the back shot was pretty close to where it was wanted—but maybe a little too low.

Ashton

The back wound to John F. Kennedy is a very strange piece of evidence in the case.

The more one considers it, the stranger it gets.

John Connally certainly was shot in the back. So there certainly was at least one shooter behind the motorcade somewhere. But Connally, from all that I can determine, was hit with a high-velocity bullet that inarguably went straight through his torso, creating a sucking chest wound.

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.

I don't ask anyone to agree with this; it's what adds up from the visual and medical record to me.

But the back shot to John F. Kennedy then makes no sense. It was a shallow wound of a small caliber bullet. It almost certainly was not a fatal wound. But it also, inarguably, was shot from behind the motorcade.

The other odd thing about it is that there apparently, from available evidence, was a different character of sound to the first shot (the back shot), and there was a delay between that shot and the two quick high-velocity shots.

The only reasonable deduction I can arrive at is that a shooter shot JFK in the back with a small caliber low velocity weapon for some reason, then either changed weapons and went for the head shot or a second shooter with a high velocity weapon took it. Missing and hitting Connally, he shot again and hit JFK in the head.

I'm prepared for the firestorm of naysaying, name-calling, and obloquy concerning my sanity, lineage, politics, and hat, but I'm going to carry this through anyway:

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.

But they hadn't counted on Connally getting hit. So then that one bullet intended to account for both back and throat had to become very, very magic indeed.

Oh, my...

Ashton Gray

The information below is from:

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:76-ue...t=clnk&cd=2

"Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,

signed May 9, 1975, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library."

"Excerpt of letter from Hoover to Warren Commissioner General

Counsel J. Lee Rankin reproduced by HSCA in Report of the Forensic

Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:90."

In his report, Dr. Lindenberg wrote that, "In the front of [JFK's]

shirt the bullet produced 1.2cm vertical slits in the overlapping

parts of the collar just below the collar button. The stumps of torn

fibers of the material point to the outside."30 In 1964, J. Edgar

Hoover had advised the Warren Commission that the FBI lab had found

the same thing: "The hole in the front of the shirt was a ragged,

slit-like hole and the ends of the torn threads around the hole were

bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a

projectile."31

(emphasis mine)

Quote Ashton Gray, Posted Today, 12:58 PM:

If one had, the literature would say: "There's the bullet hole." Quote off.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php?...e_-_JFK_Clothes

I believe you'll find that that's the back wound hole in the shirt, Robin.

But, yes: that is a very good illustration of what glaringly is missing from anywhere near the throat area of the shirt.

Thank you.

Ashton

Double post vestige; real post below.

Thank you for your reply Ashton. Don't get me wrong. I still believe the evidence is stronger for an entry from the front, and have not changed my mind.

Thank you for your reply, too. And I don't know if this will surprise you, but I'm not trying to get anyone to change his mind. I've merely been stating my own observations (sprinkled with some opinions and random stabs at humor).

The more important point in my posting and quotes from yesterday was to show that at least some "official" entity (FBI, Rockefeller commission) had studied the evidence and concluded that both the tie and the shirt had in fact suffered damage (holes) which in all likelihood stems from a bullet (in my opinion a shot to the throat).

Of course these entities will do their best to distort and manipulate the evidence to ensure LHO is guilty, firing from the TSBD, they'd never agree to a frontal shot. The statement by these parties: "The stumps of torn fibers of the material point to the outside....the ends of the torn threads around the hole were bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a projectile." was in my opinion a pretty lame attempt at showing where the bullet came from.

So given that, I pose this to you: what if the entire claim of any bullet wound to the throat at all is, itself, part of the cover-up?

I only ask you to consider that carefully.

The Zapruder film alone shows JFK reacting to something in his throat.

Well, I'll have to disagree. I see JFK clearly, after his initial arms-up reaction, pointing down to his chest. Not once to I see him grab at his throat, or attempt to pull away his collar, or gasp frantically for breath, or perform any single act that I possibly can associate in any way with someone who has had his trachea pierced by a bullet.

SS Agent Kellerman swears in testimony that he heard JFK say, "My God, I've been hit" in what he characterizes as an unmistakable Boston accent.

Look at the image of the shirt I posted above. Do you—you—see, with your eyes, any indication whatsoever of any bullet having passed through that shirt collar anywhere?

And I still am not asking you to change your mind. I'm merely asking you to set aside—even for a moment—any preconceived idea that there was a bullet wound in the man's throat, and simply look at the evidence without first filtering it through an unshakable conviction that there was a bullet in the throat.

Because I hate to be the bearer of these tidings, but there's an unsettling but nonetheless awfully true thought you might not otherwise want to think all the way through: the sole source of the very widespread unshakable conviction that there was a bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat is the Warren Commission.

By the way, I do greatly appreciate your participation in this Forum and do believe you are a great asset to us all here.

Awww, you're just trying to get me to say it was a bullet wound!

Thank you; very kind of you to say so, and the feeling certainly is mutual.

Ashton

So Devine was meeting with Clemard Charles in April,1963.And Charles brought DeMohrenschildt to the meeting.

Robin,

Interesting circle of connections, isn't it?

James

FWIW, I got an anonymous email a few years ago. It was short and to the point. Something like "the key to the assassination is Clemard Charles."

And yes, this circle of connections is interesting, to say the least. I wonder what other tight little circles they may have linked up with as circumstances and need dictated?

I've just today received information from a timeline section being done indicating that DeMohrenschildt had to have had some kind of hotline from Bundy, State, and/or CIA passing him Top Secret data on U.S. activities related to Duvalier and Haiti in this exact time frame surrounding DeMohrenschildt's trip to New York and Philadelphia: beginning 19 April 1963, through his arrival back in Dallas on or about 30 May 1963 and his arrival in Haiti on 2 June 1963.

The activities that take place in Haiti during this period are extraordinary, as well as the secret discussions taking place with Bundy, State, the President, and CIA, and the activities of DeMohrenschildt somehow anticipate them all. There are so many smoking hot sections of timeline being done by several people at once, all hitting me at once, that I'm having a hell of a time trying to keep up—and can't.

One thing I will mention here (and will try to get a relevant section of the timeline posted soon): On 26 April 1963, the same day that DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Charles show up at the Train, Cabot offices, an "unsuccessful attempt" is made to kidnap Duvalier's children. Three days later, on 29 April 1963: "the CIA Office of Security found that it had no objection to De Mohrenschildt's acceptance of a contract with the Duvalier regime of Haiti in the field of natural resource development."

Just too many weirdnesses to catalog at the moment. Any Clemard Charles references anyone has with dates will be welcomed additions.

Ashton

How much attention has been given to this by the "investigative commissions"? <SPIT!>

Wonder who set this little trip up for him? Wonder who printed up the "We will Barry you" placards?

Ashton

An article of absorbing interest, to me at least, in light of continuing revelations concerning Pennsylvania, specifically Philadephia: 'Human guinea pigs' demand justice

Ashton

And W.C. Fields requested that his tombstone epitath be:

ON THE WHOLE, I'D RATHER BE IN PHILADELPHIA.

Jack

On the whole, he may have preferred to be anywhere else at all if he'd read the article that follows below.

Ashton