Ashton Gray

The Lone Nut theory, which is a total fabrication, was created by J. Edgar Hoover -- but not to conceal the murderers of JFK, rather, to prevent World War III. It was a matter of National Security. LBJ agreed. Allen Dulles agreed. Earl Warren agreed. It was now US Policy.

It seems clear to me that you grossly underestimate the CIA. They always play both sides of the game. Always. ALWAYS.

The prime "fabrication" was the tortured and contradictory "history" and connections of a man named Lee Harvey Oswald, whose past and actions, at all relevant times, have been so clouded in incomprehensibility that some investigators have become convinced that there had to be two of "him."

I hope you don't honestly think for a moment that J. Edgar Hoser had either the imagination or means of creating such a hybrid disposable creature. I hope you don't honestly think for a moment that J. Edgar Handmaiden had the foresight or means to have that miserable creature disposed of in plain daylight while in the custody of police and in front of a crowd.

All I'm going to say further on this right now is that this pathetic, gullible, and suggestible person who was gunned down in a parking garage to end all hope of justice ever being done had been PERFECTLY MODELED AND FRAMED TO ALLOW FOR E*I*T*H*E*R "INTERPRETATION" OF MOTIVE AND MASTERMIND: "LONE NUT" OR "INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL CONSPIRACY."

I hope you don't honestly think for a moment that any of that was accidental. Oswald was created and groomed to be a PIVOT POINT for just such crisis-bred confusion and indecision, with the threat of potential nuclear war hanging in the balance.

There is only one agency in the world that had the motive, means, and opportunity. "Allen Dulles agreed"? Ya think? Given that he was the chief architect, the grunt work overseen by his henchmen McCone and Helms, yeah, he "agreed" all right.

...with a couple of CIA rogues...they were rogues, IMHO, supporting a civilian plot

Please don't be an easy mark for the CIA's favorite "plausible deniability" con-job propaganda. There is no such thing. They are ALL "rogues." They are arrogant, amoral elitists and professional liars who are quite certain that they are transcendent to any and all laws—moral, sectarian, national, and international—and that they "know best."

Here are some quotes of note from one of their own, who was a major player in the creation and execution of Watergate, the hoax:

Once I was inside the government, my awareness of how easily and pervasively Congress, the public, and journalists were fooled and misled contributed to a lack of respect for them and their potential contribution to better policy. That in turn made it easier to accept, to participate in, to keep quiet about practices of secrecy and deception that fooled them further and kept them ignorant of the real issues that were occupying and dividing inside policy makers. Their resulting ignorance made it all the more obvious that they must leave these problems to us.

...Given the fact that bullets can fragment and splinter, there is some chance that a fragment superficially pierced JFK's neck at some point in the flurry of shots, so that these Parkland Hospital medical workers did not lie -- but were simply mistaken about a shot.

It's a definite problem that the nature of the JFK neck wound as described by the Parkland Hospital was mysterious, and that no bullet or fragment was found near the neck. There are many possibilities that remain open. The greatest worry in the past 50 years, however, was the continual revival of the Single Bullet Theory, which made JFK's neck wound into an EXIT wound. It was in response to THAT worry that this tradition of a throat entry wound -- which you have called "urban legend" -- has grown.

I'm willing to take the "throat entry wound" off of the table -- AS LONG AS there are sensible alternative theories offered that continue to deny the Single Bullet Theory, which defies common sense.

Paul, I see you're determined to drag me, even kicking and screaming, into this mess, and I do respect your efforts at honest analysis, so against my better judgment (well, actually the better judgment of my editor, but she ain't here) I'm going to just rattle off a few statements, some of fact, some of opinion, some of which I will no doubt take up further at some point, some of which I will abandon like a blown-out tire:

1. I will no longer discuss with anybody the throat wound if they are calling it the "neck" wound, because testimony has CONFUSINGLY referred to the BACK wound with the word NECK—and personally I don't doubt for a millisecond that that is otherwise than intentional; confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

2. I wasn't joking entirely when I said that CE #399, the "magic bullet," could have been the bullet that caused the back wound—except for the fact that the bullet marked as CE #399 very likely WAS NOT the actual bullet that had been found on a parked gurney at Parkland, which is what has been claimed. So in all likelihood, CE #399 was a SWITCH-OUT REPLACEMENT for the bullet that had been left on the gurney, which gurney WAS NOT the one that John Connally had been on. It therefore is POSSIBLE that the bullet found on the gurney actually had come from JFK, and that the back wound was, indeed, shallow. This might have to do with the "firecracker" sound.

3. There is another BULLET—not FRAGMENT—referred to in the record that was collected in the hospital room where John Connally was being treated, and it has disappeared.

4. The "chain of custody"—or, more precisely, unspeakable absence thereof—for that bullet, and for EVERY OTHER BULLET OR FRAGMENT IN THE CASE, including CE #399, is so stutteringly, sputteringly "incompetent" (stay tuned) and contradictory and confusing that there is only one conclusion I can draw: If one rejects out of hand the "Lone Nutcase" scenario and presumes a conspiracy of any description, then it is inescapable that THE CONSPIRATORS HAD THE AUTHORITY AND MEANS TO MONITOR AND CONTROL THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF ANY AND ALL BULLETS OR FRAGMENTS AT PARKLAND, ET SEQ. That makes the whole "mafia" and "Castro" scenarios fall-down funny. There is one and only one agency possible of such influence and control, and ALL of the necessary means of contact to secure it, including into the FBI, and that is CIA.

5. Anybody who believes there was any kind of conspiracy involved in the murder, but believes that the conspirators HAD NOT arranged any kind of control at Parkland for the aftermath, is every bit as fall-down funny to me. In fact, having plants at Parkland was absolutely primary to any HOPE of success in pinning it all on Oswald, precisely BECAUSE of the inescapable requirement of being able to CONTROL the bullets/fragments issue and plant false "evidence." (This is another giant unmistakable fingerprint of CIA, and it is precisely the modus operandi they used in Watergate.)

6. I don't believe that any type of metal bullet or missile possibly could have "disintegrated" in the short distance inside the body as the back shot, or could have "exploded" or shattered without doing far, far more damage to the lungs and surrounding tissue than is in evidence.

7. I don't disagree at all with postulates that Oswald thought that Connally was the target, and I tend to believe that Oswald, if a shooter, only shot at Connally.

8. The "sniper's nest" in TSBD was like a movie set, perfectly styled to be as incriminating as possible. (This also is another giant unmistakable fingerprint of CIA, and it is precisely the modus operandi they used in Watergate, the hoax.)

9. Did I mention that confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product?

Ashton

My interpretation of these Zapruder frames is what seems obvious to me:

[1] JFK was shot in the back while behind or just emerging from being blocked by the sign. His arms flew up and his fists clenched in response to sudden intense pain in his back—his response constrained by the back brace he was wearing.

That's it. It isn't complicated. That is what I observe in these frames. What follows here is gratuitous opinion, which I may or may not renege on:

[2] I believe that the same shooter who shot him in the back then very soon blew off part of his head.

[3] I do not believe either of those shots came from Oswald.

Ashton

Very interesting, Ashton. I'm interested in all three of your provocative points, but rather than get side-tracked, I will remain on the first point -- the theme of this thread that you started.

You believe the Zapruder film frames #225 through #258 portray JFK getting shot in the back.

Yet we have already agreed that nobody ever found any bullet in JFK's throat -- so I must now ask about JFK's back.

What do you say about the fact that nobody ever reported a bullet in JFK's back? A hole -- yes -- but not a bullet.

Nor did the bullet emerge from JFK's chest, as a bullet emerged from Governor Connally's chest.

If (and only if) JFK was shot in the back in those Zapruder frames -- what happened to that bullet?

Paul, there are already several threads in this forum about the back wound—including one linked to a number of times in this very thread—and I believe I'm going to beg your indulgence to allow me not to take that question up here. I may well take it up over in that other thread, but I'm under considerable deadline pressure, so I'm sorry to say that it may not be any time very soon. The matter requires a good deal of analysis that I'm simply not able to take on right now.

To answer what happened to the JFK back-wound bullet is not required to prove conclusively that no bullet or "missile" of any description possibly could have made the hole in JFK's throat. All physical evidence says that is impossible.

(Except, of course, for those who believe in the "magic bullet," CE #399. Then again, maybe CE #399 could have been the JFK back-wound bullet... )

Ashton

I heard through the grapevine that the guy who started this thread is writing a book about this "no shot in the throat" theory that he says is "factual."

<Snort!> I hate to break it to you, but that ain't a grapevine you got stuck in your ear.

Ashton

This is what happens when you're hit in the back with a 95 mile an hour fastball: back arched, head snaps back, hands go to the back.

You know: it's a damned shame that John Connally wasn't more of a baseball fan. Then he would have known how to react more properly when he got shot in the back.

Ashton

Let us now say, Ashton, that you are correct -- what then? WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY SEEING IN THESE FRAMES OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM? How do you interpret these frames, Ashton?

Well, to me, Paul, it isn't about me being correct or not; it's about having the correct facts.

My interpretation of these Zapruder frames is what seems obvious to me: JFK was shot in the back while behind or just emerging from being blocked by the sign.

His arms flew up and his fists clenched in response to sudden intense pain in his back—his response constrained by the back brace he was wearing.

That's it. It isn't complicated. That is what I observe in these frames. What follows here is gratuitous opinion, which I may or may not renege on:

I believe that the same shooter who shot him in the back then very soon blew off part of his head.

I do not believe either of those shots came from Oswald.

Ashton

I am reposting my last anim, above, showing the positions of JFK's hands (and tie and left coat lapel) in the Zapruder film after he was shot in the back—but this is a RETOUCHED version only to REMOVE BLACK FILM ARTIFACTS from the area of his HANDS ONLY.

Let me state that again clearly: I have RETOUCHED this anim, but ONLY to remove BLACK FILM ARTIFACTS/DIRT FROM THE AREAS OF JFK'S HANDS. This was done ONLY to these frames of the film: Zapruder 232, 233, 238, 255, and 256.

The reason I did it is because the black specks give the OPTICAL ILLUSION of FALSE CONTOURS to his hands. This is exactly what gave rise to the nutty notion that he was cupping his right hand in front of his mouth trying to "cough up a bullet." (Always a gentleman, covering his mouth, don'tcha know, even when just having been shot in the back.)

None of the true shadows in the film are as black as the black specks, so it was relatively easy, using the tools of Photoshop correctly, to identify them and retouch them out. NO RETOUCHING has been done to this other than to REMOVE THE BLACK FILM SPECKS and ONLY THOSE ON HIS HANDS WHICH GAVE THE OPTICAL ILLUSION OF FALSE CONTOURS. With this done, the spasmodically clenched fists show the correct continuity of motion.

Ashton Gray

All perfectly good points, Paul, and thanks for your reasoned analysis. There are several points I'd like to make in response:

1. A larger purpose Specter may have had in relation to the throat wound—and to my mind likely did have—was to prejudice the record with the presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, so therefore had to have been either an entry or exit wound made by a bullet.

2. If one reasonably rejects Specter's moronic "magic bullet" theory to account for the wound in the throat, yet stays with the prejudiced presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, one is left staring at the necessity of an even more magic bullet, because all other evidence makes it categorically impossible for any bullet to have caused the hole in JFK's throat.

3. This trick of prejudicing all investigation and questioning using a false primary premise is the exact modus operandi used by the CIA in pulling off the Watergate hoax, as I have covered exhaustively in my book. Every investigator and trier of fact and writer on that subject began with the false belief that a "first break-in" had occurred at the DNC headquarters, and so none ever was able to make sense out of the endless contradictions. That is the exact same operation in play here: a prior foregone conclusion that a bullet, and only a bullet, could have made the hole in JFK's throat. That set up and has created ALL of the contradictions in evidence and testimony concerning the hole. As I say in my book, confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

4. If the wound had been clearly and unequivocally a bullet wound, and if the wound had not been destroyed (intentionally, I believe) in terms of forensic purposes by the tracheotomy, no amount of browbeating by Specter would have shaken any competent medical personnel off of stating with certainty that it was a bullet wound, and that it was either an entrance or exit wound. All medical personnel waffled. Dr. Malcolm Perry went so far as to say, "...if this occurred as a result of a missile... ."

5. No projectile has ever been in evidence that could have caused that wound.

6. Jean Hugard said sagely: "The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic."

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a masterpiece of misdirection. The unquestioned, uninspected, prejudiced belief that a bullet or projectile made the hole that was first seen upon opening JFK's shirt in the trauma room had been made by a bullet is perhaps the ultimate ever in misdirection, and leads only to endless confusion and contradiction.

Confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

Ashton Gray

...I do agree with you that we never had any conclusive material evidence of a frontal throat shooting, except the fact that JFK seems to be clutching his throat in the Zapruder film, after JFK's image emerges from behind the road sign there on Elm Street. (Also there was some contradictory Parkland testimony.)

That led Jim Garrison and many others to presume a frontal shot into the throat -- to correspond with the perception of a frontal shot to the right temple, as many claim to perceive in the Zapruder film.

So -- it was a convenience, rather than a perception -- to insist upon a frontal shot into the throat.

Why does JFK apparently clutch his throat? I still need more evidence.

Paul, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I cannot comprehend, at all, how or why anyone can possibly interpret JFK's actions when he emerges from behind the sign as "clutching his throat." He doesn't move his hands anywhere near his throat. He doesn't put his hands anywhere near his tie—or his lapel (no matter how many times reading-challenged bozos might gibber on about it).

This claim that he grabs at his throat or his tie or any part of his clothing around his neck is nothing more than an urban legend—and a pretty ridiculous one, at that. A simple, honest, unbiased, unprejudiced LOOK will tell anyone that. At all relevant times, JFK's hands clench into fists, and his arms lift suddenly, spasmodically, at the shoulders, which puts BOTH HANDS UP IN FRONT OF HIS FACE, WITH THE LEFT HAND OUT IN FRONT OF HIS RIGHT HAND.

I have now further edited my tie/lapel animation to outline the hands, and it proves beyond any shade of doubt that he DOES NOT clutch at his throat:

It is utterly clear and inarguable that his RIGHT HAND flies up, spasmodically, in front of his face, and that HIS LEFT HAND AT ALL TIMES IS OUT IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT HAND. Then his right hand sinks down toward his chest (as Jackie takes hold of his left arm), and with his left hand he appears to be pointing—BUT NOT TO HIS THROAT! His left hand is beyond his midline to his RIGHT SIDE, so he has to be pointing down toward his chest on the right side (if he is consciously pointing at all—see below).

It is IMPOSSIBLE that he clutches at or grabs at his throat WHEN BOTH HANDS ARE OUT IN FRONT OF THE MOUTH/NOSE AREA OF HIS FACE. It is ridiculous. The closest his hands come to his throat can't be closer than about 8 inches, or more like 10 inches. Put your own fists out in front of your face, with your elbows raised up to shoulder level, and your head pulled down in toward your chest. You''ll find that it's nonsense that you'd be in that position if "clutching at your throat."

Everything about his sudden reaction is NOT INCONSISTENT with his having just been shot in the back. The assertion by a few blowhards that this cannot possibly be the reaction of a man just shot in the back is patently absurd to me, and without foundation. The man was bound up in a corset-like back brace. This reaction is probably about all his body could manage in reaction to a sudden powerful impact in the back—and I say "his body" advisedly, because it is ridiculous to assume that in those few traumatic seconds or parts of seconds, anything like analytical motor control was in play. By the time the "pointing" motion happens, perhaps some analytical thought and control was behind it, but even that could be an autonomic manifestation. His left forefinger also straightens in a "pointing" gesture very early in the sequence, at Zapruder 228, but that doesn't mean he was consciously "pointing" then.

This entire manic, breathless urban legend apparently is based on nothing more than Mamie Myopic and Nellie Nearsighted having spouted off verbally that they just KNOW that JFK had "clutched at his throat" in those few brief seconds of unprecedented emergency, so half the world (well, at least the half that can't see very well) has been running around in the clutch (pun intended) of that hypnotic command ever since—never bothering to LOOK at the clear, unequivocal visual EVIDENCE that proves conclusively that he did NOT "clutch at his throat" or "grab his tie" or (the best one ever) "try to cough up a bullet."

"He clutched at his throat!" "He clutched at his throat!" "He clutched at his throat!"

"The sky is falling!" "The sky is falling!" "The sky is falling!"

Ashton Gray

Actually, several witnesses -- including Dr. Charles Carrico -- said they initially considered that the JFK neck wound was an entry wound, because it was so small and round, and because an exit wound is almost always the sloppy larger wound, while the entry wound is usually small and round.

HOWEVER - attorney Arlen Specter would browbeat all of the Parkland Hospital witnesses who suggested this, until they changed their story to "Undecided."

It was important to Specter, who was the Great Defender of the Lone Nut theory and its Single Bullet Theory component.

For Specter, JFK's neck wound had to be an exit wound. For Specter, the bullet had to enter JFK's back, exit JFK's throat, enter Governor Connally's back, shattering a rib, exit Connally's chest, enter, shatter and exit Connally's right wrist, and finally graze Connally's left thigh.

And then emerge from all this carnage virtually intact as CE 399.

Specter could not budge from that position without implying a fourth bullet and so a second shooter. He knew this. Everybody knew this. So Specter would browbeat any Parkland Hospital witness -- up to and including Dr. Malcom Perry -- until they admitted that it was at least hypothetically POSSIBLE that one bullet could do all that.

This is a key feature of the Parkland Hospital testimony.

All perfectly good points, Paul, and thanks for your reasoned analysis. There are several points I'd like to make in response:

1. A larger purpose Specter may have had in relation to the throat wound—and to my mind likely did have—was to prejudice the record with the presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, so therefore had to have been either an entry or exit wound made by a bullet.

2. If one reasonably rejects Specter's moronic "magic bullet" theory to account for the wound in the throat, yet stays with the prejudiced presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, one is left staring at the necessity of an even more magic bullet, because all other evidence makes it categorically impossible for any bullet to have caused the hole in JFK's throat.

3. This trick of prejudicing all investigation and questioning using a false primary premise is the exact modus operandi used by the CIA in pulling off the Watergate hoax, as I have covered exhaustively in my book. Every investigator and trier of fact and writer on that subject began with the false belief that a "first break-in" had occurred at the DNC headquarters, and so none ever was able to make sense out of the endless contradictions. That is the exact same operation in play here: a prior foregone conclusion that a bullet, and only a bullet, could have made the hole in JFK's throat. That set up and has created ALL of the contradictions in evidence and testimony concerning the hole. As I say in my book, confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

4. If the wound had been clearly and unequivocally a bullet wound, and if the wound had not been destroyed (intentionally, I believe) in terms of forensic purposes by the tracheotomy, no amount of browbeating by Specter would have shaken any competent medical personnel off of stating with certainty that it was a bullet wound, and that it was either an entrance or exit wound. All medical personnel waffled. Dr. Malcolm Perry went so far as to say, "...if this occurred as a result of a missile... ."

5. No projectile has ever been in evidence that could have caused that wound.

6. Jean Hugard said sagely: "The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic."

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a masterpiece of misdirection. The unquestioned, uninspected, prejudiced belief that a bullet or projectile made the hole that was first seen upon opening JFK's shirt in the trauma room had been made by a bullet is perhaps the ultimate ever in misdirection, and leads only to endless confusion and contradiction.

Confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

Ashton Gray

How did the bullet get through JFK's tie knot? Or do you believe the throat wound was above the collar? Have you even read the medical proof I posted on the back wound thread that shows the throat wound was below the top of the collar?

Would you be thinking of holding your breath if your inability to breathe came as a complete surprise to you?

Have you read Perry's medical report written on the day of the assassination? Or the medical reports of the other doctors? Here is the link:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

...The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery.

NO, Carrico was NOT the first physician to see JFK in the trauma room. It was JFK's personal physician, George G. Burkley, while Carrico was still across the hall with Connally. This is proven conclusively in the record.

Why don't you try getting your facts straight, and stop propagating wrong information? Or is that what you intend to do?

How could Carrico have seen the throat wound unless it was above the collar?

What a perfectly absurd question. It bespeaks a profound ignorance of the most fundamental relevant facts:

DR. CARRICO: After I had opened his shirt and coat, I proceeded with the examination and the nurses removed his clothing as is the usual procedure.

New to this? Or just very good at seeding the record with disinformation?

How could Henchliffe have seen a wound that wasn't above the collar?

What part of Carrico's statement that "the nurses removed his clothing" are you having trouble with? Are there too many big words?

Ashton

At no time did JFK "grab" or "clutch" his throat. This has been proven over and over, and to try to claim his hands were doing so is a non-starter.

I accurately described what the film clearly shows -- he held his hands in front of his throat and with his left forefinger grabbed at his tie

What tripe. No, he did NOT grab at his tie at any time. You can sit here and recite "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" 200 times, too, but it will still be jejune fantasy, not fact, no matter how many times you spout it. The difference is that at least might entertain some children, not poison the groundwater of human knowledge.

You've never even bothered to notice that JFK HAD HIS COAT BUTTONED IN THE LIMOUSINE:

That caused his COAT LAPELS to billow out when he reacted to being shot in the back. You, though, need to fantasize that his left lapel is his TIE, to feed your quasi-religious conviction that he was shot in the throat, no matter how many laws of physics prove conclusively that it is IMPOSSIBLE. You may as well claim that he was clutching at a Burning Bush, and his tie turned into a serpent that bit him. It would make as much sense as this drivel about him grabbing at his tie.

In this image sequence I have ROUGHLY outlined his tie, when visible, in bright green, and his left lapel edge in magenta. It shows with shudderingly conclusive proof that his hands never go ANYWHERE NEAR HIS TIE OR HIS THROAT:

His body is turned slightly to his right when he is shot in the back. His hands go up almost IMMEDIATELY in FRONT OF HIS FACE, and HIS TIE REMAINS ON HIS CHEST AT ALL TIMES, where gravity likes it, as his torso rotates to a more forward-facing position after he is shot IN THE BACK.

Now live in whatever fairy-tale fantasy world brings you comfort.

Ashton

I am re-posting this from the first page of this thread, which I posted almost nine years ago, on 21 October 2007, because it is every bit as valid today as it was the day I posted it, and there never has been any other such non-biased analysis of relevant medical testimony concerning the wound in JFK's throat. Later in this post, I'm going to amend my original spreadsheets to make them even more valid and correct than they were before, but for now, here is the original post that contained them:

"But the Parkland doctors said..."

Well, what did they say about the wound to the throat? They didn't say much of anything that a same-size group of longshoremen or checkout girls couldn't have said about it, with just as much contradiction of each other, but scarcely more.

What they didn't say is the hyperinflated mythology that rages like a fire-and-brimstone tent revival in the "research community," where Garrison-Book thumpin' Front-Shooter Faithful will swear on the Holy Gun-Totin' Ghost(s) that every medical personnel in Parkland 'lowed that there was a bullet hole in the throat, and that it was an entrance wound, so JFK absolutely had to have been shot from the front.

Well, while the Front-Shooters all hold hands and sing "I shall not be, I shall not be moved," while they steadfastly refuse the evidence of their own eyes and stare fixedly away from the heathenistic animations above, let's you and me just go all-out heathen and heretic, and consult the actual sworn testimony of these sainted Parkland personnel to find out what in fact came out of their mouths—summarized and counted rather clinically and dispassionately here in this summary of sworn testimony about the celebrated lower-throat stigmata:



If you're having any trouble with that image immediately above, you can access it through these links as:

a direct browswer link to the image, or,

a PDF file of the same chart, or,

a web page with the chart as an html table, or,

even download it to your default download location as a Microsoft Excel file.

Assuming you have the chart in front of you in some form, it can be seen that out of 12 Parkland Hospital personnel who testified under oath about the throat wound—10 doctors and 2 nurses—9 were ambiguous about or flat out didn't know whether the wound was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound. In fact, fully half of the personnel at issue, 6 of them, said under oath that they never saw the throat (neck) wound at all, or saw the area only after Dr. Malcolm Perry had electively sliced a gaping tracheotomy gash right through the center of it—conveniently eradicating all evidence of the wound, however it had been made.

This edited chart below reflects, then, the only actual eyewitnesses of record—except now I've moved the count for Dr. Ronald Jones from the EXIT WOUND column to the ENTRANCE WOUND column as a result of a discussion with someone in this forum that took place while this article was in progress—not because Jones actually made a definitive declatory statement that it was an entrance wound, but because his own ambiguous statements could be interpreted either way, and I was happy to concede the benefit of the doubt:



So of the six actual eyewitnesses, half said it could have been either an entrance or an exit wound, one said he thought it was an exit wound, and two people in the entire world who claim they saw the wound—including the ambivalent Jones—said they thought it was a bullet entrance wound.

Two people. Two. In the entire world. Two.

(I probably should be more politic than to mention that one of those two—Dr. Ronald Jones—lied under oath about steroids that were administered to Kennedy in Trauma Room One in order to hide that fact that JFK's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, had been in the room and supplied the steroids, because it's a very inconvenient time for Burkley to have been there. But why should I start being politic now?)

The utterly simple, if lamentable and painful (to some), truth that explains in full the conflicting opinions and assertions about whether it was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound is that it was not a bullet wound at all.

Now, there's a good deal more that could be said about all this, and some of it I have said before, and some of it I could further say, but being a heathen and a heretic is only a part-time position and doesn't pay well at all, so for the moment I believe I will give this over to the Front-Shot Faithful and let the ghost-hunt begin. Again.

Ashton Gray

At the time I created these spreadsheets I had made bend-over-backwards good-faith concessions about the waffling of both Dr. Ronald Jones and Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, but after watching others twist and maul the testimony—for 51 pages—to prop up their own limp scarecrows of "theory," I'm not feeling anywhere near as generous. As a result I have revised the spreadsheets, and have marked the flip-flopping ambiguity and evasive equivocation of Jones and Henchliffe for exactly what it is. My final analysis of the results is below. Here are the revised charts.

First is the relevant concise summary of the testimony about the throat wound from ALL medical personnel—even those who say that they never saw the wound directly. Their testimony on this matter is essentially worthless, but some people insist on dragging it into the arena anyway, so here it all is:

There is a total of 12 medical personnel who have given testimony about the wound. Eleven of them don't know or are uncertain whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound—OR WHETHER IT WAS A WOUND FROM A PROJECTILE AT ALL. (See more on this last statement below.)

Now here is an accounting of the testimony of medical personnel who say they actually SAW the throat wound before it was essentially obliterated by the tracheotomy. They are the only witnesses who actually matter in relation to the wound because they are the only actual WITNESSES to the wound, or so each says. There are only SIX MEDICAL PERSONNEL in the world who say they saw the throat wound, and here is an accounting of their testimony:

Out of SIX medical personnel in the entire world who ever saw the throat wound, FIVE of them don't know or are uncertain whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound—OR WHETHER IT WAS A WOUND FROM A PROJECTILE AT ALL. (See more on this below.)

You can count the contradictions and hedging for yourself.

Only ONE MEDICAL PERSON stated unequivocally that it was a wound from a projectile, and he said he thought it was an exit wound, NOT an entrance wound.

PREJUDICE OF THE OBSERVERS AND PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONING

Because gunshots unquestionably were fired in Dealey Plaza that day, ALL MEDICAL PERSONNEL WERE PREJUDICED TOWARD ANY WOUND IN THE THROAT HAVING BEEN EITHER AN ENTRY WOUND OR EXIT WOUND MADE BY A PROJECTILE.

All questioning of the medical personnel about this wound was AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES PREJUDICIAL, because it led with the PRESUMPTION that any such wound HAD TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY A PROJECTILE, so it always was the prejudicial choice: entry or exit?

It is a FALSE AND PREJUDICIAL PREMISE that the wound only could have been caused by a projectile fired into JFK's neck, so there never, at any time, was any NONPREJUDICIAL QUESTIONING about the throat wound.

The evidence demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED BY A PROJECTILE, and the ambiguity and uncertain of the medical personnel in testimony is FULLY CONSISTENT with the one inescapable fact:

There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat.

Ashton Gray

I'm posting these images again to make a statement that is pursuant to and consistent with my original posts in this thread, and with my title for this thread:

If you accept that an injury to JFK's trachea existed which ran from ANY tracheal ring to ANY OTHER tracheal ring, in ANY DIRECTION, up or down, then you have absolutely negated and nullified ANY POSSIBILITY of it having been caused by ANY frontal shot, of ANY description, to the throat. The angles make it categorically impossible.

Of course that is entirely and perfectly consistent with the clothing evidence, which alone proves conclusively that no projectile OF ANY DESCRIPTION possibly could have entered JFK's throat at the point where the tracheostomy was done without PENETRATING THE KNOT IN THE TIE, and it is beyond any faintest shade of doubt that NO PROJECTILE PENETRATED THE TIE.

Every last scrap of testimony and evidence militates toward only one possible rational conclusion, which is the title I gave to this thread: THERE WAS NO BULLET WOUND IN JOHN F. KENNEDY'S THROAT.

Ashton

Here is something to think about. The wound in JFK's throat was described as an almost perfectly round wound of 3-8 mm in diameter. Yet, Perry described the tear in the trachea as not being straight across the trachea. The wound he described was a downward ranging wound that began at the 2nd tracheal ring and left the trachea at the 3rd tracheal ring.

How could a bullet on an obvious downward trajectory make a nice round exit wound?

Skull and cervical vertebrae showing trachea with rings. Rings are counted down from the top.

What, no one has an answer to this question?

I see you're having discussions with yourself again, Robert.

A very plausible answer was given to this on the first page of this thread. Here it is again, done for you graphically this time as a learning aid:

Elementary, my dear Notson.

Ashton

Nice try. However, the slope was the opposite of what you are portraying.

You are so disappointingly predictable, Robert. It is lost on you that it is entirely immaterial to the plausibility of the needle making the wound which direction it traveled—which is why I did it both ways to begin with, waiting, tapping my fingers on the desk, for your knee to jerk. Thank you for the predictable opportunity to post the other:

What is equally lost on you is that it wouldn't matter one whit whether it went in at that angle, or at this angle:

It is PLAUSIBLE that such a device could account for the tear in the trachea AS DESCRIBED.

It is also PLAUSIBLE that such a device could account for a wound in the anterior neck/throat AS DESCRIBED.

If you want to sit here and nitpick the practical realities of use of Photoshop to demonstrate such PLAUSIBILITY, entertain yourself until the end of time.

Ashton

Here is something to think about. The wound in JFK's throat was described as an almost perfectly round wound of 3-8 mm in diameter. Yet, Perry described the tear in the trachea as not being straight across the trachea. The wound he described was a downward ranging wound that began at the 2nd tracheal ring and left the trachea at the 3rd tracheal ring.

How could a bullet on an obvious downward trajectory make a nice round exit wound?

Skull and cervical vertebrae showing trachea with rings. Rings are counted down from the top.

What, no one has an answer to this question?

I see you're having discussions with yourself again, Robert.

A very plausible answer was given to this on the first page of this thread. Here it is again, done for you graphically this time as a learning aid:

Elementary, my dear Notson.

Ashton

LOL Well, that sure stopped everyone in their tracks.

“Confidence is the prize given to the mediocre”

—Robert Hughes

Sadly, Robert, the only person you stopped in his tracks is you. Your sly, if insipid, intimation that the nick possibly was otherwise than in the knot of the tie not only argues in a lonely weak voice against the windstorm of evidence in the record, but—more sadly still—argues against your own claims of the nick being in the knot of the tie. Would you like me to trot each one out for you here? I don't wish to embarrass you, but if you insist, I will oblige.

Perhaps the saddest of all is that you think nobody here has anything better to do but to monitor and respond within minutes to your latest flip-flop.

You've stopped nothing but yourself. But very well done, indeed, on that.

Ashton

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is a sample of the tie, and the reason Ashton and Sandy are completely out to lunch about the tie knot:

It's a damned shame that the National Archives only shows FIVE icons across the tie in the area where the nick was made in the knot, Robert. The only explanation I can think of is that some evildoer there snipped off a whole line of the icons before taking this photo—because if they didn't, your entire "theory" about the knot and the nick is based solely on an inability to know the difference between five and six.

Here's a tip: count the number of icons in a horizontal row there, and use the fingers of one hand to do it. If you get to "six" on one hand, well...

Sandy, you won't have to bother trying to post a zoomed in closeup of that low-res, pixelated image. The image I originally posted of JFK at Love Field is high enough resolution and has all the information needed for those who have eyes to see and even a modest modicum of intelligence—and who aren't blinded by their own biases. Below is that image blown up to 800 percent. It has not been retouched in any way. The levels have been adjusted simply to make features more prominent and easily visible.

There clearly, inarguably, OBVIOUSLY is a curved horizontal EDGE OF THE TIE KNOT AT THE TOP, which I have indicated by making an animated GIF with a white line, so that perhaps even those who have gone stone cold blind from living in a fantasy "theory" for too long might be able to find with both hands. Here it is:

It should be obvious even to the most prejudiced and obtuse (but I repeat myself) that the two icons ABOVE that obvious line of separation CANNOT POSSIBLY be a continuation of either vertical line of five icons BELOW that separation. They are nowhere near the same size, nor aligned with those below, nor even GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION!

Those with a disinformation agenda can whine about it and twist the facts all they want, and throw as many tantrums as they want. Those who want the truth merely have to LOOK.

Ashton

Robert,

I believe that Kennedy's knot is a "four-in-hand" knot, not a Windsor. The Windsor requires more wraps and thus is a wider knot. The four-in-hand knot is slender, which seems to be the case with Kennedy's knot.

It is. I covered all that on the first page of this thread. By the way, Sandy: I've found that it's pointless trying to have anything resembling a rational discussion with people who don't mind altering facts—or just making them up—to fit their pet theories. Don't let me stop you from trying, though...

I use the four-in-hand myself. I checked and the front can easily slide down like Kennedy's appears to in the photo.

Yes, it certainly can, which I covered on the first page of this thread.

Ashton

I'm honored to have been asked to appear on Thursday night, 23 June 2016, as a guest on the late-night talk show "Coast to Coast AM," with host George Noory, to discuss my recently released book Watergate: The Hoax. It will be a two-hour interview beginning at 10 p.m. Pacific time. In the Eastern time zone, that's 1 a.m. on Friday, 24 June.

Here is a link to a page announcing the show at the Chalet Reports site:

http://www.chaletbooks.com/chaletreports/?p=665

I hope you'll tune in.

Ashton

I hope you will post further excerpts. Perhaps there were multiple reasons the CIA had to take Nixon out of office.

I agree that he did not authorize the June 17 break in but he certainly advanced the cover up.

Great to see you around these parts again, Dawn. Yes, I will post further excerpts pretty soon. I've just been slammed in the wake of the book's release, and had to take a bit of a sabbatical. It was 20 years of hard road.

And, yes, Nixon of course advanced the cover-up. He had no choice. He had been adroitly framed, and he was completely stupid not only about the fact that he had been framed, but about how or why. Even the White House tapes demonstrate that.

The real irony is that he lost the office—and America lost the office at the same time—because of a cover-up of the real cover-up. "Watergate" itself was a cover-up of something far filthier than what the perps "confessed" to. Their "confessions" were scripted lies—and they couldn't even get the script right.

Ashton

I'm going to do everything I can to make myself available for questions about my book Watergate: The Hoax, which was released yesterday, 28 May 2016. Those familiar with Watergate will know the significance of 28 May as an anniversary of an event that supposedly happened 44 years ago on that date—but that never took place at all. That was the hoax.

I will only answer questions asked by people who have actually read the book. I'm sorry, but post-publication demands make it impossible for me to do otherwise. Also, I will only answer questions going to the actual content of the book. I would appreciate it if you would direct all questions or discussion about the book to me in this thread, so I can follow it with notifications to me when a new post occurs.

Ashton

I'm very pleased to report that my book Watergate: The Hoax has been released and currently is available on Amazon, iBooks, and Barnes & Noble. The trade paperback version will be available on Amazon within a matter of days.

Here is an excerpt from it, Chapter 20, "The Nixon Problem":

You don’t have Nixon to kick around any more.

Ashton - what's your take on Daniel Ellsberg? What does 'amoral member of the "intelligence" cult' mean?

Paul, I'm very sorry to be so tardy in replying. My book Watergate: The Hoax covers Ellsberg's role in detail, with new revelations never seen before. It also proves beyond any slightest doubt that his psychiatrist, Fielding, was in on the alleged "break-in" at his office, which was nothing but a dog-and-pony show to give Ellsberg a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

I'm very pleased to report that the book was released yesterday, and is now available at Amazon, iBooks, and Barnes & Noble. The trade paperback version will be available at Amazon in a matter of days.

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of the CIA. My guess is they would puke.

I couldn't agree more.

Ashton