Ashton Gray

With Castro and his motley band safely restored to Cuban soil in December 1956, CIA money soon flooded in. Between “October or November 1957 and the middle of 1958, the CIA delivered no less than fifty thousand dollars to a half-dozen or more key members of the 26th July Movement in Santiago.” The funds were “handled by Robert D. Wiecha, a CIA case officer …who served in Santiago from September 1957 to June 1959.” In mid-October 1958, a senior figure within the 26th July Movement wrote to Castro detailing the extent of the CIA support in the US Embassy in Havana, and quality of the information that support gave: “I have been in contact with people close to the embassy. These contacts have told me that people who are on our side – but who do not appear to – have had conversations with the ambassador himself. I think this is the best possible, since we are kept up-to-date about everything happening there and of all the possible U.S. plans…”

This period is consistent with Tosh Plumlee's claims of flying arms in to Castro's revolutionaries.

And as predictable as four o'clock, evidence rises to the surface of CIA playing both sides of the game.

[DISCLAIMER: Any apparent agreement between the author of this comment and the originator of this topic is purely coincidental. Void where prohibited. Employees and their families, agents, beneficiaries and assigns are ineligible. No animals were harmed in the making of this comment or this thread.]

Ashton Gray

What has been accomplished here is that the original frame 2 is gone completely, replaced with a blurred version of frame 1 (it could even be slightly panned depending on available frame space). The original frame 4 is moved one frame later, with a blurred version of itself replacing it. I've removed the data from frame 2, yet managed to add time to the film. The question is -- how possible is it using optical technology to intentionally create motion blur?

I can't respond narrowly to the exact question, and the information I have that may or may not have relevance is from the mid-late 1970s, but I worked with a retoucher in L.A. who for some projects would have very large transparencies made from any original (I believe Ektachrome—8x10 and bigger) and retouch directly on those with transparent dyes. John Dolva's blur creation process in this thread reminded me of it.

It seems that such large transparencies could be made from film frames, even introducing blur in an enlarger, retouched, and possibly overlaid to create a variety of effects if re-shot one frame at a time as film on a pin-registered light table.

At one shop where I worked we did very elaborate photo composites for movie posters by getting color prints made of the various elements (backgrounds, heads, bodies, buildings, whatever), carefully cutting them out and assembling them any way we saw fit, having a photo lab make a large continuous print—or, more rarely, transparency, depending—from that assemblage, then sending it out to a retoucher to eliminate the seams. This was business as usual.

All of these techniques might have some application to methods of fudging, but each would introduce generational loss and color shifts, so I think every frame, fudged or unfudged, would have to be subjected to the same process to create the "new, improved" version of a film for continuity.

Ashton

I have a difficult time believing that the entire Parkland ER staff was in on the conspiracy

I hope so. That would be more ludicrous than the idea he could have been shot in the indicated location without the projectile going through the shirt, tie, or both.

What I've posited as a possibility could have been accomplished by one or two people.

but two things have always puzzled me greatly: If there was an entry wound to the throat where is the corresponding exit wound?

But there is no entrance wound for which it could be an exit wound, and there is no exit wound that could account for it being an entrance wound, and the area where it is claimed to have been was covered by clothing that shows no bullet hole.

It was not a bullet wound. And 43+ years of wishing and hoping and theorizing still haven't made it a bullet wound, nor will another 43+ years of such agonizing and hand-wringing.

And with the president's head blown apart, he was clearly DOA, so why on earth was ANY surgery performed on the throat?

Emergency room doctors and personnel have reported that there were some vital signs, even though one or more of the doctors said his erratic breathing was that of someone who was terminal. Still, he was not pronounced DOA and efforts were made to save him without anyone investigating closely the extent of his head damage.

If—and of course this is the central question—the assassination was in fact the product of conspiracy, and if the conspirators were determined that JFK was not going to leave Dallas alive, the obvious and most likely place to insinuate a "final solution" backup to any possibility of failure would be the hospital where he would be taken if wounded.

That, of course, would require knowing in advance where he would be taken, and knowing ER procedures there.

In my reading on this, it has captured my attention that John Connally was removed from the limo first, and that Dr. Carrico initially was with Connally. "Within two minutes" of the arrival of Kennedy, nurse Henchliffe left to go get blood so was away.

Ashton

Hey Ashton, great images and theory. Considering they could have done a better job with a chainsaw, going by the pictures we have all seen, its obvious it was done to hide something.

Yes, it is obvious.

I haven't reached to formal or comprehensive theory. I've eliminated what clearly, to me, is the impossible in the matter of the reported throat wound, and only speculated about the few possibilities that are left.

Ashton

I don't think anyone there in the ER could have gotten away with "cutting his throat", with all of the people present.

Could his throat have been cut accidentally, as the medical personnel scrambled to get his shirt and tie loosened for the tracheotomy? Most people would claim that he was hit in the throat from the front, solely because he raises his hands upward at around frame 224 of the Zapruder film. But lone gunman proponent Dr. John Lattimer pointed out an an automatic neuromuscular reaction to spinal trauma termed "Thorburns Position," in which the victim involuntarily raises his arms and shoulders upward in reaction to the spinal trauma. If you look closely at the Z film, Kennedy really doesn't seem to be clutching at his throat, but seems to have raised his balled fists up in a defensive posture. Could there be something to the "Thorburns Position" explanation after all?

My current opinion is that the reaction you're describing, or something akin to it, likely has a great deal to do with what I see in the Zapruder film after JFK emerges from behind the Stemmons sign. At no time does he actually clutch at his throat. In fact, a careful and impartial study of the Zapruder film from the Stemmons sign to the head shot finds JFK pointing down to his chest around the time the limo passes the lamp post. Although he clearly is gripped in some sort of spasm, still, his right hand lowers toward his chest and his left forefinger is seen pointing down to his chest. With whatever brief thought processes there was time for, he might even have mistaken the radiating shock of the impact for a heart attack.

Although I can't say for certain what reaction one would expect from a person who had been shot in the throat, compromising his breathing, I've never thought it would be what is depicted in the Zapruder film. This could wander so far into speculation that I won't bother, except to say I would expect something much more extreme in someone who still had faculties and any motor control.

In comparison, the reaction that is seen does not seem at all inconsistent, to me, for a reaction to a nonfatal gunshot wound to the back.

As for any idea that the nicks in the collar and tie were from a projectile, there isn't even a straw to clutch at.

The only way a small, neat 4-7 mm puncture wound could have been made in the throat at the location of the so-called tracheotomy butchery is by a human hand with an instrument that would make just such a puncture wound. And it would not be by just any human hand: it would be one that would know just where the tracheotomy cut would be made to obscure the work.

Ashton

Submitted for your consideration, here are two photos of John F. Kennedy at Love Field in Dallas, Texas on the morning of 22 November 1963, the day he was murdered. Note the ride of his shirt collar and tie:

In the animation below, the photo of the tracheotomy (sometimes "tracheostomy") opening—which destroyed all the evidence of a reported throat wound—is overlaid with the same shirt and tie from the black-and-white photo above. The clothing has been adjusted to overlay it on the reclining body in the best approximation of the photos above that could be attained. The suit jacket has been made black only because the play of shadows on the jacket in the above image made the overlay confusing to the eye, and the jacket is largely irrelevant to what is being demonstrated:

It is impossible that any projectile fired from a gun could have penetrated John F. Kennedy's throat at the location indicated by the tracheotomy opening, either going or coming, without having penetrated the shirt, the tie, or both.

Neither happened.

Ashton Gray

There is no evidence that any projectile passed through John F. Kennedy's tie, or through his shirt collar.

There are cut mark "nicks" in the shirt collar and the tie. These have been attributed to marks of scalpels used to cut John F. Kennedy's clothes off of him. (Speaking just personally, I recommend that you don't think about that "explanation" of such nicks for very long.)

Ashton Gray

It's extremely curious to me that purported proponents of a conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy are yet adament about excluding any and all personnel present at Parkland Hospital, whether employed by the hospital or otherwise, at and around the time that Kennedy was taken there.

It there were, in fact, a conspiracy, and if the planned site for a shooting was Dealey Plaza (with a possible back-up plan at the Trade Mart), then these must have been very confident conspirators indeed if they had no insurance installed at the very hospital where the President would be taken in the event of such a premeditated shooting.

Ashton Gray

If the small throat wound was not a bullet wound, but a wound administered by person or persons unknown at Parkland Hospital between the time John F. Kennedy was removed from the limo and the time that Malcolm Perry destroyed all evidence forever, then all the endless miles of argument over whether it was an entrance or an exit wound made by a bullet or other projectile fired from a gun are are the circular tracks of a hopelessly infinite discussion that goes perfectly nowhere, ever, but merry-go-rounds endlessly in the same place.

This would derived solely to the benefit of any co-conspirators, and any disinformation agents assigned to keep that exact controversy in suspension and foment infinitely.

Ashton Gray

No one has considered the possibility that the small throat wound was administered at Parkland Hospital between the time that Kennedy arrived there and Malcolm Perry destroyed the evidence forever.

John F. Kennedy was not going to leave Dallas, Texas alive.

Ashton Gray

The first composite shifts the contents of all following frames to the right.

The second composite shifts the following frames further to the right.

The blue timing splice brings the frames following it back into the mask frame area.

That is startling, John, and an extraordinary deductive find. Is there any way to compute what area of the scene someone apparently went to a great deal of trouble to nudge out of frame?

Ashton

A good line of sight, but he mistakenly had the wide angle lens in action. There's a tree right rear of Nix and I think maybe he was standing about there.

Okay. It's the same tree. Based on wider angle I put the camera arbitrarily at 8' elevation at the location where Don has Bronson, on that riser of the south peristyle/reflecting pool area behind Nix, and indeed the tree can get in the frame with a wider angle. Of course this is all very rough, and working with two-dimensional illustrated "trees" I can't control at all where the "foliage" and "limbs" fall, but here is what you described (based loosely on Don's plat location) with shadows turned on (but ignore the big monolithic shadow across the sky—too much to explain):

Sorry, mate; sorry; sorry. As you were. Carry on.

Ashton

In knowing the sync and frame rate a lot of measurements like ditstance travelled over a time period, given the fixed points in the background, and working out where he stood can confirm the Z313 location and hence the correc/incorrect placement of M42 as headshot.

On the "working out where he stood" issue of the Bronson film: this has nagged me for a while, and you just had to bring it up, di'n't you? I have ridiculously little time today (yes, on a holiday) but I took a few minutes to set the following up, and really, once I went at it, it didn't take long at all to convince me that the film was made from as far back as a window in the southwest turret of "Old Red."

Well, I couldn't spend long at all trying to finesse it all and get an "exact" duplicate, but the tree foliage in the left side of the frame makes it so any ballpark estimate tells the story:

There is no other tree (1963 vintage) that I can find that possibly can qualify other than the one just to the north of the south peristyle.

That shot above roughly approximates, at least, the Bronson framing.

Here it is from the infield, at roughly the elevation of the top of the pergola (I was winging, not measuring, but still...):

That window where the arrow points is approximately the elevation I had the camera set to in the previous image, so it all seems to snap into line. Of course it possibly could have been shot from as far back as the new courthouse with a longer lens, but I tend to doubt it, and don't have time to screw around with it to find out if there's actually any angle from there between Old Red and the tree. (It doesn't look like there is to me.)

I have no idea what monkey wrench this might throw into the works, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

Ashton

Early statements:

"This was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium, or skull, in this area. ...a fairly large wound on the

right side

of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound."

Later statements:

"We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound. We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. ...We saw a large hole on the

right side

of his head.

'I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there.'

It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken."

Well, if he stated "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there.", then where the hell was it, if it hadn't been blown out?

Since he goes on immediately to say "It was parietal bone," it seemed clear in context to me that he was saying that the bone that was there, the bone they saw, was parietal, but not occipital. Please interpret it any way you like.

Are you familiar with human anatomy and the medical terminology used to describe it, at all?

And, if you think for one moment that those doctors were NOT subjected to any undue duress to change or alter their initial statements, in order that they might somehow concur with what the WCR was attempting to conclude, then you're just pissing in the wind, Mister!

Well, Dr. Carrico's statements about occipital (posterior, back of skull) bone were the ones made to the Warren Commission.

The later statements about right-side parietal were made in the 1990s.

I'm not sure whose point you're trying to make—yours or mine. Are you?

Ashton

Bill all that comes of those sort of comments are disruption. Can't we just stay on track here for a while. Start an other topic for that. Please.

John,

If necessary and it's wanted, I can and will set up a separate forum where such topic sabotage isn't condoned and actively defended so you, Frank Agbat, and any mature and responsible researchers making actual contributions can conduct your collaborations in a safe environment completely free of such pitiable nonsense, then export it wherever you feel it should go. Let me know if and when it gets to that point.

Ashton

It appears to me that you chose to address an astounding sweeping generality with one of your own.

Well, yeah.

I do, though, attempt to avoid them unless forced to fight fire with fire—and unless I can back it up.

So let me briefly provide a pointer to one very typical and blatant example that proves the rule: The "Pentagon Papers" leak was a CIA op. There, the CIA pretended to be following "presidential orders" (that didn't come from the president at all, but from "the White House") in providing Hunt and Liddy with "disguises" (that didn't disguise them), safe houses, a camera, etc.

In fact, as I've very thoroughly documented, CIA was setting up their own operatives, Hunt and Liddy, to fly to California and pose in front of psychiatrist Lewis J. Fielding's office for the sole purpose of later providing a Get Out of Jail Free card for their other operative, Daniel Ellsberg.

And as is further documented in the article Helms Directed CIA to Supply Hunt, it was Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Richard Helms himself—not the "the White House"—who cooked up the phony order for the CIA to "follow," then laundered it through his D/DCI, Cushman, who laundered it through Hunt, who laundered it through Colson, who laundered it through Ehrlichman, and then it came back to the D/DCI—who "complied" with the "request from the White House." Of course Cushman, the D/DCI, was always and only complying with Helms and the CIA agenda, which he well knew at all relevant times. They all then lied to Congress and said the order came "from the White House," and that they "assumed" it was the wish of "the President."

And that's the kind of criminal scum at work eternally in our cherished CIA, around the clock, 365 days a year.

I rest my case.

Ashton

Hi Ashton,

Is the essentially your answer to the CIA....thread?

Yes, Gary: you've caught me out. I even copied and pasted from my reply-in-progress to you over in that other thread to create the one in this. I am humiliated and ashamed that you've caught me red-handed.

I know you can flesh this out and in time (if even just for me) will. Have you names? beyond the Dulles' and I'm sure Harriman/Bush!!!!

I was in the process of trying to do just that for you in the reply in the other thread, which is part of what's taken me so long. With your indulgence, I'm going to continue to attempt to finish my reply to you there, where I feel it will be more on-topic. I've already wandered pretty far afield here in this interesting thread that Paul started—although I do think what's been said so far is germane.

Meanwhile, if you haven't read the thread in the forum on John J. McCloy, I urge you to read that. I have other information that is significantly involved regarding his connections, and how instrumental he was in the very creation of the Central Intelligence Group (CIG), which was CIA in swaddling clothes. It's not an easy thing to get organized under the best of circumstances, and I am in anything at the moment but the best of circumstances because of deadlines, but I am still working on it—for the other thread.

Ashton

STOP PRESSES! MILLER VINDICATED!

HOLE IN REAR FOUND!

Ashton Gray

Much ballyhoo has been raised about the alleged unanimity of medical personnel at Parkland Hospital testifying to a large hole in the back of John F. Kennedy's head.

Bollocks.

There is nothing resembling any such unanimity. There is nothing even approximating any such unanimity. The countless tortured claims in the literature of such unanimity (on both "sides" of the argument) are the distant hollow lowings of hopeful loons.

One area of unanimity amongst these august doctors of various stripe is their unanimity in disclaiming having done any close inspection of the head wound at all. Their observations were made in the mad heat of emergency room procedures attempting to save a life. I will not revisit here their repeated caveats in this regard, because it all is in the record for any serious and impartial student to study.

The one and only common thread in their testimony is that the large wound was on the right side of the head, which I have highlighted in bold in their testimony excerpts below.

Some of the doctors at best have changed their opinions about the position of the head wound, effecting their own impeachment for anything coming close to dispositive use of their testimony.

As a general, not specific, brief commentary, anyone whose actual destination is a solution to any problem stays on the rails of certainties. Doubtful and changing and contradictory testimony and other brands of uncertainties are the broken dead-end tracks that inevitably and only end in derailment and train wreck.

Here are representative samples of relevant testimony:

PARKLAND DOCTORS ON THE ALLEGED HOLE IN THE BACK OF JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD

• DR. CHARLES CARRICO Resident Surgeon
  

DR. MARION "PEPPER" JENKINS Chairman Of Anaesthesiology

DR. CHARLES BAXTER Director Of Emergency Room

DR. PAUL PETERS

So much for the "mass hallucination" of Parkland doctors.

Some people reading this who are familiar with the medical testimony may have noticed the absence of any testimony from Dr. Malcolm Perry in the above selections.

Dr. Perry is a very special case indeed. Dr. Perry will be considered later in greater detail.

For the moment, I'm only going to mention this: in September of 1962, around the time that CIA's Dr. Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West shot an elephant full of LSD (which some say hit the elephant in the neck), Dr. Malcolm Perry—who later performed the "tracheotomy" on JFK, and attended John Connally—left Parkland and was gone for a year of study at the University of California at San Francisco.

Dr. Perry returned to Parkland Hospital in Dallas in September of 1963—just after Nurse Diana Hamilton Bowron had arrived at Parkland Hospital all the way from England to spend one fateful year in the Emergency Room.

On or about 5 September 1963, a person or persons unknown "at the White House" changed the itinerary for Kennedy's trip, extending it from 21 November only through 22 November to allow for a motorcade in Dallas on that date.

A week later, on 13 September 1963, Buell Wesley Frazier was hired at the Texas School Book Depository.

Ashton Gray

John Prados has authored many books having to do with secrecy and the intelligence agencies. ...Prados' latest book is entitled Safe For Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA. In the Foreword Prados writes:

In the sixty years since the formation of the Central Intelligence Agency, presidents have continually harnessed the agency in service of their foreign policy goals. Three decades ago the "problem" of the CIA appeared to be the agency's status as a "rogue elephant"--unsupervised, tearing about the globe, acting at whim. By now it is evident that the agency and its cohorts were in fact responding to presidential orders.

The literature is overflowing with evidence of record in 180° opposition to that astounding sweeping generality.

The record demonstrates repeatedly that in "responding to presidential orders," CIA would rig up the apparatus of apparent compliance and immediately turn it to the sevice of their own covert agenda in arrogant disdain. Viet Nam is a textbook study of almost nothing else.

It was superghoul Richard Helms himself who created—as a denial, of course—the "rogue elephant" analogy. It's amusing how his own apophthegm of deceit found further twisted CIA-apologist life in the semi-homonymic "rogue element." I'm sure it made his mendacious heart beat fast with private glee.

As is so often the case with the polished CIA trash, Helms told his own brand of "truth" when he argued that CIA has never been a "rogue elephant." In the context of CIA always serving its actual creators and masters, his statement was true.

Ashton

Frank, I wonder if you have found out

the exact aspect ratio change Z to published MPI in pixels or percent.

did they stretch lengthwise or compress vertically. Either way changes the data somewhat but compressing definiotely 'deletes'

From incomplete and frustrating attempts to resolve that exact question, I'm so far of the opinion that there is not a uniform simple ratio: that there is distortion in unequal distribution in the MPI frames—or in the mpeg of the Zapruder film I have that I'm attempting to resolve the MPI frames to.

I've been trying with Z:220 because it has black diagonal lines in it running down from top left toward center, and several pretty well defined horizontal and vertical points to keep aligning to.

So far, the ratios that seemed promising in some relationship were (expressed in percentages):

W: 78

H: 62.4

W: 76.7

H: 62.1

W: 78.3

H: 62.2

All are wrong.

When I get a vertical sizing that aligns, I cannot (so far) get any horizontal sizing that aligns at all points. There seems to be unequal "stretch" in places across the horizontal that I can't figure out. There may be some fundamental flaw in my approach, but I haven't identified it.

Ashton

Since when did the "Eastern Establishment," or The Rockefeller/Morgan Trusts, or any Wall Street financial house/brokerage firm need a political label, to begin with? The only party they belong to is the one they've created to ensure their investment portfolios, and to secure their holdings, and their bank accounts, into perpetuity. They don't give a rat's ass what you call them because they don't require any partisan participation, nor allegiance, from the left or the right. If anything, they are the ''right," as in "fascism," regardless of any name you might want to hang on them. Their economic philosophy is steeped in the European tradition of the baronial/colonial oligarchal system. How anyone can buy into the idea of a democrat/republican, right-wing/left-wing, liberal/conservative political faction at work here, with these families, is ludicrous. They'll put their money wherever, and with whomever's "cause celebre," or noble ideal they think might turn them a profit. Operation Mockingbird at work here, ready to placate the masses into believing that, "We're on your side, no matter which side you happen to be on. You name it, we'll claim it." They'll play both sides of the fence for maximum return on the dividend.

Well said, Terry.

And any careful study of what can be known about CIA traces its lineage invariably back to international oil, banking, and armaments interests. It also demonstrates CIA's consistent loyalty, always, to international oil, banking, and armaments interests, regardless of the cost in American lives and American interests.

The argument over whether CIA is "monolithic" or not is entirely specious. It is as specious as arguing whether the United States Army is "monolithic" or not. The CIA is militaristic. The CIA is autocratic. Whatever "uniform" its soldiers wear, whether from Brooks Brothers or the CIA costume department, it is no less regimented in its objectives, strategies, and tactics.

The notion of "rogue elements" of CIA wandering off to set agendas of their own is laughable. It is as laughable as the grossly distorted "Cowboy and Yankee" dichotomy that Varnell obliquely embraces consistently, even when soft-pedaling it.

The alliances between, e.g., Texas oil interests and international oil interest, and the alliances between all oil interests and international banking interests so far outweigh the postulated Helgian-Marxist toy models of "conflicts" (class, geography, politics, Stetson-vs.-fedora, WTF-ever), that it's like dropping an anvil into one balance and a gnat in the other.

It goes far beyond mere "alliances," though. It takes only the most cursory glance by an eighth grade economics student to comprehend that there is an inseverable interdependency between and amongst all oil interests, and all international banking interests, and all armament interests—South, East, North, and West.

Whatever internecine squabbles, whatever jockeying for position in the pyramid and pecking order, whatever submerged "rivalries" might make a minor ripple on the surface, you're either in that game, playing inside the boundaries, and playing by the rules (which they wrote for themselves), or don't even bother stopping for a shower on your way out. You won't need it.

When and as these overarching, governing canons are ignored in favor of jejune "analyses" postulating "rogue factions" of CIA off on their own little junkets and mutinies based on petty political ideologies, research and discussion are reduced to the level of Mother Goose.

Ashton

Jacqueline B.Kennedy....

"And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. ... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top."

Hi Bernice.

What Jacqueline Kennedy describes is exactly what I see depicted in the Zapruder film. I don't know how it could be any more exact. Now, I'm talking about what I see. I'm not telling anyone else what to see. But I have no compunctions whatsoever about stating what I see, here, in this clip from Z:321 to Z:330:

Now, please, lord'a'mercy, to all concerned: verify what I am about to say, but from the head shot at Z:313 to where this clip starts, the dear woman is looking down. It is at Z:321 that her head starts to turn up toward her husband's face, which is why I started the clip here.

To me, she looks almost uncertainly bemused as she starts to look up toward his face, as though maybe he has thrown up or something after having been hunched over. And then she looks at his face. And the front right side of his head is gone, a prominent piece of wedge-shaped skull hanging and flopping by a flap of skin. At that instant, at Z:324, her hand flies in alarm off of JFK's left shoulder as he slumps toward her. Then, even in her horror and shock, her hand returns to him, nurturingly, this time across the back of his neck and lower head, but in this very act he slips further forward until she is staring straight down at the hole where this wedge-shaped piece of skull had been, and her mouth begins to open in the fullness of the horror of what has been done.

She isn't looking at the back of his head. She is looking directly at the wedge-shaped piece of skull hanging from the front right of his head.

And I swear I cannot understand why so much effort has been expended out scouring the universe for rumored little no-see-um pieces of bone that might have got away somewhere, or attempting to dream up airy, hypothetical "explanations" and "theories" over what actually is right smack dab in the record. Just plain as the noonday sun.

I would not wish to tell any person on this earth what they should see. But I swear to Aunt Gertie's garters I think I might swoon if somebody stopped, just for a moment, regurgitating yards and yards and yards and more yards of what somebody else has told them they ought to see, just shut out for a moment the cacophonic roar, and simply sat quietly and looked at what was at the end of their nose.

Debra Conway of JFK Lancer, says that the court reporter's tape is now on their web site. Conway stated, "Mrs. Kennedy also describes this piece of skull to historian Theodore White in her famous 'Camelot' interview where she told him, 'I could see a piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white--' This is very similar to what she said to the Warren Commission."

Conway went on to explain, "There were pieces of skull found in the street and in the limousine. The piece of skull described by Mrs. Kennedy could have been one of those later found in the street, the limousine, or an avulsed piece still attached to his head."

Ahhhhhhhhhhh....

Ashton

QUOTE:

• ASHTON GRAY: The purported large hole in the back of Kennedy's head is and at all relevant times was the official government line; it was the primary constant in the testimony collected by Specter for the Warren Commission. This is one element of this discussion that anybody will have to concede is amusing: the idea that this "giant hole in the back of the head" story originated somewhere else. No: it was little Darlin' Arlen trotting around (alone) collecting it up. (I guess the rest of the commission investigating the assassination of the President of the United States just couldn't be bothered to be present at the time.)
  And guess who, of the Warren Commission, is on record as having viewed the autopsy photos.
  

Ashton.

I have spent days reading the online reports WC, HSCA, and ARRB

I don't ever recall specter reffering to a large hole in the back of JFK'S head.?

It is also my understanding that Specter did not see the autopsy photo's.

Specter HSCA testimony.

Mr. KLEIN. You also testified that you did not have an opportunity to review the photographs and the X-rays pertaining to the President's wounds?

Mr. SPECTER. I certainly have.

Mr. KLEIN. Could you explain the reasons given to you as to why you could not view those X-rays and photographs?

Mr. SPECTER. I do not know here again that anybody ever said what the reasons were. I do know that I wanted to see them and there is a memorandum, which I just looked at this morning, which I am very delighted to see in the files, about my pressing to see it.

Reconstructing the reasons as best I can at this point, I believe it was, and I have said this publicly before, an attitude on the part of the Kennedy family that it might be possible that the photographs and X-rays would get into the public domain and the photographs would defile the memory and image of President Kennedy as a vibrant young leader and it would be ghoulish to show him in the picture with half his head blown off. That was the reason why I was not permitted to see them, as a speculation or a feel for the situation.

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that these documents be marked as committee exhibits.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hscspec.htm

Right. Well, Arlen Specter is a debased amoral lying Congressperson (but I repeat myself) without anything as troublesome as morals or a conscience. He is and always has been a sycophantic lap dog for the intelligence cult. How else could anyone stand unflinchingly and defraud the entire world with something as pathetically perverse as his infamous "single bullet theory"? Sorry: rhetorical question.

It's interesting that you went to Specter (who I'll get to in a moment) when I posed: "And guess who, of the Warren Commission, is on record as having viewed the autopsy photos." I sort of thought you would, since Specter has been being discussed.

In fact, I was referring to Earl Warren.

Here is a footnote from the article "How Five Investigations into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got it Wrong" at History Matters:

• Actually, Earl Warren himself apparently glanced at the autopsy pictures, and the Commission had them in its possession at one point, as noted by Rankin in an executive session on January 27, 1964 (see p. 193 of the transcript of that executive session).
  

You know: he "glanced" at them. Sure. Just a real quick peek. Chief Justice of the United States. In charge of the investigation of the assassination of the President of the United States. He "glanced" at the autopsy photos. Dontcha' know. (And of course John J. McCloy and Allen Dulles didn't even peek. Nah.)

But let's get to Specter. <SPIT!>

That same footnote goes on to say:

• And Arlen Specter admitted in a U. S. News and World Report interview on 10/10/66 that he was shown one photograph that, though not authenticated, was said to have been of Kennedy’s back.
  

That's substantiated by other sources saying that Secret Service Inspector Thomas J. Kelley "privately displayed a photo to Arlen Specter." (A photo. Dontcha' know.)

And what did Specter say in the testimony above?

Well, he lied even more directly than that in a 26 August 1965 interview with Ed Epstein:

• Q. Did you see autopsy photos?
  ARLEN SPECTER. No, I never saw them.
  Q. ...Why were autopsy photos not available to you?
  ARLEN SPECTER. Ask Rankin.
  

So, Specter is amoral lying scum. So? What's new?

As for Specter himself never "referring to a large hole in the back of JFK's head," I've just gently explained this very point to the village idiot.

Ashton

The Dallas doctors threw in the information about the large hole and Specter most always hurried away from it by asking about a small hole that no one saw.

Of course Specter "hurried away from it"—and left it sitting in the record, you bleating, semi-literate ignoramus.

I do not recall a single time where Specter actually probed into this large wound the doctors spoke of.

Guinn (with the AARB) made mention that when the doctors mentioned the large hole in the back of the head - Specter stated that it was in the top of the head.

Of course Specter moved it wherever he wanted, you pantywaist, sniveling, febrile, slavering ghoul. So did every person who claimed to have seen it. And changed the size, too. The nonexistent hole moves all over the back of the head, shrinking and growing like Alice in Wonderland. Only she has more substance and reality than the alleged "hole," and every character she meets makes infinitely more sense than you ever have or ever will, you bubbling, infinitely erupting cess pool.

And you don't mention that the Parkland doctors changed their stories, too, do you?

Don't bother. I will.

Ashton Gray