Ashton Gray

The photos are not fake. The doctors did not spew scripted lies.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Ashton Gray

Personally I've always thought Fox5 was originally taken like this...so much looks more natural, such as the ruler lying on the sheet, the blood flow onto the table (bottom right), the head/neck tilt...

Um... Gary? You just, uh, moved all the trauma to the right front of the head, plainly visible in the Zapruder film, over to the left front of the head. Why stop there? Why not just move it to the third knee?

and what is attached to that metal ring on the doctors left index finger?

I believe that upon closer inspection you'll find the "metal ring" to be a curl of wet hair.

Ashton

Blah, blur, blither, blur, blather, ramble, spin, blur, blur, babble, blur, gabble, blur, prattle, yak, blur, blur.

Ashton Gray

I'll state the utter simplicity one more time. There are two, and only two, possibilities:

• 1. The photographic, visual evidence of the head wound(s), including the films, are fake, phony, doctored (pun gleefully intended), retouched, and perfectly useless evidenciary materials, or,
  2. The "testimony" regarding a gaping hole, wound, avulsion in the back right side of John F. Kennedy's head is a pack of scripted lies, period.
  

The disinformation specialists in the herd are those who industriously work to keep both sets of "evidence" in equalibrium at all times and in constant conflict. By their fruits ye shall know them.

I think it's also about time that I mention the unmentionable: in all of the lionized "medical testimony" <SPIT!> about the purported gaping hole in the back right of JFK's head, none of these vaunted medical professionals thought it worth even mentioning the vast hole in the front right of JFK's head. And none of the vaunted "experts" all over the research community ever seem to fiind this tiny little omission at all curious.

In either case, Lee Harvey Oswald could not have either:

• 1. Faked, phonied, doctored (pun gleefully intended), or retouched the photographic, visual evidence of the head wound(s), including the films, or,
  2. Scripted, coerced, or edited-after-the-fact the yards of "testimony" regarding a gaping hole, wound, avulsion in the back right side of John F. Kennedy's head, period.
  

And there lies the late and unlamented "Lone Nutter" theory. Requiescat in pace.

Ashton Gray

The important thing here is that Zap's behind for the headshot was the collonade structure. The fence is directly right. Not behind in any way. He says behind.

From the same testimony I had extracted the following as "the important thing," because amongst the contrary and waffling blather, these were the points of strongest certainty (my emphasis added):

• MR. ZAPRUDER: ...[A]fter the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me... I guess they thought it came from right behind me.
  MR. LIEBELER: Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?
  MR. ZAPRUDER: No... [rambling blather].
  MR. LIEBELER: All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street...you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you? ...From the direction behind you?
  MR. LIEBELER: ...Actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from... I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the back of me.
  MR. ZAPRUDER: But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually?
  MR. ZAPRUDER: No.
  MR. LIEBELER: ...Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the shots came by the sound...
  MR. ZAPRUDER: No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it had a sound all over.
  

Personally, given my nodding acquaintance with acoustics, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how early reflections from an outdoor curved sieve or late reflections from buildings across the plaza could overwhelm the initiating impulse from an unsilenced high-powered rifle only 40-odd feet away.

I'm not saying it couldn't. I am saying that I consider it an awfully daring untested premise for hypothesis.

(And I repent for engaging in a discussion that seems better suited to another topic.)

Ashton

Afterthought on the medical "testimony," as postulate: some of the people briefed and flown in by CIA (Plumlee and company) were at the hospital prior to the event.

Ashton

(I write this as I'm certain of the fact, but can't find the relevant page again to direct memeebrs to the relevant description or the name of the person making the description, I read it some time ago but didn't understand it)

The writer went to the archives and viewed the rear head photo pairs in a stereoscopic viewer. What struck him was that the area that should show the gaping hole was not only covered with scalp but it seemed to be a scalp that had no depth. It looked to him like it was so different from the surrounding area and that this odd area was where the gaping hole should be. His conclusion was that the photos had been doctored.

I suggest that this proves they have NOT been doctored and that they DO show the gaping hole. What he is describing is the flattened scalp where it is stretched over the hole, and the outline of this flattened area describes the gaping hole perfectly.

I can't follow the (canned) medical recitations, and conceive from them that there would be sufficient scalp to achieve anything remotely like that, much less in such prisitine condition that Fox 4 and 5 could be so faked. That seems like more of a...well, stretch...to me than that the photos were retouched.

The entire convoluted question boils down rather simply to two possibilities: the photographic evidence is fake (including what the films show) or the testimony is a pack of scripted lies.

The medical testimony certainly is consistent: I'll give you that. It is so consistent that it all uses precisely the same language for describing not just the wounds and procedures, but even where blood and cerebral tissue was on the cart, the floor—even multiple mentions of tissue on the drapes of the cart. Only a few testifiers deviate at all from the precise same language, and even those only as minor augmentations. It is uncannily canny in its consistency. (That last sentence has almost as many puns as it has words.)

Ashton

I note you are getting the bodyposes of J and K in order. In time that would be an interesting view or fly over of the transition from 312 to 313. If we can settle on a matching M frame we can possibly triangulate the head positions.

The person who was modeling some JFK and Jacquie articulated models and I have run into a technical problem with the limitations of Sketchup. So those 3D figures currently in the model all, of necessity, are still just the same stock sitting figure, just oriented differently. But there's no way to move the heads or limbs. I haven't given up on it, but so far there is no workaround in Sketchup itself, so options are being explored for now exporting the model to a more robust program on a machine with lots more horsepower. And that's going to entail its own learning curve (although I may be getting some help in that quarter, too.) As it is, things are at a crawl when working in the model unless many layers get turned off for every viewpoint move.

Of course this is all being done on a shoestring in spare time, too, so is having to advance when and as it can. Maybe it will all come together with the film sync project. I'm working on it.

Ashton

To Donald Diabo,

Thanks for your kind words and wishes, and my very best to you and yours, too, for a safe and happy holiday and new year.

Ashton

OK Ash, I understand your POV.

I do have some quick questions, (on the hoof at the minute, going out for first drink over Xmas with some friends now).

1. Why would the WC (or it's alleged supporters) argue for a frontal shot leading to an avulsion of JFKs head.

First, generally, the Warren Commission was stacked with the father of the CIA—John J. McCloy—and the man who wrote the book on disinformation and psy-ops—Allen Dulles. And I could just leave it right there and go have a drink myself, you dawg, you. I really don't know what else needs to be said.

Of course the WC didn't argue for a frontal shot, finding the exact opposite. And equally of course, at the same time, the WC also planted the seeds of endless controversy by having every medical person who testified swear that there was a gaping wound at the back of JFK's skull. And realize, please, that although they did not release it at the time, at all relevant times—while Count Specter the Spectre was carefully leading each doctor and nurse and hospital personnel through their rehearsed "testimony" <SPIT>, ALL of them claiming there was a huge hole in the back of the skull—you can bet that every person on the Warren Commission had access to and had seen this:

Here's the drill: look at that photo with your eyes (just as everyone on the Warren Commission had), and then go to this article that has a nice condensation of the relevant WC testimony, then come back here and look at that photo, then go back and read that testimony again, and then come back here and look at that photo, and then...

Well, probably just go out on a balcony and puke over the rail. Your head will stop spinning and you might feel better.

Note that Specter <SPIT!> never bothers to mention this troublesome photo, and never once questions the "testimony".

Well, that's not exactly true: There's one point where he does question the testimony, and I don't mind telling you that this little seemingly innocuous exchange, when the wraith Specter is questioning Nurse Diana Bowron, is one of the most frightening things I've read in the literature:

• SPECTER: And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?
  MISS BOWRON: He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
  SPECTER: You saw the condition of his what?
  MISS BOWRON: The back of his head.
  

And if that doesn't chill a man to the bone, I don't think he's been paying very close attention.

2. The Fox5 photo you state as being the only relevant one...why not the others?

I meant relevant to this topic, to this thread, and I hope I've answered the question now in the above. If not, I don't know what to add. There's the back right side of the head in the photo above. I don't know what else to say. I think number 4 of the Fox series has that part of the head, too. (Funny that it's cropped right where the ruler [that can't be read] is placed in Fox 5.)

3. What causes the violent backward motion of JFK...as compared to the comparatively short (length and duration (sounds like my sex life)) forward motion.

Too much information, Gary.

Well, all I can give you is my opinion. I've given it already on this in some other thread (I've lost track), but there I mentioned that nerve impulses travel at 100 m/s, and there's nothing I've seen that argues compellingly against it being a convulsive reaction to the head shot itself. If you've ever seen anyone draw his hand back from a hot stove element, I dare say you might have seen it drawn back, but I betcha' you didn't see it draw back. And the "chicken with his head cut off" expression didn't come from nowhere.

Unless and until I encounter some evidence that says the body can't initiate just such a reaction to sudden massive trauma, especially to the nervous system itself, then it makes far, far more sense to me than the notion that a bullet to the head (which is on a pivoting skeletal structure) knocked his torso back to the left.

Obviously, I'm in a minority. So what's new?

Ps love the invade Cuba now banner. Are you a graphic artist??

Depends on who you talk to. Maybe somebody ought to ask Bill Miller.

Ashton

Ashton, I think that will be an excellent way to eventually show the fragment paths. Good you have the growing expertise to do these views.

John, that was a very ambassadorial way you found to say, "Nice try, bonehead."

I'll take another run at it when I get a chance after meditating on the elevation chart. (I mean literally: printing it out and using it as a mat.)

Ashton

P.S. Okay, just kidding about the chart thing.

Nix frame and 337

Hi, Ed.

I notice you don't post a Nix frame number with the image you supplied for the Macabre Clown, Bill Miller. Stay tuned.

Now, with that exhibit you posted above, I'm going to demonstrate to you just how the Macabre Flimflammer made a mark of you, made you his water carrier, made you into a shill for the Macabre Shill.

I'm not doing this to embarrass you. And I didn't leave you hung out to dry this long in order to embarrass you. I did leave this till now because I new the Macabre Jackass would bray about it, and I wanted him to have ample opportunity to bray about it before I exposed him—for the second time in this thread—for the complete malicious fraud and humbug he is.

I'm sorry if you are becoming collateral damage, but then, really, it's by your own hand, isn't it? It's by playing into his game, buying into his fraud, listening to his deceit and accepting it glibly and without inspection.

So here's the truth, Ed. Here are the actual Nix frames that align to Z335 and Z337. They match entirely. And they have nothing whatsoever to do with what you posted in support of the Macabre Swindler:

He sure has brayed about the deceit he tricked you into to helping him with, though, hasn't he?

And here's the really frightening part: by his own admission, he's made a long in-depth study of these films. So know this: it was no accident that he conned you. It was knowing. It was willful. It was malicious.

There's no shame in getting taken in by the Macbre Huckster. God knows, plenty of people have been. Spread the word and see how many you can recover.

Ashton

P.S. Although they may see it differently, for what it's worth I consider the matched frames I posted above to be an example of the accuracy of the sync work by Frank Agbat and John Dolva on the Zapruder and Nix films

Repetition of a false claim does nothing to improve its validity.

Jack

It's his job, Jack.

On the Zapruder film, I have a great and deep appreciation and respect for all the good-faith work you have done trying to get to the truth. Obviously, there have been many traps laid on tha path, and many false detours. Hopefully, we'll all get to it eventually, and I'm following the outstanding work of Frank Agbat and John Dolva on the films with great interest, as I expect you are.

Ashton

I agree. I have respect for ALL who seek the truth, and their work. Agbat and Dolva are doing

great analysis beyond my capability. They (and you) keep peeking at slivers of truth, but nobody

yet has the complete answer. Miller, Mack, Thompson, and others deserve NO RESPECT because

they are stuck in the past, insisting all is known, and are not even looking for truth.

I know enough to know that the Z film is a fabrication. Beyond that certainty, I really cannot

say how, when, or why it was faked. I also believe that the stories of Zapruder and Sitzman

are a clever false cover for the fabrication, and the truth is being held hostage for 16 million bucks.

It is simple, really. Abe was 5'11"...not 5'6". If Zapruder did not take the film, who did?*

Rather than study the forged film, study all the photos showing Zapruder and Sitzman on

the pedestal. It is impossible that the man on the pedestal is Zapruder.

*(see TGZFH)

Jack

Repetition of a false claim does nothing to improve its validity.

Jack

It's his job, Jack.

On the Zapruder film, I have a great and deep appreciation and respect for all the good-faith work you have done trying to get to the truth. Obviously, there have been many traps laid on tha path, and many false detours. Hopefully, we'll all get to it eventually, and I'm following the outstanding work of Frank Agbat and John Dolva on the films with great interest, as I expect you are.

Ashton

Hi Bill & Ashton,

I've been reading the views here with interest as it is an area of the assassination which I'm having great difficulty reconciling myself. I have no fixed opinion on where the fatal headshot was administered from. I did have preconceptions and was always convinced of a knoll shot. However, on joining this forum I vowed to have a clean canvass on which I would draw my opinions as they formed.

Is there any chance you (plural) can wipe the slate clean and discuss your findings further on this thread?

Hi Gary,

For my part re Miller: not a prayer. I've just demonstrated conclusively in this thread that Miller created a complete fraud about JFK's head having an "abrupt left turn outward" by using Jacquie's hand. It's in the record right here in this topic. It's inarguable. All he's done since is throw more garbage by the ton into the thread to keep trying to sell his fraud. That's all he ever does. No rational discussion of any photographic or any other visual evidence is possible without Miller maliciously attacking and sabotaging it, turning on bold face, and spewing miles of his verbal sewage into the forum to assert endlessly that what isn't there is there, and that what is there isn't there. This is his sole activity, and apparently he has means to do pretty much nothing else.

Of course in doing so, he's the chief proponent of the Warren Commission's trump card: the phantom "avulsion" in the back of the head. In other words, Miller is the resident Warren Commission mouthpiece for the big, gaping hole in the back of the head—while pretending, of course, to be arguing against the Warren Commission findings. This is the double-speak always in the mouths of government shills.

"Avulsion" hell. It doesn't exist. It never existed. It never will exist. Look at the Zapruder images I posted above. Then look at the single piece of medical photographic evidence that has any relevance whatsoever:

There. What do your own eyes tell you? Go back and look at the Zapruder images I enhanced, and look at this photo of the back of Kennedy's head, and shut off the babbling, barking mad, fraudulent, resident forum Warren Commission shill long enough to look for yourself and compare the two, and you decide who's trying to sell you a pig in a poke.

Do you see anything even remotely resembling a giant void in the back of Kennedy's head? I don't. Do you see the exact large flap of skull on the right front of his head that's clearly visible in the Zapruder frames? I do.

Now let's examine Bill Miller's "bullet angle" that he's put in this thead above to "prove" that a bullet somehow came from the front, slapped Kennedy's head forward and down, then somehow supposedly blew out the back of the head. I set up a close approximation of his ridiculous bullet angle in the 3D model:

Miller's already racing for the keyboard to whine his ass off for 20 paragraphs about how the 3D model is wrong, and I'm wrong, I don't have Mrs. Connally's teeth in the right place, I left out Jacquie's pill-box hat, and every other uttlerly irrelevant and nonsensical carping criticism he can dream up, and any dung he can manufacture to throw at it. But you're a rational and thoughtful person, so I'm sure you can understand that there's such a thing as acceptable tolerances in such a pursuit, and with that in mind, let's just slide around behind the limo and see where Miller's Magic Bullet came from. Would you care to join me? Well, here it is below, and as you can see, it either came from the vengeful hand of God, or it was a fly-by shooting by those wacky anti-Castro Cubans who must have hijacked a crop-duster to incite a military invasion of Cuba:

There you go. At the overpass (underpass/railroad bridge/whatever) that trajectory is about 45 feet above it. So if it wasn't God, and it wasn't a fly-by, then we have to postulate that a four-story building shimmered into existence for an instant somewhere on the grassy knoll or the overpass.

That's the load of fertilizer Bill Miller is trying to sell you. You buyin'?

And I don't care how much he comes in here now and tries to adjust his angle of trajectory, there's no way in hell he'll ever get it even in the same zip code as anything that could support his infinite blather and frauds.

If you want to have a "discussion" with the Warren Commission's Smoking Caterpillar, let me step out of the way, and you have a grand time.

Let me also suggest that you pack a lunch.

Ashton

P.S. My opinion only: yes, there is a hole in the head. It's an entrance wound. That's why the ruler is there. And I will get back to the "Was the CIA involved" thread. I swear. I haven't forgotten.

John, I have no idea whether I've come even close to finding the Rosetta Stone to your inscrutable montage, but I thought, "What's he gonna' do—shoot me?" So I set up four colored "ping-pong balls" to represent the fragments in an approximation of your overhead view, all four balls at the same elevation:

Then I went back and forth between the two film stills, and tried at least to approximate what you seemed to be suggesting with the different colors in terms both of spacial distance from the viewer, and height. I don't think I did it very well, but it was a painful operation with the strain on the inadequate processor in cycling back and forth between views, so for now there's a Quicktime movie attached of where I got to when I had to walk away from it.

Ashton

My momma always told me: "A hit dog hollers."

Ashton

Hi Terry,

Thanks for forwarding this candid and self-possessed piece from Sherry (Gutierrez, I believe). I get the idea that she is something of a forensics expert who frequents JFK Lancer.

I had no idea my rainy-day musings had wandered off into the world and disturbed her repose. Please tell her that I repent for it.

I am chagrined to think that you would be saddled with being a go-between, but I am already stretched thinner than paint, so the idea of my attempting to monitor two such forums, as she suggests, incites tremors. Therefore I'm going to have to respond to relevant parts of what you've posted here and let the chips fall where they may.

SHERRY GUTIERREZ: Terry, how thoughtful of you to post this interesting, but unfortunately technically flawed work by Ashton. ...The matter of bloodspatter and trajectory analysis is interesting and a very useful investigative and reconstructive tool in crime scene work. However, the analysis techniques and assumptions Ashton has used are incorrect, therefore his results are incorrect.

Well, darn.

However: With generous allowances in all directions for my lay trippings and fumblings, my 'umble origins, and my technical flaws, the seminal and simple question for Sherry is the one she doesn't answer in her longish analysis anywhere (while finding ample space to promote her works). That is this: is the County Records window at issue a possible location for the head shot or not?

Put another way: Does Sherry have dispositive evidence that would eliminate that location for the head shot, or not. If so, I would be very happy if she would set it forth in plain talk. Then I could move on and consider other locations that she finds to be more likely for a head shot shooter.

Failing that, I consider it to be a favorable place for a sniper, with a commanding view of the relevant parts of the route on Elm, and I've seen nothing in the available forensics or evidence to eliminate it. If she has that, I would study it with great interest. If she has it, she doesn't present it in what she wrote:

ASHTON: if something representing that ejecta of matter from JFK's head could be placed more or less reasonably in 3D space, it might be used as a plotted point that if connected with another plotted point at the apparent head wound in the Zapruder film (on the right front of JFK's head) would create a line theoretically leading back— Well, it very well could lead back to the head wound shooter location.

SHERRY GUTIERREZ: What you are referring to as ejecta in frame 312 [sic: should be 314] of the Zapruder film is called backspatter. Backspatter is blood, other fluids and occasionally minute tissue particles that are forced from an entry wound back in the direction of the shooter. Backspatter has distinctive characteristics that make it different from forward spatter that originates from the exit wound.

Well, I'm going to have to pause this right here, because we're already headed off down a primrose path where I never went.

First, the Zapruder frame at issue is Z314—which is the frame after the head shot—not Z312—which is the frame before the head shot. Obviously, there would be no such ejecta at frame Z312. I understand that this could be a mere misstatement or typing error by Ms. Gutierrez, but it is repeated several times in her message, and my effort is to reduce confusion, not increase it.

Second, what I see at frame Z314, which I represented in the model with the cube, is not anything that I would characterize in any way as "blood, other fluids and occasionally minute tissue particles" in the manner of "backspatter." So Ms. Gutierrez and I already, at this early juncture, have parted company. We are in the always lamentable position of discussing apples vs. oranges.

What is clear to me in Z314, which I even have outlined in several animations posted in this forum, is a substantive collection of matter (of some unknown description and composition) large enough and "slow" enough—relative to the cloud of spatter seen in Z313—to be captured in Z314 on a forward and downward trajectory from the head.

This is an indication to me of two very real possibilities, perhaps even likelihoods:

• 1. That it had more mass than "blood, other fluids and occasionally minute tissue particles" in the manner of "backspatter," and,
  2. That assuming such characteristics of mass, and the related inertia and momentum, it very well might be following the path of a projectile that had ripped it from the skull.
  

However lay an assumption this might have been, it comports with the simple laws of physics, and if I hadn't thought it might have some probative merit, I wouldn't have taken the time to pursue the presumed line of flight.

Sherry continues on the backspatter argument:

SHERRY GUTIERREZ: One reason to assure the spatter in 312 [sic: should be 314] is in fact backspatter, is that JFK’s head creates a void at his left rear.

I have no idea what she is talking about at this point. If she is discussing the purported "avulsion" to the back of the head, it's going to have to be a separate topic, because I won't stipulate to the existence of any such rear head wound. I've already taken this up in a separate topic in this forum, with visual evidence that no such "void" in the back of the head existed after the head wound.

SHERRY GUTIERREZ: If the bloodspatter in 312 [sic: should be 314] was forward or exit spatter, blood could not have been deposited on Bobby Hargis. Therefore, this alone demonstrates Ashton’s suggested trajectory and shooter location incorrect.

This is the same entirely circular "argument" propounded by every proponent of a front head shot, and it doesn't take an expert to see what a double standard it is on its face. The "argument": "backspatter" can come from a frontal shot and splatter on motorcycle cops, but by some magic, it can't come from a shot from behind and splatter on motorcycle cops.

Ignoring such double standards of backspatter entirely (as they should be), the simple evidence of the eyes is that a considerable cloud of spatter is explosively ejected from the head in Z313. Whether it is "backspatter" from an entrance wound, or the result of explosive outward force from an exit wound—or, far more likely, both—is completely immaterial to who might or might not have been hit by it while riding in a moving motorcade heading into such a cloud, and on a windy day to boot. To continually insist that this only can be "backspatter," and can only have come from a frontal wound—and to the exclusion of exit matter—I consider irresponsible at best, whatever the source. (And I looked hard for a kinder word. That's the best I could do.)

Any such responsible presentation should be inclusive, not exclusive.

ASHTON: I created a simple cube to represent the ejecta. I used a cube so I could angle one edge toward the apparent head wound location, then use two points on that edge to create a construction line back through the apparent head wound opening.

SHERRY GUTIERREZ: You used a cube to represent the backspatter...

Terry, I'm sorry: I can't invest any more time off on a backspatter tangent, when it had nothing whatsoever to do with anything I posted concerning the the ejecta at issue, its apparent mass, and hypothetically presumed physics properties given such apparent mass. That was the entire premise on which I set off on an exploratory experiment purely of my own fancy to see where its apparent trajectory might lead. This discussion is like arguing about the properties of steam while trying to discuss the path of a baseball hit by Joe DiMagio.

Lord knows I have enough contretemps in progress that I'm not impoverished for them, and I mean no disprespect toward Ms. Gutierrez and her considerable knowledge in her areas of expertise. Despite my coven of detractors, I don't set out to pick fights with anybody, and have a record of fruitful, beneficial, and pleasant exchanges with plenty of people on such subjects.

I do, though, expect a reasonable amount of attention to detail, reasonable care in presentation of facts, and the reasonable ability to address the facts at issue, not a set of entirely disrelated facts.

So I would be very interested indeed in seeing Sherry Gutierrez's address to what I was discussing in the first place, and her answers to the seminal and simple questions I posed above:

1. Is the County Records window at issue a possible location for the head shot or not?

2. Does Sherry have dispositive evidence that would eliminate that location for the head shot, or not.

And with that, I thank you graciously, Terry, for taking an interest in my experiments and ramblings.

Ashton

I can see why you are unable to see the avlusion [sic] (not evulsion)

Ouch. Bill, that really hurt.

I'm absolutely heartbroken that you didn't get, or appreciate, my little word play on avulsion (not avlusion), emulsion, and evulsion. I did it just for you. Here's a hint: it drew you out immediately, didn't it? You'll have to get somebody else to explain it to you further.

I can hardly tell that you are even viewing JFK and his wife in those poor blury images. Why did you opt to distort them so badly?

We mere plebians have to work with what we've got, and those were jpeg images, so have jpeg artifacts. There was sufficient information there for my purposes. And your oblique and utterly false accusation that I intentionally distored the images is noted. You are some piece of work, Snidely.

Nothing was done to the images but to enlarge them with Genuine Fractals Pro and run Photoshop's Shadows and Highlights on them. Period.

There is just enough motion blur on the good copy images that makes seeing the individual bone fragments protruding up through the hair impossible

Now, isn't that convenient for you. It seems, somehow, that almost every one of your claims relies entirely on "evidence" that the human eye can't see. You have the entire domain of noseeums cornered. Therefore we all just have to take your word for it, right? Because you have knowledge that clearly is beyond the perceptual capabilities of mere low-class mortals.

So continue: tell me more about what isn't visible, but that you know is there anyway:

but if you look at JFK's head in silhouette you can see the avuslion.

Um, that would be "avulsion." Not "avuslion." And I don't see it.

Below is such a view where the natural contour of the President's head is disrupted by the bones being sprung outward.

As Jackie's white glove comes off the President's left shoulder it offers a backdrop that allows one to see the smooth contour of the Presidents's head near the neck before the abrupt left turn outward as the bones are now sprung opened in the occipital region of the skull.

Well, Bill, I have a little confession to make. It goes back to the word "evulsion" in my subtitle—but I doubt that you'll ever figure yout how. Still, I feel the need to bare my soul, and I want to do it right here in front of everybody, and make a permanent record of my confession.

You see, it's this way: I did have better images of the frames I showed in the first message. I admit it. I make a clean breast of it.

Not only that, but I knew damned well when I posted them that you would rush in there to do everything you could to make me look like a fool. I knew it was inevitable. It was like opening a can of tuna around cats.

And even that isn't all I have to confess: I have to confess that I knew exactly which images from Zapruder you would post to "prove" to the world that there was an "abrupt left turn outward" of JFK's head. which you've claimed was "bones now sprung open." Oh, yes. Yes, I knew. I did it with premeditation.

And my only hope for forgiveness from the research community at large is this: that with this I intend to prove once and for all time just how duplicitous you are. I intend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the lengths to which you will go, with malice aforethought, to deceive others by twisting and manipulating visual "evidence," by selectively showing "evidence" that serves your own malicious purposes to make people believe what patently is not true.

And I will succeed, right here in this message, or I will fail miserably and fall on my sword in the attempt. Without further comment, here are better versions of three of the same images I first posted above (I can't post all five, because the forum won't let me do that, and still be able to post two later ones below—stay tuned):

Zapruder 326:

Zapruder 327:

Zapruder 333:

There is no "avulsion." There are no "bones protruding." There is no "massive hole" in the back of the head. There is nothing but hair.

But what did you post? What did you stick in everyone's face to "prove" that there was "an avulsion" to the back of the head?

Well, I'm about to post the very same frame you put up with the big white flashing arrow. But first I'm going to post the image two film frames before it: Zapruder frame 335, enhanced as described above:

To the forum readers: what do you see? (I'm not asking you, Miller. I don't give a damn what you ever say again.) What is on the back of JFK's head near the neck?

Clearly, it's Jacqueline Kennedy's gloved right hand.

And here is what Bill Miller maliciously posted, Zapruder frame 337, to make you believe that there was an "abrupt left turn outward" in John F. Kennedy's head—and in the process backing up the exact government-issue "Official Story" of a huge back head wound that nobody outside of the government coerced, blackmailed, or paid "witnesses" ever saw. I've enhanced the image the exact same way I did the others:

So how did Bill Miller create a completely phony, fraudulent "abrupt left turn outward" of the head to deceive you with? Simple: by carefully picking the exact frame where Jacqueline Kennedy's white-gloved hand has been jerked away from the back of John Kennedy's head in horror (Miller told you it had been on JFK's left shoulder), and is outstretched, leaving enough of a white streak on the film to create the OPTICAL ILLUSION that Bill Miller, with malice aforethought, tried to pawn off on you as an "avulsion" to the back of the head.

And there it is. Let your own eyes decide.

And whether you can find in your heart to forgive me for my tactics here or not is up to you. But if I've belled this cat for even one person in this world, if I keep even one more person from ever being fooled by such malevolent immaculate deception—from someone like Bill Miller who claims to be a superior "expert" <SPIT!>—then my head will rest easy, with or without forgiveness.

Ashton Gray

I believe the shot that killed JFK came from the exact location that Hoffman saw the man with the rifle, which is the exact same spot where the men on the underpass saw the smoke come through the trees which is the same spot that the accoustic evidence says a shot came from. It would certainly explain the avusion seen on the back of the President's head by so many medical personnel at Parkland.

Finally. Finally you manage to cough up an origin point for Miller's Magic Bullet—sort of. Naturally you won't provide it with any specific location, but I've triangulated your clues right down to the purported position of "Hat Man," which is here:

Now, first, I realize, Bill, that you take an extremely dim view of this 3D model. I realize how desperately you want to ridicule and demean it, and make nothing of the work that has gone into it. I realize just how beneath your lofty standards it is. And I could not possibly care less what you think of it.

Second, maybe this isn't the location you're trying to "describe" in your roundabout evasive way, but that's your problem. I gave you every opportunity to provide a specific location. And if this one doesn't suit your fancy, you're going to have to get more specific, aren't you? And when and if you do, I'll just keep dollying the virtual camera wherever you next claim that Miller's Magic Bullet came from.

Third, let's just set aside for the moment that this is at or near the location where the car salesman said he had parked and watched the show, later showing up at work and puking, and that this is near the location where muddy tracks were found, and let's see how Miller's Magic Bullet works from here.

First, here's an approximation of what our bold rifleman would see peering over the fence:

Just look at those Saturdy morning cartoony crepe myrtles! Why, that can't be how they really were. What a joke, huh? So since I cannot possibly duplicate the actual relative placement of crepe myrtle trunks to determine how they would or would not have interfered with the tracking down the barrel of a rifle as the limo moved left to right, I'm just going to get rid of the pesky things, and take them out of consideration altogether:

Whew. That's better. Say hello to the boys on the knoll steps. You won't have to shout: they're only about 30 feet away. That's about across a good-sized living room.

And there's the target.

Let's get a little closer and see what the shot's like:

Now we're talking. Now we're locked and loaded. Now we're dead on trajectory for Miller's Magic Bullet. Now let's see what it does—according to Bill Miller:

And now we know how the famous Bill Miller says the dark and deadly deed was done.

And Bill, I gotta' hand it to you: your Miller's Magic Bullet makes the Warren Commission's Magic Bullet look like a kindergarten effort. Theirs is just amateur all the way when compared to the dazzling, electrifying, supernatural talents of yours. I am awestruck at the exaltation of simultaneous radiating forces that this terrible talisman exhibited on impact, only to perform it's final stupifying feat: an instantaneous 90° turn to blow out the back of the head and go flying off— Well, who knows where.

Wait! I've got it! Now I see the diabolical plan in all it's brilliance: Miller's Magic Bullet was supposed to fly up to the 6th floor window and kill the patsy, too, making it look like a murder-suicide! But the damned thing was misprogrammed by a gnat's hair, causing the hard-turn trajectory to land it at the YMCA instead, in a bucket of oily rags, starting a fire. Is that what you've been holding back? Is that the secret? Tell, us, O Sage of Ballistic Wonders.

Ashton Gray

Zapruder 321:

Zapruder 323:

Zapruder 326:

Zapruder 327:

Zapruder 333:

Where is it?

Ashton Gray

John, I'm very interested in this fragment trajectories analysis, but try as I might I can't seem to decipher your montage in this thread. Could you dumb it down a little and maybe take it in smaller, more incremental steps?

Ashton

Motorcycle cop already looking RIGHT at z-312

I found that, coupled with Frank Agbat's recent series, compelling enough to set up a view from that motorcycle cop in the 3D model. First, here is just a view hard right:

The (unfinished) back of the limo is in view at the bottom left, but without the Continental kit and chrome on the back yet it's next to invisible against the road in that image.

Then I swung the view approximating the direction you indicated in your image, which appears to be over JFK's head, and got this:

Although it's impossible to know what he was looking at, he appears to be looking straight in the direction of the three men on the knoll steps. Which all by itself makes a good deal of sense, if it were all by itself.

Something that still perplexes me is that by the time of the head shot, the motorcycle policemen seem almost oblivious to there being anything really wrong. On the other hand, the motorcycle policeman in your image could be looking at JFK, sensing there is something wrong.

Then again the idle stroll of the woman across the knoll right up to her sudden reaction at the head shot also is an anomaly to me—consistent with the apparent lack of concern by the motorcycle policemen or even the SS men right up to the moment of the head shot—that still is absorbing a considerable amount of my attention trying to reconcile with all the witness testimony of number of shots heard, and when.

I've wandered off. Sorry. But there's the cop's-eye view from the 3D model for what it's worth.

Ashton

Poppycock. Claptrap. Tommyrot. I notice you don't quote Bowers before "offering an opinion." I guess I have to do your homework for you:

Ashton, allow me to do your homework ....

I wouldn't let you shine my shoes.

Bowers saw only two men...

Well, now you've gotten so flustered that you're making it up when I just posted exactly what proves you false. I'll post it again:

• MR. BOWERS: ...[T]here were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket. ...On the triple underpass, there were two policemen. One facing each direction, both east and west. There was one railroad employee, a signal man there with the Union Terminal Co., and two welders that worked for the Fort Worth Welding firm, and there was also a laborer's assistant furnished by the railroad to these welders.
  

When you count this time, try using both hands.

Does anybody take you seriously?

as well as Hoffman...

Hoffman changed his story at least four times—once on the very day he first gave it to the FiBI. It's not in evidence over here where I sit on the basis of his self impeachment. You use whatever gets you through the night.

You also seem to dismiss a frontal shot...

I'm waiting patiently for you to tell me where the alleged "frontal shot" with Miller's Magic Bullet came from. And the Weasel Watch is ticking, and you're still weaseling.

Now here you've posted yet another patented bald-faced (I'm sorry: I meant to type "bold-faced") harangue, and you still haven't provided a point of origin for Miller's Magic Bullet. Stop weaseling, Bill. It's starting to get embarrassing. Remember: it's just common, low-brow, low-bred, baseborn, inferior, Dallas-challenged, plebian, raffish trailer trash you're dealing with here—not the kind of superior intelligentsia you make sure everybody knows you're in company with.

So spell it out real plain for this old boy, and make your intelligentsia crowd proud: where "in the front" exactly did Miller's Magic Bullet come from "on a downward trajectory" that slapped that boy's head forward and down so hard? Where, Bill? That's the question. It keeps coming, you keep dodging.

And the Weasel Watch ticks on. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick...

Ashton

Frank, your work is technical expertise realized as artistry without the slightest compromise to the technical expertise—which combination approaches real magic.

Please consider the following sequence, and note especially the motorcycle cops:

Source frames NS23 - NS70

...and a close-up of the sequence:

Source frames NS23 - NS66

...two of them brake HARD shortly after the headshot and look directly to their right. They react almost simultaneously, presumably in reaction to a shot. For those keeping track of time, their reaction starts about 25 frames after NS22 (~1.3 seconds).

Without wanting to take anything at all away from the "reaction to a shot" hypothesis, I still feel it responsible to amend as follows:

• 1. I don't know of any testimony of any of the policemen at issue saying that they saw or heard or reacted to a shot from there. If it exists, I would like to be directed to it. And I think it would make a valuable augmentation to what you've shown above.
  2. Reaction to a report (shot-like sound) might be a more comprehensive statement, leaving other possibilities in consideration, such as possible intentional misdirection.
  3. At the end of the first sequence above, at least two of the three men who were on the knoll steps have started running up those steps, one of them pretty far up them by the time the camera tracks there. That running away motion, in the confusion and the apparent shooting of the President as Clint jumps onto the back of the limo, could have commanded police attention to some degree.
  4. Several of the motorcycle policemen had been hit with considerable debris from the head shot.
  5. This is the most troublesome: at some point very soon after the shooting, Sheriff Decker broadcast on DPD channel two for all available men to go immediately to the railroad tracks east of Elm—which is the direction that the motorcycle cops look. The only time stamp for Decker's broadcast that I know of is 12:30. That embraces 60 of the longest seconds conceivable, and there is no record that I know of that would allow verification of how soon after the head shot he made this broadcast. That makes it troublesome. That, and the fact that I don't even know if the motorcycle cops were monitoring that channel. Maybe it's irrelevant to what is shown in the sequence, but I thought it at least should be mentioned. (In fact, I'd love to know just how quickly Decker made that broadcast. But that's something else entirely.)
  

Really outstanding work that defies adequate thanks and acknowledgment.

Ashton