Ashton Gray

Here's what I said exactly, and here I'll repeat it: "It is inarguable that at the moment of impact the head flies violently forward." I said what I said. I didn't just say it: I provided photos and a diagram. In one frame of film (which just happens to be when brains are flying out of the head) the head inarguably slams forward two or more inches. Depending on whose math you want to use, that would be at a rate of anywhere from a yard to two yards a second. (Maybe someone can do better math than this.) Regardless of the exact math, yes: his head flies foward very abruptly from a generally static position. As something on the top end of the torso, since it clearly and unmistakably and inarguably is the torso that flies back and to the left, not just the head. And that is after the brains eject from the right front of the head. At the earlier instant of the headshot, by contrast, the torso remains essentially stationary and the head, pivoting at the neck, is what jerks forward. This is so self-evident in the images that I'm a little bored with having to type paragraphs to describe what is right in front of the eyes of anyone who cares to open their eyes and look. That's the torso torquing back and to the left. Are you suggesting he had been shot in the chest with an elephant gun? Because the torso (with the head lolling along by then) not only flips back and left, but lifts in the process and collapses back down onto the seat. And I don't care what speed that takes place. Nerve impulses in myelin sheathing travel at 100 m/s. So what? Absolutely not. I find dismissal of the forward movement to be its own form of autonomic response: a knee-jerk rejection of anything that might suggest that the head shot came from behind, not out of rational viewing of the data in view, but out of rejection of the CIA-puppet Warren Commission and the nutcase Lone Nutter theories. It's what's commonly called "prejudice." And I think just such prejudice was and is an important part of the agenda of the Warren Commission and the Lone Nutter nuts. I'll wait to get word that you've been elected official spokesperson for "most of the forum." Meanwhile, I speak strictly for myself. And I've said what I said. I didn't stutter. Ashton

Hey, Jim. No one appreciates all the hard work that goes into the amazing amount of research around this place more than I—in with which, of course, are all manner of little whirlpools and eddies that don't ever quite seem to get into the flow of the stream: just sort of spin 'round and 'round, collecting a lot of flotsam and jetsam. Most I just note with idle curiousity, but some seem to be of log jam proportions. With all due respect to those busy little Morley and Newman beavers, it seems that someone would have gotten around to noticing that Buell Wesley Frazier was hired at the Texas School Book Depository on the CIA's favorite day: Friday the 13th. Yes, it was on Friday, 13 September 1963. If they had scratched that down on a napkin, they might have gotten around to correlating it to the fact that this was just about one week after a person or persons unknown at the White House changed the itenerary for John F. Kennedy's trip to Texas, extending it from 21 November through 22 November—"to allow for a motorcade in Dallas." Now why, some may wonder, would the hiring of Buell Wesley Frazier at the TSBD one week after this significant change of plans be napkin-worthy. Perhaps you know. Perhaps you'd now like to take this little matched pair of data and plug them into your scenario here and see where it goes downstream. Perhaps not. We'll see. Ashton

Hi Dawn, Yes. And have asked several times for a proponent of the alleged "throat wound" to start a thread on the subject, which I will be happy to discuss there. What is in evidence is a tracheotomy opening where a "throat wound" is claimed by some to have been (under what circumstances such claims were made would be of interest to pursue in its own thread). From somewhere behind; yes, that's precisely what I see, and what I have invested more than a little time and effort in attempting to demonstrate clearly, illustrating on the film the outline of the head and back and shoulders with a grid of motion lines showing the very sudden forward motion of the head between frame 312 and 313.Do you see, with your own eyes, the extraordinarily abrupt and forward pitch of Kennedy's head in what I have posted, or do you not? I'm simply asking you what you see, with your own eyes. Forget about the Warren Commission, forget about Oswald, forget about Oliver Stone, forget about the Badge Man, the Dog Man, the Umbrella Man, the Sewer Man, the Candy Man, the Piltdown Man, and Manfred Mann. Just look at what happens in the animation above and tell me what you see in regards to the motion of the head at the moment of impact. Yes. I agree. There unquestionably is a backward motion of the torso, and the head unquestionably goes with it. The question is what happens to the head at the moment a projectile of some description hits the head (or concusses the head, take your pick), and the further question is whether it is a projectile that drives the entire torso backward, or whether it is an autonomic seizure of the nervous system in the close aftermath of a good deal of the brain having been blown forward out through the right front of the forehead/temple area at the moment of impact—when the head plainly, significantly, inarguably jerks forward. And the latter is my position from what I see with my eyeballs and have attempted in good faith to show visually. I'm not certain if you are being argumentative for its own sake, or if you really can't comprehend any other possibilities than the two you attempt to limit me to.I don't "endorse." I never argue "for its own sake." I look with my eyes, I observe for myself, and I say what I observe. I don't ask permission to look, and I never check to make sure I'm following the tail of something or somebody in front of me first. So I've said here what I see with my eyes. What do you see? Ain't it, though. Ashton

Well, Erick, you brought the Zapruder film into evidence for what you proffered as "The Head Wound Explained," so I rather think you "opened the door," counselor. As to the validity of that particular piece of filmaking: despite wondering why you would call it into question now after introducing it as evidence at the outset of your argument, I am painfully aware of the temperature of the debate over whether it is newsreel or cinéma verité. But there already is a very active thread in this forum wherein John Dolva, Frank Agbat, et al. have done, and continue to do, an astounding job of comparing the Zapruder film to the Nix film (and now others) in terms of sync. And I am on record of having said before they began their riveting work that I believed that the Zapruder film and the Nix film shared, I believe I said, "a cruciform concordance"—which confused the hell out of several people, I think, and with sound reason. I meant only that from my lay observation they did synchronize in ways that could not be faked. They cross. They overlap. They intersect at and around the head shot depicting the same event. We'll see. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue using the Zapruder film in the discussion you started by calling upon it as evidence for a frontal head shot. To that end, I've made a somewhat longer clip that I include below, after some discussion, to attempt to provide a little more visual context regarding some of the points you raised. I'll put it in the message where I feel it's most pertinent. Regarding the forward ejecta I pointed out in my first four-frame exhibit, you said: With all due respect—and not stipulating for a moment that Mrs. Kennedy was on a bone retrieval mission when she climbed onto the back of the limo—you seem to be arguing vigorously against yourself. Convincingly, from here.Unless I'm badly misunderstanding you, ejecta reasonably could be expected from both the entrance and exit points of a projectile—or, in your "concussion" model of the head explosion, "backwards out of the wound" (unless you are now abandoning the concussion model). Therefore, your argument on the subject of ejecta alone now supports a hypothesis for the head wound coming from either the front or the rear. Is that correct, or do you want to amend that argument? Hmmm. Well, I'm a bit more simple minded. I observe the motorcade moving in a direction that necessarily would carry Officer Hargis into a cloud of relatively lightweight particles suddenly dispersing into the air in many directions—particularly on a day with wind (which seems to be uniformly left out of the equation). It's also my understanding from the record that Officer Hargis wasn't the only one in the area splattered with blood and brain tissue. And again we are back to the duality of the ejecta question. You seem to have argued successfully already that Hargis very well could have been hit with ejecta caused by a shot from behind. I'm sorry, but it is here we have to part ways entirely. That is why I'm now including an expansion on the earlier animation, adding more frames before and after. I had hoped to demonstrate in the smaller anim in favor of bandwidth considerations, but allow me to direct your attention to the following series beginning at Zapruder frame 308.Please note the relatively static position and attitude of JFK's body for five frames prior to the head shot. I assure you that it changes very little prior to that as well, but this will illustrate. There is almost no movement of his body or head at all for five frames. And then there's the head shot. And in the time allowed by ONE frame, Kennedy's head flies forward at least two inches, perhaps more (estimated by head and ear dimensions). And yes, it most certainly is forward—not "left and downward, towards Mrs. Kennedy," because there is no possible stretching of a human neck in that direction relative to the camera position that ever could account for what is depicted in the violent forward motion of the head, pivoting at the neck. Here is the longer animation: It is inarguable that at the moment of impact the head flies violently forward. I don't care how many times Oliver Stone had Kevin Costner drone, "Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left." The animation above demonstrates a violent and abrupt forward change in the positioin of the head at the moment of impact, and in the next frame a considerable chunk of ejecta appears to be shot out of the President's head in precisely the direction of the head movement. And no other thing or person in the moving vehicle exhibits anything even remotely close to the violent sudden forward jerk of John F. Kennedy's head as the right front portion of his forehead explodes outward, to the front. And only after the head has flown forward, only after the skull has been blown open, only then, in frame 315, does the torso arch "back and to the left," the right arm beginning to flying upward in an uncontrolled, autonomic motion. Having studied each frame above in excruciating detail, having traced the dark outline of the head and back—discernible even in frame 313 where the obfuscating mist is greatest—I disagree emphatically. But others can look with their own eyes and judge for themselves. Ashton

Hi Erick, and welcome to the forum. A very interesting piece. Have you studied the head movements, with the neck as a pivot, vs. the full backward jerk of the torso that clearly pivots from the pelvis/hips? If so, would the ballistics you have described account, by force isolated to the head, for the full body motion, and if so, how? Ashton I am isolating my comments only to the immediate movement of the head upon bullet impact. I will concede that after the initial impact, neurological spasms could have been a factor in any other bodily movements. Excellent. I've done a small anim from the Zapruder film, below, focusing on "the immediate movement of the head upon bullet impact" to see if you could expand on that a bit. First, allow me to credit, then apologize to, John Dolva: I've adopted his ingenious stablization technique for this short series—hence the credit—but haven't done it nearly as well as he does—hence the apologies. I feel it will suffice for these purposes, though. I have the first three of four frames of the anim set to 1.5 second intervals so it goes slow enough to see, then the last frame lingers for 3 seconds before the anim loops. In the first frame—Zapruder 312, immediately prior to impact—I have scribed a white line along the silhouette of JFK's back and head. In the first bullet impact frame—Zapruder 313—I have done the same thing, but left the outline from the prior frame in place, connecting them with motion lines. That stays essentially the same through the next frame—Zapruder 314—but there I have added an arrow to what clearly appears to be ejecta, which arrow happens to align almost exactly with the motion lines showing the sudden change of head position. Finally, Zapruder 315 shows JFK's right arm swinging up after the side of his head has been blown out, as his body arcs back, bringing his head almost to the same position as Zapruder 312. Then the sequence starts again and loops: I'm not really up on ballistics, so since this thread is "The Head Wound Explained," I hoped you could explain the ballistics to me of a frontal shot that would throw his head forward to that degree in the time of a single frame, and send ejecta that far forward in the same direction of the head movement by the next frame. Ashton

It was well within the power of Rockefeller/Morgan to turn just one of Kennedy's doctors -- and JFK could have died in his sleep, or been incapacitated and forced to step down for health reasons. Instead they had his brains blown out right into the face of Eastern Establishment high society Queen Jackie Bouvier with flecks of skull and brain and blood and cranial fluid all over. Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly? Premeditate: To think of an act beforehand; to contrive and design; to plot or lay plans for the execution of a purpose. Premeditated design: In homicide cases, the mental purpose, the formed intent, to take human life. Premeditated murder is murder in the first degree. Premeditation: The act of meditating in advance; deliberation upon a contemplated act; plotting or contriving; a design formed to do something before it is done. Decision or plan to commit a crime, such as murder, before committing it. Act: Denotes external manifestation of actor's will. ...Expression of will or purpose; carries idea of performance; ...exercise of power, or effect of which power exerted is cause; an effect produced in the external world by an exercise of the power of a person objectively, prompted by intention, and proximately caused by a motion of the will. It may denote something done by an individual, as a private citizen, or as an officer; or by a body of men...including not merely physical acts, but also decrees, edicts, laws, judgments, resolves, awards, and determinations. Criminal act: External manifestation of one's will which is prerequisite to criminal responsibility. There can be no crime without some act, affirmative or negative. An omission or failure to act may constitute an act for purpose of criminal law. Malice: A condition of mind which prompts a person to do a wrongful act willfully, that is, on purpose, to the injury of another, or to do intentionally a wrongful act toward another without justification or excuse. ...A condition of the mind showing a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief. Malitia precogitata: malice aforethought—an intent, at the time of a killing, willfully to take the life of a human being...but "malice aforethought" does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite, or hatred towards the individual killed. Malice in fact: Express or actual malice. It implies desire or intent to injure... . Malicious act: A wrongful act intentionally done without legal justification or excuse; an unlawful act done willfully or purposely to injure another. Malicious injury: An injury committed against a person at the prompting of malice or hatred towards him, or done spitefully or wantonly. ...Injury involving element of fraud, violence, wantonness and willfulness, or criminality. Actio non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea: An act does not make one guilty, unless the intention be bad. Acta extoria indicant interiora secreta: External acts indicate undisclosed thoughts. Malitilis hominum est obviandum: The wicked or malicious designs of men must be thwarted. Rational people of good faith have no obligation to explain, or even attempt to explain, in rational terms the wicked, malicious, vicious, and fundamentally mad acts that some men are capable of. No invasion of Cuba occurred. A wicked, malicious, vicious, and fundamentally mad public murder did occur. What was planned, premeditated, with malice aforethought, was carried out. That is inarguable. It is on film. That is one very good and very rational reason why this is not the "Phantom Invasion of Cuba that Did Not Happen Debate" forum. This is the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum. Ashton Gray

That sounds like a very good solution. (At least I don't think the forum has imposed a quota on new topics. Yet.) Ashton

Assuming, arguendo, that there were no diversionary reports, and that no silenced (sound suppressed) shots were fired, yes, the accounts all could be interpreted to conform. Ashton P.S. Who is BN and what is the TUP?

Hi Erick, and welcome to the forum. A very interesting piece. Have you studied the head movements, with the neck as a pivot, vs. the full backward jerk of the torso that clearly pivots from the pelvis/hips? If so, would the ballistics you have described account, by force isolated to the head, for the full body motion, and if so, how? Ashton

John's animated gif: John, I've been following this whole discussion with great interest, and actually being able to more or less keep up—until I hit this. I'm replying to this message instead of your latest message on this because I wanted the animated gif included to refer to. You keep describing things that I simply cannot see at all, and in reality can't even fathom what you're talking about in your most recent posts about this. That isn't to say or suggest that you and others don't see these fine points, just that I don't. My main lack of understanding, though, arises from what for the life of me seems to be a "skewing" of the whole bottom half of the image, of which the apparent "tracking" motion of the white lines (which makes the dark line follow as the "negative" space between them) is only a more or less consistent part. The bottom part of the large white vertical column on the left of the image also "tracks" along with these smaller obliquely vertical white lines, as does, it seems to me, the whole lower half of the image to some degree. If the background against which these lines appeared to be "moving" weren't itself moving more or less with them, maybe I could put as much significance in this as you seem to. So far I can't. What am I missing? Ashton P.S. My efforts to bring the gif file forward by quoting the original message were all for nought: the attachments don't attach with the quoted text. I've downloaded the gif animation and added it after the quote.

Four ringy-dingies... Since I'm here, Mr. Plumlee, sitting by the lonely phone: Isn't it true that E. Howard Hunt was at one of the safe houses in Dallas on 22 November 1963, that you knew he would be, and that you were in his presence on that day? Isn't it also true that E. Howard Hunt was at one or more of the safe houses in Dallas on and around 8 November 1963? If you know. Ashton Gray

Hey, Gary. To be perfectly honest, I did gird my loins before posting the rather simple—not to say innocuous—question that began this topic. I knew that it went to the core issue, the only real issue: the thought behind the act, and the thinker or thinkers of the thought that precipitated the act. I've read and appreciate your analysis, and although I can't say that I entirely agree, we do share some points of agreement. With no disrepect to the work that has gone into decades of research by people of good faith, I personally find the "Yankees and Cowboys" dichotomy too simplistic and pat a division of "sides" ever to embrace the forces at play in the Kennedy murder, very similar to the "liberal Democrats vs. conservative Republicans" Punch 'n' Judy show that you can set your watch by in all these "analyses." I find these dichotomies, these "opposing forces," uniformly to be little more in reality than bread and circuses: a public show that feeds the Mockingbird headlines or booksales, and creates tempests in a teacup that mask actual alliances and motives. The invitation to subscribe to any of these supplied dichotomies at once suspends to a greater or lesser degree the latitude of thought. I uniformly ignore them in wholseale lots and follow facts wherever they lead, regardless of real or imagined camp, creed, politics, religion, nature of drawl, institution of degree, or place of origin. On that quoted part, I think it's on the right track. Then allow me to point back to the highly-charged original premise and question of this topic, and what I said above about it going to the core issue, the only real issue: the thought behind the act, and the thinker or thinkers of the thought that precipitated the act.Your post has somewhat preempted a reply I was going to make to Cliff Varnell's latest bombastic fusillade, and I think that I'd rather present it here, in an exchange exhibiting reason and contemplation. The single question posed by Varnell that I even was going to answer is the only one that matters, and is one he should have asked himself in the mirror first: Of course there really is no other point at all. Of course it is the central, pivotal, and paramount question that ultimately has to be answered. Of course it is the entire purpose and cause of this topic that I started. The origins of the plot go to premeditation. The origins of the plot go to malice aforethought. The origins of the plot go to the very soul of the law, but even beyond the letter of the law and to the very soul and spirit of mankind and civilization, as merely reflected and embodied in the law, which attempts to enforce it. These definitions from Black's Law Dictionary answer in full the very pertinent and crucial question Mr. Varnell posed above, however rhetorical he attempted to make it seem: Premeditate: To think of an act beforehand; to contrive and design; to plot or lay plans for the execution of a purpose. Premeditated design: In homicide cases, the mental purpose, the formed intent, to take human life. Premeditated murder is murder in the first degree. Premeditation: The act of meditating in advance; deliberation upon a contemplated act; plotting or contriving; a design formed to do something before it is done. Decision or plan to commit a crime, such as murder, before committing it. Act: Denotes external manifestation of actor's will. ...Expression of will or purpose; carries idea of performance; ...exercise of power, or effect of which power exerted is cause; an effect produced in the external world by an exercise of the power of a person objectively, prompted by intention, and proximately caused by a motion of the will. It may denote something done by an individual, as a private citizen, or as an officer; or by a body of men...including not merely physical acts, but also decrees, edicts, laws, judgments, resolves, awards, and determinations. Criminal act: External manifestation of one's will which is prerequisite to criminal responsibility. There can be no crime without some act, affirmative or negative. An omission or failure to act may constitute an act for purpose of criminal law. Malice: A condition of mind which prompts a person to do a wrongful act willfully, that is, on purpose, to the injury of another, or to do intentionally a wrongful act toward another without justification or excuse. ...A condition of the mind showing a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief. Malitia precogitata: malice aforethought—an intent, at the time of a killing, willfully to take the life of a human being...but "malice aforethought" does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite, or hatred towards the individual killed. Malice in fact: Express or actual malice. It implies desire or intent to injure... . Malicious act: A wrongful act intentionally done without legal justification or excuse; an unlawful act done willfully or purposely to injure another. Malicious injury: An injury committed against a person at the prompting of malice or hatred towards him, or done spitefully or wantonly. ...Injury involving element of fraud, violence, wantonness and willfulness, or criminality. Actio non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea: An act does not make one guilty, unless the intention be bad. Acta extoria indicant interiora secreta: External acts indicate undisclosed thoughts. Malitilis hominum est obviandum: The wicked or malicious designs of men must be thwarted. So the question stands, one that each has to answer for himself: Was the CIA involved or not? Because if the CIA was involved in the premeditated murder of the President of the United States, the CIA does not work for or take the orders of the President of the United States, nor does it work for the United States at all, nor in its interests. If the CIA was involved, it works for, and at the behest of, and on the orders of whoever's will, premeditation, power, and malicious intent was exercised and carried out at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, 22 November 1963 in a picturesque park in Dallas, Texas, and has worked for that unseen hand at all relevant times, from its inception until this day, this hour, this moment. And there lies the still undisclosed thought. There lies the source of evil intent. There lies the power. There lies the unseen hand. Ashton Gray

There are indications in the timeline that the Hunt note and the Hosty note are one and the same. If so, it makes Hosty a cut-out between Oswald and E. Howard Hunt, and resolves all the ridiculously conflicting stories about who saw or did not see the Hosty note, what its contents were or were not, whether any threats against the FBI were contained therein, and what became of the purported Hosty note: a "Hosty note" never existed, only the Hunt note delivered to Hosty, not in an opened envelope, but sealed and delivered only to Hosty. In the timeline, this hypothesis adds another bouquet to Hosty's contacts with Ruth Hyde Paine, particularly in relation to other events. But all this will be explored more fully at another time. It is only mentioned here for entertainment value. Ashton

It is Operation Mockingbird. They wasted no time at all in running in some mechanic to completely whitewash the original Wikipedia "Watergate first break-in" article (which I derived a lot of my research from) back to the Official Story, nor in completely eradicating from existence the Remote Viewing Timeline that exposes serious CIA crimes, which first was posted in Wikipedia. The page I just linked to for the timeline originally had a big banner at the top with the story of the Wikipedia censorship, but it appears they've elected to take that down. Ashton

It's interesting how ONE WORD creats a Pavlov's dog response. I never said "JFK was killed by rogue elements of the CIA". I said the plot INITIALLY started with Lansdale/Phillips/Morales acting on their own, but eventually they garned significant support and the operation cannot be described as "rogue." You are the one who introduced into this thread the concept of a "rogue" CIA veteran, General Edward Lansdale, being the originating source for the plot to murder John F. Kennedy in cold blood, as though it were Lansdale's own personal aberration having nothing to do with his having been a founding member of CIA, keeping the frequent company of McCone, Dulles, Helms, Hunt, et al. You are the one who introduced into this thread the concept that "initially" this was merely Lansdale's own "rogue" idea, divorced from the greater purpose and agenda of the Central Intelligence Agency itself, and that Lansdale only got the initial support and agreement of two other "rogue" CIA veterans, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales. You go on about how we all need to look up the definition of "initially," your escape hatch for your "rogue" characterization of CIA involvement in the assassination plot, so we can all be more accepting and compliant and just admit that the JFK murder has been "solved" through such acceptance of the "rogue" origins of the premeditated murder. Well, how about we all look up the relevant definition of "rogue": ROGUE: No longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade: a rogue cop; a rogue union local You are the one who has asserted, repeatedly, this inobediant, uncontrollable, deviant, renegade exogenous origin for any and all subsequent CIA involvement in the premeditated murder of John F. Kennedy. You are the one who, by so postulating and asserting, have exonerated from complicity the head of the entire agency at all relevant times, John McCone, to whose hands the blood-drenched CIA sceptre had been passed from Allen Dulles; who was overseeing the black secrets of MKULTRA at all relevant times; and to whom Edward Lansdale was answering at all relevant times—through the Special Groups and Lansdale's involvement with Operation Mongoose. You are the one who has asserted that the buck stopped at the desk of Richard Helms for any and all CIA knowledge or involvement in the premeditated murder of John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald. You are the one who has invoked CIA's favorite apology, "compartmentalization," the same song as the CIA puppet Patrick Gray sang: "The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing." Ignoring, of course, the fact that not a finger on either hand moves without the knowledge and permission of the head. You are the one who by insinuation has tacitly postulated that John McCone—the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; the head of the world's most massive clandestine intelligence machine—was so incredibly stupid, so utterly blind, so hilariously incompetent, so hopelessly seized in a walking cognitive coma, that Edward Lansdale, Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales could plot right under his nose, but in complete secret from him, for over a year at least, using agency funds, lines, personnel, safe houses, facilities, and transportation in the meticulous planning and execution of what proved to be a successful assassination of the President of the United States, McCone then going on in blind, ignorant innocence to sit dutifully cheek-by-jowl with Richard Helms in the Warren Commission—in front of McCone's predecessor, Dulles; and in front of the father of the deformed, malevolent, psychotic, pathologically lying bastard child called CIA, John J. McCloy—and assure them and the world that none of his CIA Boy Scouts were involved. Apparently, though, all we have to do is go look up the word "initially," and we'll all understand how the case has been "solved." I don't know how many millions of people by now have been subjected to this "rogue" poison, but I sure hope they all remembered to drink from the antidote bottle marked "INITIALLY." I don't think they have. And if they have, they've just fallen for a typical CIA double-layered trick: "INITIALLY" is no antidote at all, but the final poison: exogenous origin. I think this has so seeped into the research groundwater that there will never be any way to measure the amount of destruction and set-back to any real advance of the case toward actual solution. But that's just my opinion. Screaming theories may be closer than they appear. Ashton

ERROR: You have exceeded the number of giving ups allowed by the forum software Ashton

Prouty notwithstanding, I've read the article you've linked to in post #3 and find it sorely wanting, while you present it as being somehow dispositive. It is not. It is a cursory and superficial (not to say snide) dismissal that raises as many issues as it purports to dismiss. Not the least of those issues is subsequent related legislation that was passed after Kennedy had very abruptly been taken out of the picture. I am not Pollyana enough or whack enough to posit that Federal Reserve directors huddled in back rooms and plotted or had the means to carry out the murder of John F. Kennedy, or that issues connected with the Federal Reserve policies and practices constituted some sole motivation for the murder. In the balance, for someone like Professor Flaherty to submit the equivalent of a senior high school paper as a final judgment on the non-relationship of the Federal Reserve to moneyed interests already in the play seems to reflect badly on schooling taking place at the College of South Carolina. Ashton ****************************************************** "Prouty notwithstanding, I've read the article you've linked to in post #3 and find it sorely wanting, while you present it as being somehow dispositive. It is not. It is a cursory and superficial (not to say snide) dismissal that raises as many issues as it purports to dismiss." And, snide is how Ron Ecker seems to come off to me, regarding Prouty. "I am not Pollyana enough or whack enough to posit that Federal Reserve directors huddled in back rooms and plotted or had the means to carry out the murder of John F. Kennedy, or that issues connected with the Federal Reserve policies and practices constituted some sole motivation for the murder." Exactly! And, you won't find any sole entity to hang it on, or point the finger to, either. Because, it was a group comprised of a combination of those above mentioned who utilized the services and representatives of their own private armed forces of covert operators; police [peace (?)] officers, be they Metro or S.W.A.T. Teams; goon squads, be they modern day Ivy League educated Mafioso family lieutenants; working in collusion with the connections they all held [bought] within both, the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. Dismantling The Federal Reserve was only ONE of the major mortal sins this power base held JFK in contempt for, all sweeping generalities Ron Ecker may sttribute to my comments, aside. Ron's approach to this topic - on my reading - is that he maintains an open mind about the Fed, it's role, significance and means of operation - and Kennedy's relationship with it. He is willing to embrace an unorthodox view on these topics, but will not do so without convincing evidence. Part of the process of establishing such evidence would be to debunk orthodox viewpoints in rigorous debate. If that's being 'snide', I please guilty also. What I tried—and apparently failed miserably—to point out in this regard is that this area is a complex study worthy of a great deal of research and analysis. While I make no case that the case for Federal Reserve issues being involved in the assassination has been made, at the same time I believe that the sophomoric treatise at issue is tissue-thin as some "thorough debunking" of all the matters that have been raised in that regard. Even Flaherty's own paper points to statuatory considerations going back decades, and to fully understand those would be to step into Constitutional issues. Then the very genesis of the Federal Reserve and its assumed and practical powers comes into play—a subject on which oceans of ink have been spilled. It is inarguable that significant changes to currency and coin came into play surrounding and after the assassination. And all of it is tethered to considerations and complications of the power of Presidential Executive Orders vis-a-vis all the foregoing. The "open mind" doesn't declare the accomplishment of "debunking" of all possible relevant considerations and ramifications with a wave of Flaherty flatulence. Ashton

If we assume that the original of this letter, if it could be found, would prove to be genuine, would it have any relevant evidentiary value? Speaking only for me, if the original of that letter could be found, or any other substantiation could be established with relatively high certainty, it would have a very high relevant evidentiary value to me. I, though, am speaking of its value where it currently sits, disputed, in relation to other interesting entries in a detailed timeline that grows daily. While on that subject, and in this specific context, I will say this: the likelihood that any such letter, if authenticated, was addressed to Texas millionaire oil and real estate magnate H.L. Hunt is on a par with a likelihood of it having been addressed to William Hunt of ketchup fame. Ashton

Hi, Cliff. Thanks for getting back to me with actual answers, now, to the questions I had asked some number of messages back. Your answers go directly to my original premise for this topic, and its pursuant question, which I'm going to recap here at the outset of this reply, just as I originally wrote it in the first message in this thread: ====================== If the CIA was involved at all, in any way, in the Kennedy murder, it was not taking orders from, or acting in the exclusive interests of, or beholden to, or doing the bidding of, or reduced to a parity with, or in any way junior to: • Texas oil men • Texas politicians • The Vice President of the United States • Pro-Castro forces • Anti-Castro forces • Cubans • Castro • The Mafia, or any part thereof So was the CIA involved or not? ====================== Before taking up your individual answers below, I'm going to summate here, first, what I understand to be your answer to the seminal question of this topic: "So was the CIA involved or not?" You correct me if I'm wrong (in as few unnecessary words as you can manage), but my understanding is that you assert that the entire plan for the Kennedy assassination was, indeed, the origination of a CIA founding veteran, General Edward Lansdale—but only as a CIA (and military) "rogue." You then posit further crucial CIA involvement, naming such CIA superstars and long-time CIA veterans as: • Richard Helms • James Jesus Angleton • David Atlee Phillips, and • David Sanchez Morales. Unless my count is off, we have, in your scenario, no fewer than five central CIA figures all conspiring together to effect the murder of John F. Kennedy—but only as CIA "rogues" keeping this dark secret from the rest of the CIA. I need to pause here in this summation to point out that this "CIA rogue" scenario that you (and others) have put forward completely clears then-CIA Director John McCone of any knowledge or participation at any relevant time. Now, I am not reaching even slightly to any rhetorical devices such as hyperbole to state here what I clearly understand your answer to the seminal question above to be. I must, though, be able to orient your further answers, below, to this central and primary question, above, so unless and until you correct any false impression I've gotten from your copious writings, I am going to proceed on the basis of the above, which is my good-faith understanding of your screed. Omitting, for the moment, any real assessment of the proven participation on 10 October 1963 of CIA's Jane Roman, J. C. King (Chief of all CIA operations in the Western Hemisphere), and Tom Karamessines (Deputy to CIA covert operations chief) in sending patently false information on Lee Harvey Oswald to CIA Mexico, I'm going to turn to your answers concerning motive for the murder John F. Kennedy, which you claim to have been effected through the participation of five CIA "rogues" listed above. To recap your proffered motive, you say that these CIA "rogues" were sympathetic to and cooperative in the Lansdale plan for the following purpose: "To establish a pre-text [sic] for a military invasion of Cuba." Sincerely hoping that I am not taking too many liberties in attempting to paraphrase my best understanding of your position, your case is that a military invasion of Cuba was important enough to CIA's Edward Lansdale, Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, and David Sanchez Morales that they would conspire (as "rogues," outside of any other CIA knowledge or participation) to effect a daylight murder of the President of the United States, and thereby engender enough public loathing against Castro and Cuba to justify the replacement President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, with the backing of Congress, to launch an all-out military invasion of Cuba—despite the recent Bay of Pigs catastrophe and the nuclear arms stand-off with the Soviet Union over Cuba that terrified the world. Now, I know my reputation, and I fear that you, or others, may think that I am resorting to my infamous sarcasm or hyperbole here in attempting, in the best way I can, to reduce and distill your prolix pronunciamentos into something accessible, into a fair and probative summation that takes into account my most honest and sober comprehension of what you have put forward—however incomprehensible any or all of it might seem to me. And it is on the foundation of this model, if I understand you correctly, that you stand to say the assassination of John F. Kennedy has been "solved." Given that statement of my best understanding, I will attempt below to address your specific answers going to motive and other purported participants in a quest for that alleged motive: "a pre-text [sic] for a military invasion of Cuba." (while also attempting to work around the quotation quotas of the board). I asked you for whom such a pretext (assassination of the President) for a military invasion of Cuba was being manufactured. You now have answered, in pertinent part: Thank you. Let's now bring the cast of suspects purportedly engaged in this assassination plot up to date: Purported Participants in the Plot to Murder John F. Kennedy in Order to Provide a Pretext for a Military Invasion of Cuba, According to Cliff Varnell, et al. • Vice Pesident Lyndon Baines Johnson • Director of FBI J. Edgar Hoover TEXAS OIL MEN: • H.L. Hunt • George W. Bush MAFIA FIGURES • Sam Giancana SENIOR MILITARY "ROGUES" • General Curtis LeMay • General Lyman L. Lemnitzer • General Edward Lansdale (also a CIA "rogue"—see below) CIA "ROGUES": • Former Director of CIA Allen Dulles • Richard Helms • James Jesus Angleton • David Atlee Phillips, and • David Sanchez Morales I'll pause here only to mention what seems, to me, to be something of an omission: the assistant to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor was one Thomas A. Parrott, another long-time CIA veteran, who doubled as secretary for the Special Group and the Special Group Augmented at all relevant times. How and why I believe that should be mentioned in passing at this point I will defer to a later time. Suffice it to say that other members of said Special Groups included General Edward Lansdale and Director of CIA John McCone. But let us move on... All right. Allow me to update the record here to the best of my understanding: all the felonious, murderous planning and plotting by the 13 (so far) powerful men listed above to murder Kennedy and thereby launch a military invasion of Cuba was foiled by someone (who, I have no idea—it hasn't been revealed so far) dropping the ball on murdering Lee Harvey Oswald the same day.The fact that Oswald was murdered a little over twenty-four hours later went for nought: it wasn't good enough. So the murders of both John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald accomplished nothing that the plotters had intended to accomplish. Objection. Stringent objection. There is no "throat wound" in evidence. There is a tracheotomy opening in evidence, with oral claims that a throat wound had been there in the same place prior to the tracheotomy. It seems that always when proponents of the purported "throat wound" sally forth with a case built on it, they somehow sort of uniformly omit mention of the tracheotomy (performed on someone who had half their skull and brains missing), and the fact that the tracheotomy forever eradicated any and all possibility of ever establishing the prior presence or absence of any such alleged "throat wound." You operate on any articles of faith-based belief you want. And by all means, peddle that to anybody who will buy it—and lots of people always line up for snake oil, wherever sold. Don't try to put it past me again, though, as any established "fact." It isn't. Period. So if you want to debate the alleged "throat wound," start a new thread and I'll meet you there. Meanwhile, I'm not wasting any more forum space on it here in this topic. I next asked for whose benefit would a "military invasion of Cuba" be manufactured. As is demonstrated in the record, you didn't supply an answer. Instead you took offense at something I said, paraphrasing you in innocence, lamentably using quotation marks for something I though was an accurate restatement of your own claims. I'm not qoing to squander any of my quote quota on this, since it isn't responsive to my questions, but I am going to answer it, regrettably resorting to color and other devices for quotations. I had said: ASHTON GRAY: ...[H]ere's why I'm asking the questions to begin with: you've got some pretty bombastic assertions afloat all over the forum about how "the whole Kennedy assassination is totally solved" You replied in pertinent part: CLIFF VARNELL: That's it! You're Speering me and I don 't dig it. I truly enjoy discussing this case with you, Aston, but when you put quotation marks around sentences YOU wrote and attribute the statement to me -- it pisses me off. ...PLEASE quote me directly and accurately when characterizing my position, and I will show you the same respect. Okay? ...Now, I never said the case was "totally solved." I never used those words. I feel the case is solved to 95%. Okay. There was no intention to misrepresent you or your position. Therefore, I'll merely quote below (in color) three statements you have made that are of record in this forum, and will provide the post numbers so any members who care to verify the accuracy and context of these quotes can do so, and I'll allow others to determine for themselves whether or not I mischaracterized your own statements: CLIFF VARNELL: "The case of John F. Kennedy's murder was solved in 2001 with the publication of James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, with its revelations about Operation Northwoods." —18 August 2006, Post #72511 CLIFF VARNELL: "This case is solved to my satisfaction and I don't need the NY Times to ratify my conclusion." —17 November 2006, Post #81458 CLIFF VARNELL: "The JFK research community has hypnotized itself into thinking that the case hasn't already been solved." —1 December 2006, Post #83351 You'll have to state for yourself whether you stand by those statements, or have fallen back from them. Maybe you didn't mean "totally solved" when you said "solved." Maybe you just meant "partially solved." You didn't add any such qualifiers, though, did you? It calls to mind being "a little bit pregnant." Moving on... I next asked you by whom such a military invasion of Cuba would be ordered. You have answered, consistent with your above answers: Although the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, certainly was "gunned down soon after the deed," I understand that your position is that it wasn't "soon enough." Nor do you state who was supposed to do the timely gunning down. The net effect is that the cast of purported conspirators has not changed. I have to pause again, though, this time merely to reflect upon the apparent absence of any Cuban co-conspirators in this drama as you have laid it out. I'm hoping one or two will appear on the stage in a late act. I then had asked you by whom the military invasion of Cuba would be carried out—hypothetically given the success of this purported plot. I'll only mention here the date of the sudden "revelations" about Operation Northwoods: 18 November 1997. I don't have any further comment at this time.The last question I asked you, you didn't answer at all. Perhaps you felt it had been answered by your having included Lyndon Baines Johnson as successor to Kennedy. That question that remains unanswered was, and is, on whose authority would any such "military invasion of Cuba" be carried out. I can only surmise, unless you wish to correct this impression, that you believe Lydon Baines Johnson could have pulled off such a drastic military invasion, in the Zeitgeist of late 1963-1964, without the slightest intervention by or involvement of Congress, and without any political or nuclear fallout. And I can only presume that you believe that all these men shared a belief in just such an immediate wielding of new-found power vested in Johnson by the explosion of John F. Kennedy's skull: • Director of FBI J. Edgar Hoover TEXAS OIL MEN: • H.L. Hunt • George W. Bush MAFIA FIGURES • Sam Giancana SENIOR MILITARY "ROGUES" • General Curtis LeMay • General Lyman L. Lemnitzer • General Edward Lansdale (also a CIA "rogue"—see below) CIA "ROGUES": • Former Director of CIA Allen Dulles • Richard Helms • James Jesus Angleton • David Atlee Phillips, and • David Sanchez Morales So as I see this, your position is in direct opposition to my entire primary thesis at the top of this thread and this message, your assertion, contrariwise, being that the CIA was involved—but only "rogue" elements of CIA—and that those "rogue" CIA elements were working at the behest and in the interests of not only Texas oil men and the Mafia, but also in concert with "rogue" military generals and the Director of the FBI. But no Cubans named anywhere. And after all their efforts, after three violent and vicious murders in two days, no military invasion of Cuba occurred. Yes. There is that. I'll give you that. Your industry at spreading such as is condensed and summarized in this post cannot be denied or gainsayed in any way. You may single-handedly hold the record, but I don't know. What I do know, or at least strongly believe, is that if I said what I actually think about it, I would be permanently banned from this forum within the hour. Ashton Gray

NOTE: In addition to the image attachment quota, the forum now—and I couldn't make this up if I tried—has quotas for the number of QUOTE BLOCKS that can be used in responding to someone's post. That's right: you're not permitted more than some handful of quotes from another message or poster. Why? Why such an arbitrary babysitting of quotations? You'll have to ask the admins. Given that Cliff Varnell's message to me must have pushed that quota to its limits, I'm now reduced to having to recode the whole message, stripping out the quote codes and replacing them with color just to be able to reply. That's right, the "limitation" is this inane and pointless: you actually can quote all you want—you just can't use the standard BB code provided by the software for quoting. You have to use OTHER codes instead—which does nothing at all to reduce the amount of text or bandwidth. I just know some of you think I'm making this up. I'm not. Of course this arbitrary "limitation" doesn't prevent the most egregious and prevalent forum quoting abuse that goes on all the time: reposting the entirety of some long message just to add one or two lines of comment at the end. Or, messages that look like the windshield of a car that went through a locust storm with all the half-codes left splattered all over them. Oh, well. Spend all the time you want trying to figure this one out. Meanwhile, back at the Rainbow Ranch... CLIFF VARNELL: The primary goal of the JFK assassination was to establish a pre-text for a military invasion of Cuba ASHTON: ...you still haven't answered the question: For whom? CLIFF VARNELL: Those with a vested interest in a US military take-over of Cuba. Mostly Cowboys, if I may use Carl Oglesby's Yankee/Cowboy dichotomy.. You can with people who accept simplistic and generalized references instead of specific answers to specific questions. You've said the Kennedy assassination was to create "a pretext for a military invasion of Cuba," and I've asked "for whom," and I have yet to see an anwer to the question I asked. United States military invasion of a country with close ties to the superpower, at the time, of the Soviet Union, in the aftermath not only of the Bay of Pigs debacle but of the infamous nuclear arms standoff isn't a game of cowboys and broomstick horsies. So if you don't have an answer to "for whom," meaning a specific person or specific persons with names and faces, then how about you just say so and we won't have to drag this out any longer. ASHTON: For whose benefit? CLIFF VARNELL: Depends on their proximity to pre-Castro business interests. Heh. Look, Cliff, I enjoy a good tap-dance as much as anybody. But here's why I'm asking the questions to begin with: you've got some pretty bombastic assertions afloat all over the forum about how "the whole Kennedy assassination is totally solved," and about how sort of ignorant and uninformed anyone who doesn't see it or know it is, so I'm asking for you to enlighten me. So far, we're at strike two. ASHTON: Ordered by whom? CLIFF VARNELL: I think Lansdale put it together initially on a "rogue" basis Oh. One of them pesky CIA "rogues" straying off the reservation. Gotcha'. That seems to have been an epidemic in the ranks of the CIA over the years, huh? I mean, they had a whole herd of "rogues." (Which sort of starts to water down the word a little, but what are you going to do?) I hate to put a knot in this string, but I'm afraid, Cliff, that Lansdale could not order the United States military invasion of a country under even the wildest stretch of imagination—rogue or no-rogue. (And, yes, I know that you answered a different question than the one I asked, but then, that's just another form of no-answer to what I did ask, so we're at strike three.) ASHTON: Run by whom? CLIFF VARNELL: Ed Lansdale, David Phillips, David Morales. <Sigh> Cliff, you've gone over a cliff. Every one of my questions with "whom" in it was precisely and exclusively and only pursuant to, and relevant to, and directed to your assertion of motive for the assassination, that being, according to you, "to establish a pre-text for a military invasion of Cuba." I didn't ask you who you think the assassination was "run by." I asked you who would run a military invasion of Cuba. So far you have not answered even one single question about who such a military invasion was for, who would benefit from such a military invasion, who would order such a military invasion, who would run such a military invasion, and the final—and most important—question... ASHTON: On whose authority? CLIFF VARNELL: [cue Treasure of the Sierra Madre] "Badges? We don' need no steenkeen badges!!" Tell it to the Marines, pal. Ashton

Prouty notwithstanding, I've read the article you've linked to in post #3 and find it sorely wanting, while you present it as being somehow dispositive. It is not. It is a cursory and superficial (not to say snide) dismissal that raises as many issues as it purports to dismiss. Not the least of those issues is subsequent related legislation that was passed after Kennedy had very abruptly been taken out of the picture. I am not Pollyana enough or whack enough to posit that Federal Reserve directors huddled in back rooms and plotted or had the means to carry out the murder of John F. Kennedy, or that issues connected with the Federal Reserve policies and practices constituted some sole motivation for the murder. In the balance, for someone like Professor Flaherty to submit the equivalent of a senior high school paper as a final judgment on the non-relationship of the Federal Reserve to moneyed interests already in the play seems to reflect badly on schooling taking place at the College of South Carolina. Ashton

For whom "to invade Cuba?" I should have phrased that with more precision: The primary goal of the JFK assassination was to establish a pre-text for a military invasion of Cuba. You accomplished more precision; you still haven't answered the question: For whom? For whose benefit? Ordered by whom? Run by whom? On whose authority? Ashton

You have a strange notion that a timeline is a theory that is supported by the evidence. Actually, I don't have any notion like that at all. I have a very unstrange notion that a timeline is a recitation of facts presented chronologically. Correct. Agreed. In fact, I'm on record as not propounding a theory. That's because I think the facts speak for themselves. Allow me to correct what seems to be several misapprehensions. First, I'm not engaged in any sort of contest or battle whatsoever, so naturally don't feel any need for a "strategy." Presentation of relevant facts is not a "strategy," nor does it require "strategy." It's a rather plodding clerical activity, not a win-lose game. Second, the timeline—which speaks for itself—doesn't present "two separate issues, for example, Watergate and Scientology." It presents two very closely related issues: Watergate and the development of the CIA's remote viewing program, which run tandem in time, both very much connected with CIA. That CIA involved Scientology rather than Rosicrucianism in their remote viewing program is a matter of record. If it offends you that Scientology was made part of it by them, why do you take that up with me? I'm reporting the facts as I've found them to be. Considerable effort has gone into making it accurate, not just by me. Mistakes do get made, but by and large, yes, I'd say it's pretty darned accurate. Your syllogism, however flawed at its foundation, is at least consistent. But no one has made a claim that the events are connected only by virtue of being in the timeline. The events are connected by common CIA personnel, proximate or concommitant dates, and proximate geographical locations in many cases. So the situation is actually the inverse of your syllogism: because the incidents are connected, they are in the timeline. I'm "theory weary." I've been pounded by "theories" about Watergate for over thirty years, none of which had the slightest ken of half of what I've put into the timeline in this thread. I don't feel any need to formulate a theory.I've said repeatedly, and I feel that the facts I've presented in this thread and elsewhere make the case beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate at all. Without the "first break-in," all the "reasons" given for the so-called "second" break-in are false on their face. All—and that is ALL—of the extant "theories" on Watergate rely 100% on there having been a "first break-in." And there was no "first break-in." It was a hoax of the first order. In the topic There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate, I posted this over six months ago: For over six months that offer has sat right here in this forum, and not one person has taken me up on it. Including you. The offer stands. For anyone on this earth. Bring 'em on. Get Liddy here. Get Hunt. Get John Dean here. Get Colson here. Tell them all I'm calling them out. Alone. I'll take them all on alone, right here in front of God and everybody. You can e-mail them and send them this message from me. And until somebody answers that offer, and until somebody effectively rebuts the yards of documented facts I've presented, for some reason I don't feel any compulsion to spit out "theories" for entertainment value. I came to this forum not to joust, not to play patty-cake rhetorical games, not to engage in "strategy" or "tactics," but to steam-shovel away as much of the putrid, rotting lies spread by CIA criminals as I possibly can manage within the limits of my being, and to put as much documented truth in its place as I am able. I wanted, and hoped, to be engaged in discussion with people of a like mind and purpose, from whose knowledge in such effort I could benefit. If my "tactics" offend you, maybe we fundamentally are working at cross purposes. Ashton

...I love it when people pooh-pooh my argument without ever addressing a single point I raise. Cliff, easy there, son. If I'd a'thunk at all that the "LLL Generals and Cuban Kennedy Killers Killed Kennedy for to Get Cuba Invaded" model was your own private personal thing, I would have swept me hat off and bowed low before issuing a single pooh-pooh. I did not think that; I was of the opinion that the notion is as popular as Cracker Jacks, and you were merely sharing a handful with your friends. But in any case it is still my opinion that Cubans and their friends in high and low places had as much chance of "getting Cuba invaded" by slipping and slinking around Dallas, Texas for months, lying in wait for a president to show up, as they would have had in the Aleutian Island chain peeling whale blubber. Your mileage may vary. Ashton P.S. I share your opinion of the triple Ls—but in something of a different, more realistic (IMHO) context. Lansdale was very instrumental in setting up the Pentagon Papers op—but you knew that, surely. Oops: I mentioned something in connection with Ellsberg here in the JFK assassination forum, and I'm afraid I'm going to now be Speered. Of course we all know that Ellsberg had nothing at all to do with the Kennedy murder, or the nuclear arms situation surrounding it.

Truly brilliant work, Frank. Ashton