Ashton Gray

That's the trouble of posting snippets of an author's research like I did. In retrospect, I think I lost Armstrong's point that there was more than one "Oswald" (John Pic's refusal to identify). ...John Armstrong's work, when viewed as a whole, is about as far from the "official story" as one can get. I sort of did his research a disservice by quoting so much out of context like I did. And please allow me to cross-correct any wrong impression I might have made in reply: I wasn't meaning to imply at all that either you or Armstrong were disciples of "the Official Story." I just meant that given way that excerpt read, anybody coming along this way new to the subject and not familiar with Armstrong's work would be reading exactly "the Official Story" stated as matters of "fact" concerning incidents that only have been asserted. Amen, Brother Armstrong and Brother Hogan. Wellllllll... Pic is a whole other story. His story is starting to take a pretty distored shape in timelining it. I've only seen some of it. It's off-topic for this thread, really, and I'll try to start a separate one on this at some point. But the story of his cousin, Marilyn Murret, arriving in Japan and telling him about Oswald being in Europe the day the story of Oswald's defection broke (but before it broke), coupled with other bizarre coincidences (particularly around the Thanksgiving 1962 encounter), make him quite a person of interest. Thanks for the clarifications. Ashton

Thanks for posting that version of Bringuier related events, Michael, but I believe it is precisely "the Official Story." The "copious footnotes and references" unfortunately rely almost entirely on anecdotal accounts, bolstered by little "Oswald tracks" (library book checkout, application) that so easily could have been faked by someone acting in Oswald's stead that they practically flash. The entire track of that week of 2 August to 9 August 1963, starting with the purported "Clinton Sightings" and running through the Bringuier op, absolutely reeks, to me, of the exact kind of CIA-created alibi op that the phony Watergate "first break-in" of Memorial Day weekend 1972 was. It's a carbon copy, down to using CIA-payroll Cubans to provide the alibi. By 1972 the CIA had perfected it more and created a much more sophisticated, elaborate, and long-running hoax, but the M.O. is like a fingerprint. Anyone who hasn't studied in depth the article I've linked to in the paragraph above and all the related articles linked to within it will have no clue what I'm talking about. I consider that its own reward. Ashton

Escalante says the report was discovered during an 1979 investigation. Thanks. I'll put the date of the report itself at 15 c. April 1963 and hope one day to get it further narrowed down, or find that other events around it tend to move it in time in one direction or another. Oh my God! An actual date? I feel faint and can't type any more. Why do you have to be so unpleasant. I am doing all I can to help you with your research. It was a joke, John, and of course I appreciate your help. You deleted the that followed it. It may have been the most pleasant thing I said in the post, dealing, as I was, with inherently unpleasant subject matter. Wouldn't you agree that more could be taken from my post for address, with greater profit? My plea for more attention to dates is general, and will continue, and is not a personal assault on you. If and when the zapata fits, though... Ashton

I just wanted to mention how heartened I am to see representatives from all camps and theories working in harmony on this to get at the truth. Ashton

I won't stop pleading for dates, however much such pleas go ignored. It is impossible even to guess a useful date from the sentence "Escalante came across a Cuban intelligence source report in April 1963" since it only gives April, in such wording, as a month during which "Escalante came across...a report," saying nothing about the date of the report itself, which could be 1886 for all I can tell. Are there any specific dates for this incident—either the discovery of the report or the date of the report itself? The precise sequence of events in the month of April 1963 is absolutely crucial to an understanding of this case. One entry alone ought to be enough to convince a stump: Wednesday, 24 April 1963 The Dallas Times Herald is headlined: "LBJ sees Kennedy Dallas Visit—One Day Texas Tour Eyed." On the same day, Ruth Hyde Paine "happens" to arrive at the Oswald home at around 10:00 a.m. and discovers that Lee is fully packed to go to New Orleans. He purportedly asks Ruth to drive his "bags and duffel bags, suitcases, to the bus station for him where he would buy a ticket to go to New Orleans." According to Paine, it is a "complete surprise" to her. [NOTE: Of course it's handy that she just happened to be around to drive him, since he has no driver's license.] Other events in April leading up to this public headline, and the simultaneous sudden compulsion on the part of Lee Harvey Oswald to bolt off to New Orleans, demonstrate that the fix for the Kennedy trip to Dallas already was in the works, and that Oswald had foreknowledge because he clearly was cutting himself loose from Dallas ties to be able to make the trip. There is one glaring period "during the summer of 1963" that I can see being completely explained by such an event.That period comprises the approximate week beginning on or around Thursday or Friday, 1 or 2 August 1963, going through Thursday, 8 August 1963 In the first few days of that time period are the hotly controversial and cloudly claims of Lee Harvey Oswald being in Clinton, Louisiana and surrounds, along with two other men variously claimed possibly to be David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. The entire incident is so conflicted and counterclaimed and argued that it always has stunk mightily of a CIA op to cover Oswald's actual whereabouts using a ringer. That as an isolated event couldn't possibly ever be evaluated, though. However: the very Monday following "the Clinton incident," 5 August 1963, Bringuier provides an alibi for the whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald, claiming (with "corroboration" <SPIT!>) that Oswald was in his store that day, and that Oswald came back the following day, Wednesday, 6 August 1963 and left his Guidebook for Marines, which Bringuier later waved around as "proof" <SPIT!> of Oswald having been there. And what is the next certain location of Lee Harvey Oswald? It is Friday, 9 August 1963, when in a clearly staged dog-and-pony with this same Carlos Bringuier and cruds, Oswald is arrested—providing "proof positive" that he was right there in New Orleans. Dontcha' know. Can I get a witness? Sing "Hallelujah." It should be mentioned that it just so happens that during this exact same period, the big raids take place across the Pontchartrain on the "training camps" (all CIA, all the time), with Fernando Fernandez being trotted out later as the purported snake in the grass. Such incidents in isolation (which is all the timelineless have, feeling around in the dark saying, "Ooooo, this feels sooooo interesting!") are useless for evaluation. But taken together in the correct sequence and order, the Clinton-Bringuier ops stand out naked and blinking in klieg lights as cover-ups for the actual whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald. I said months ago that the Bringuier story stunk, and I have suspected that Oswald might well have been in Miami at the time. This is the first reference I've seen that tends to confirm just such speculation, and in concert with the Clinton op, and the subsequent "arrest," I believe that for the first time there is a straight line beginning to be drawn. Oh my God! An actual date? I feel faint and can't type any more. Ashton

Jack, if you have any web server space you can post photos without the need for "attaching" them. You just have to upload them somewhere and then type the following into your message wherever you want each image to appear. First you type the opening "img" code in square brackets, like this: [img] Immediately after that type in the exact url to your image, with full path, including filename (just like you'd type the url to any web location), then type: [/img] It's easy. (I don't know why those codeboxes are so ridiculously big, or why I can't type a full "img" dummy code into them, but hopefully that explains it well enough. You just put it all on one line in the message: opening img code in square brackets, url to the image, closing /img code in square brackets. That's it.) I guess this should be in the general forum forum, but I thought it would be enough on-topic in this thread, and I don't think anyone wants to lose the benefits of your considerable experience or insights on these issues. Ashton

All of great interest, Michael, and I recommend them all to everyone who passes this way. Thanks again. I also urge everyone to go to The Black Vault's Content page (which is linked to on the wanttoknow page you posted above) and try to help them out with a donation for making all of those CIA documents available. Ashton

Ashton: Anthony Marsh dealt with this one his website, where photocopies of each are also viewable: http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/cubahoax.htm Thanks, Robert. Well, I have to say that was sort of like sitting on the the department store Santa's lap, tugging his beard, and finding out that it comes off. Ashton

The latter of whom (along with his several accomplices) I have become entirely convinced flat-out lied about the celebrated "Oswald visit" to his store on 5 August 1963, with a planted CIA prop of what purportedly was Oswald's "Guidebook for Marines" as so-called "proof" of this visit. What a joke. What a miserable, absurd-on-its-face cock-and-bull story. There's more to come on this. Lots more... Ashton

Omitted is the addresses used on each of the five letters. Could you list each letter chronologically, with the attributed authorship of each, and the address used on each for Lee Harvey Oswald? It would be of inestimable value. There is no sender address in any of the five letters. The Pedro Charles’ letter was sent to Oswald in Dallas. Jorge’s letter was sent to Oswald in Miami. It might interest you to know that on page 34 of the book that one of the two CIA officers who supervised the Manuel Artime operation in 1963 was James McCord of Watergate fame. The other CIA officer was Howard Hunt. There was a misunderstanding. I've replied in detail to your identical message in the other thread, Letters to Oswald from Cuba: Evidence of a CIA Conspiracy? Thanks. Ashton

Omitted is the addresses used for each of the five letters. Can you individually list the letters by date chronologically, giving the attributed authorship for each, and the address used for Lee Harvey Oswald on each? It would be of inestimable value given some of the dates you have stated. Ashton There is no sender address in any of the five letters. I didn't make my question clear, John. Sorry. It's "the address used for Lee Harvey Oswald on each" of the five letters. So far I can't seem to match sender, with date, with OSWALD address on the letter. That's three variables times five letters, and that's what I'm trying to get sorted out. It's of interest to other events around some of those dates. I'm getting the book, but I'm very interested in getting this information in relation to another line of inquiry that's it happens to coincide with. Do you know which Dallas address? That's the question. And the date that letter was sent? Okay. Do you have a specific address in Miami where it was sent to Oswald, and the date of that specific letter. I'm hoping this is clarifying what I failed to make clear earlier that I'm trying to establish. Oh, it interests me a very great deal indeed. Thanks very much. I'm looking forward to this book. Ashton

John, here is what may be an incomprehensible attempt at explaining what I meant about a "variation" on your original stabilization technique—and it may be no variation at all, but a reinvention of the wheel you've already invented. I don't have the original images available in the thread to go back and refer to (as discussed above). Below is a short sequence of three frames I've used from a set of stills someone had done that I downloaded from somewhere on the internet. I've cropped them further myself (vertically) just to keep this as compact as possible. The long white line on the right represents a "stabilization" of horizontal placement of each frame, arbitrarily selected as being the trailing edge of that metal frame that stretches across the limo. The three bright green lines on the left mark the change of position in the "stabilized" frames of the (hopefully) relatively unmoving left elbow of the woman: Seeing some variation in the spacing of just those three green-line marked positions isn't significant because it's an inadequate sample, done roughly, and with stills of questionable pedigree to begin with. I'm only attempting to demonstrate the concept. And of course the concept would be far better served by a tree stump or a lamp post in the landscape rather than an elbow. But as far as my befuddled brain can take this concept, the only things those spans could measure would be either: A. Variation in rate of change (speed) of the limo, or, if there were a fairly extreme anomaly, B. Possible missing frames. I would love for someone to come along and blow this out of the water. Then I could get back to the work I ought to be doing anyway. Ashton

Omitted is the addresses used on each of the five letters. Could you list each letter chronologically, with the attributed authorship of each, and the address used on each for Lee Harvey Oswald? It would be of inestimable value. Ashton

Omitted is the addresses used for each of the five letters. Can you individually list the letters by date chronologically, giving the attributed authorship for each, and the address used for Lee Harvey Oswald on each? It would be of inestimable value given some of the dates you have stated. Ashton

I— I— I didn't know I had made one. Seriously, I do understand the tedium involved, and I do appreciate this new sequence you've posted. No such luck yet. I don't have the means to do the "stretched" version to see how "gap" frames of this sequence using your skewer method would relate to the earlier sequences you've done. If and when you do that the way you did the earlier ones I think the comparison would be worth making. The "half-frame" offsets of your second series were puzzling. Thomas seems to see things in your latest skewer series that I haven't seen yet, so I'll continue to follow the discussion with interest. Meanwhile, I think it a tragedy of immeasurable proportion that the earlier images in this topic have been sloughed off to meet quotas. It makes reading the thing for anyone coming in late utterly incomprehensible, which I think reprehensible, and I think it completely sabotages some very important work, done by you and Frank Agbat, including and especially your very cleverly originated method for stabilization of frames on a given point to test variances. I will volunteer to do anything I can to get all the images for this thread up on server space somewhere so they can be relinked to the original messages not as message attachments but as img code references to a web location. That's how I've done all of my images (except a rare few), and I will make or add space to accommodate those of you and Frank if you want to PM me about it and set something up. I'm peeved to see this work get functionally lost because I think that what you've both done already is landmark work. Separately from all the above, I also had an idea (falling far short of a "point") for a variation on your original technique, but the brief attempts at a test I did went to hell in a handbasket because I don't have a set of stills that have been put through Frank's digital wash and spin cycle, and don't have a clue how to do what he described. Would either of you be willing to make such a set available for others? If so I'll also volunteer to do whatever I can to make space available for it somewhere. Not knowing what the file size would be for an archive of them, or the bandwidth necessary to meet demand makes it impossible to give a carte blanche promise to be able to provide the space alone, but I'll try to get whatever help would be necessary to pull it off. If I can I'll try to write a text description for you and post it here of this "variation" I mentioned above, but don't want to burden you with it or steer you even slightly off what you already were doing. Ashton

A quote of note from the good Doktor Delgado: "We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. "The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. "Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain." —Dr. Jose Delgado testifying before Congress February 24, 1974 edition of the Congressional Record, No. 262E, Vol. 118. He gave that touching plea in the halls of Congress while CIA had its super-secret Remote Viewing program going on just across the river. Another bit of "Fun With Dr. D": Monday, 17 May 1965 The New York Times runs an article on Dr. Jose Delgado, a pioneer of the technology of Electrical Stimulation of the Brain (ESB), entitled “Matador With a Radio Stops Wild Bull.” The story details Dr. Delgado's experiments at Yale University School of Medicine, and work in the field at Cordova, Spain. Describing the work in Spain, the Times says: "...Dr. Delgado pressed a button on a small radio transmitter in his hand and the bull braked to a halt. Then he pressed another button on the transmitter, and the bull obediently turned to the right and trotted away. The bull was obeying commands in his brain that were being called forth by electrical stimulation by the radio signals to certain regions in which fine wires had been painlessly planted the day before." The "Yale University School of Medicine" reference should not be allowed to get lost. Ashton

[sUNG]...and a partridge in a pear tree.[/sUNG] Yes, but John—while entirely conceding the philosophical, almost metaphysical point that the material universe is all motion and does not possess anywhere in its entire expanse an actual static—for mere mortal, practical purposes (as well as for the love of Aunt Marcy), might the relative constant of TIME (expressed as FPS), and the relative motionlessness of points on the ground in the scene be worthy of a Newer Skewer sequence, irrespective of pan, pitch, yaw, tilt, jerk, spasm, rank cinematic amateurism, or even fused vertebrae? I don't mean to the exclusion of the skewering of PIMs (Points In Motion), or to the non-exclusion of PIM-skewering. I just meant that it seemed to be a logical member of the Skewer Set that so far hasn't been represented. Maybe it needs no representation. Ashton

I concur wholeheartedly. I also believe we finally are beginning to see unearthed, in spots here and there, at least some of the roots and creepers of a vast underground system of psychs who have been doing the bidding of CIA for decades. This isn't the place for a full roster (I mean of just what is known), and I hope more about Lilly and Livingston is dug out here, but when I get a chance I'm going to pull together some of these names of "mental health" <SPIT!> individuals and organizations with known and possible connections to CIA, as well as to the Rockefeller-oil-banking contingent. I'm finding some intriguing history that traces way back to the earliest "mental hygiene" <SPIT> society in 1909—predecessor to the World Federation of Mental Health and its offshoots—followed very rapidly by Averell Harriman's mother, in 1910, funding the Eugenics Record Office as a branch of the Galton National Laboratory in London. It's downright astounding how soon afterward fascism officially was founded. By 1928, the Rockefellers had set up the psychiatrist madman (but I repeat myself) Ernst Rudin with his own floor at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy and Demography in Berlin. Rudin was an honored speaker that year at the meeting of the International Federation of Eugenics Societies, speaking on "Mental Aberration and Race Hygiene," and in 1930 led the German delegation to the Mental Hygiene <SPIT!> Congress in Washington, D.C. I apologize: I've already dived into what should be in a new thread, and didn't mean to hijack this one, and don't want to. It's just that there are extraordinary parallels and connections between these core "mental hygiene" and "mental health" organizations, the horrors of World War II, and the subsequent creation of CIA—with staggering connections to the same moneyed interests who backed and promoted the "mental hygiene" and eugenics scum. Nor was MK-ULTRA, or even its "official" CIA predecessor programs, the earliest dabbling of the American intelligence cult into mind control. As early as 1943 OSS's Captain George Hunter White was experimenting with surreptitious administration of drugs in interrogation, advancing in his later career to conduct CIA's hideous LSD experiments on unwitting civilians and secretly film them. So from before its inception, CIA and mental manipulation were joined at the hip. It therefore is impossible for CIA to have been otherwise than also joined at the hip with every leading "mental hygiene" <SPIT!> and "mental health" <SPIT!> organization. Only the brightest and the best. <SPIT!> Ashton

Robert, thanks for this very interesting research. It seems to have inspired a sort of silence. Sometimes silences are signposts. I believe there are connecting paths here, some still covered in brush. Thanks again. Ashton

I am very hesitant to post this miserably lay question—one possible benefit to the thread, though, being to provide a sole focus for any "imbecile" awards. But looking at your new sequence, John (and the earlier one, too), I was reminded of my equatorial brakes problem: everything is in motion relative to other motion. There are no fixed points. Could anything be gained by putting your skewers through points that are motionless relative to the bodies and vehicles in motion, e.g. the foot of one of the standing spectators that can be tracked as long as possible, overlapping another skewer on some new relatively motionless point on the landscape, etc. Trying to answer this question for myself in the realm of pure theory slammed me hard into The Curly Conundrum: "I'm tryin' to think and nothin' happens!" Ashton

Of course it's feasible. All scenarios cobbled together from the Mockingbird headlines always are "feasible." That's why they float. "Feasible" is an infinite set. You can't run out of "feasible," or there wouldn't be disinformation. Truth is a little different. Ashton

Thanks for the info, Mark. Although I'm primarily interested, in this thread, in pursuing the Strange Facts in the Case of T. Plumlee (as it ties into the Dankbaar/Files scenario), this information about Mr. Files's newfound coyness in favor of "more important pursuits" is riveting. There seems to be a pattern that has become so pat, so predictable, so recognizable, so embarrassingly obvious that it almost should have a trademark burned into it as a brand. And I believe we have seen several fairly blatant examples right in this forum. In perhaps oversimplified (but not greatly) terms, here is its outline as I perceive it: 1. A CIA sockpuppet spreads a pre-packaged CIA-scripted fiction story (oh, say, just f'r'instance, about "Watergate") through any medium or several media. [NOTE: It doesn't matter a damn that the crud-of-the-month doesn't "work for CIA." There always is evidence of some background connection to CIA, even if through several arms-length cut-outs, and always "plausible deniability."] 2. Somebody or somebodies come along and start asking a few direct questions about the inevitable inconsistencies or contradictions, or about glaring omissions that Hunt (or the other CIA fiction writers) forgot to put into the talking points and script. 3. The CIA sockpuppet haughtily but oh-so-politely pretends to answer the questions by referring the pesky questioners to the existing "materials" (talking-point articles, cooked legal rulings, canned videos, forged "documents," whatever the backroom boys had cooked up to peddle). [NOTE: At this point the majority of people think they've gotten an answer to their question—when they haven't gotten anything resembling an answer—and just go away, either because they actually have been duped, or are too PC to make any waves by mentioning that they've just been shucked and jived. There are a few, though—thoroughly reprehensible and unpleasant people, of course—who will just repeat the questions, and even have the gall to add more questions that go off-script. And then just keep repeating the questions in the face of any and all of the tireless CIA-trained routines to dodge and evade.] 4. The CIA sockpuppets suddenly become much less sociable and much less oh-so-polite and much less loquacious (on the talking points and scripts), and start a vicious rumor campaign attacking the questioner, his pedigree, his lineage, his moral character, his motives, his identity, his occupation, his pets, friends, politics, religion, code, creed, names, hats, and hygiene habits. 5. If that doesn't work (and it often does), the CIA sockpuppets suddenly find something "much more important" to turn their attention to—magnanimously leaving behind for reference, of course, the thousands of gallons of sheer sewage disinformation they've already flooded the area with—or in some other way find or trump up an excuse to feel "wronged," and take their toys and go off the radar. It's getting to the point where I almost can set my watch by it. I cannot but feel that the longsuffering good work of the many very bright and doggedly persistent people right here in this estimable forum (and many who have gone before) is beginning to pay off handsomely. I believe we are fortunate enough to be witnesses; to watch some of the CIA's most treasured "historical" fictions, in which untold millions of dollars and decades of effort have been invested, being shattered... Well, let me paraphrase: Shattered into a million pieces and scattered to the winds. Ashton

I think that would be quite possible, especially if we're allowed some "blurry" frames. Heck, the original z-film is full of 'em... I might be tempted to start with some sort of temporal "smoothing" algorithm to create some faux frames for the "gap". I'm still actively trying to mentally digest what John D. has shared. As with all things, I encourage independent verification of results and replication of technique. Personally, I've got some family obligations for this evening, but I'm certainly planning on looking at this, as well as pursuing other sync studies. These are very much in their infancy. There *is* drift in the Clint Hill video -- it is all but impossible to see in anything except the original frames. I need to find a way to present it, and to see if it makes sense. Another point that this thread has brought into evolution is that we have certainly NOT exhausted the photographic and film evidence. Even independent of super-resolution sources, we have the ability and tools to inspect macroscopic concepts (like sync, drift, etc) in new ways. I haven't even begun to crank up some of the things that I think can be accomplished. (some days I need more "vigah", as you say, Ashton! - along with a winning lottery ticket or two, and a 30-hour clock). This man needs a grant, now! Come on all you money bags out there: open up and become angels. PM Frank Agbat and John Dolva, and set up a fund for them. We'll get somewhere. Love to see what you come up with, Frank. I'm certainly impressed with everything I've seen so far. If I can help in anyway, I will. Meanwhile, I'll see what I can do on the 30-hour clock. I need one, too. My plan is for large brake pads at the equator, but so far I'm having trouble finding a place to mount them. Ashton

I agree totally, and attempted to make generous provisions for same in couching my question. And so with all such genuflections and mutual bowings and disclaimers in place... Agreed, agreed, agreed, seconded, and approved by uninimous consent (there being only the two of us in this particular little side exchange). However! While all this exceptional yeomanlike analysis is being done, I had an idea—inspired by your white-lines illustration above—for some knowing, willful, blatant, flagrant tampering. Wait! Hear me out! Don't walk away! (Yet.) All on a very, very, very speculative and horribly unscientific basis, I'm proposing some very public tampering as a possible antidote to secretive tampering. I wondered if it would be possible to create, with some software, reasonably approximated interpolated "tweens" to replace those holes in your right-side sequence, and see what it looks like then. What I'm trying to describe wouldn't be the kind of smudging done by mpeg and other video compression formats. I mean attempt to approximate some kind of recreation of the (possibly) "missing frames," with a broad public disclosure that this is nothing but an avant garde film experiment done by pygmy headhunters of Bora Bora who found a turn-key video computer system washed up on the beach, and not by any responsible researchers. Whaddaya say? Ashton

So, John, since the prima facie case seems to be three missing frames where you have the three "holes" in the right-hand sequence—and failing any other explanation—can you think what purpose cllipping out those three frames might have served? Ashton