Ashton Gray

Not on my Mac in Safari. And the completely dead long rectangles above the text window that look like they might be trying to be drop-down menus don't do anythiing at all when clicked on. Only one of them even has text: Insert Special Item. Doesn't do diddly. I would suggest starting with whoever set this "new, improved" version up, but it might not be politic. Insert Special Item. Ashton

Just that the two intersect in ways that I do not believe could have been faked. To me this is a crucial overlap of consistency that I feel leads back (not forward) along a 22° line (or thereabouts) to the actual trigger man of the head shot. I am slammed for time at the moment. BERNICE: Absolutely stupefying amount of useful information and photos. Thank you, thank you, thank you! I will answer more appropriately soon. Ashton

Aw, vous dites cela à tous les garçons. Hugs back, kiddo. Ashton

Why, Myra: I haven't taken any of your toys away from you. You and Ditto have everything you've had for the past 43 years. I've merely made my own observations about some parts of it that I consider garbage, and have said why. I haven't asked you or anyone to agree. You still have all the "testimony" and "experts" and "evidence" that you and the world have had available for 43 years. I wouldn't dream of taking even the tiniest scintilla or mote of it away from you. In fact, my lay advice is for you and Ditto to stick with it completely, ignore the films completely, and ignore every image and word I have posted in this forum. I think you'll both feel better generally. Ashton Well I'm not surprised that you shift the focus to generalities Ashton. When the discussion get's specific, i.e., the words of expert marksman Craig Roberts, you seem unable to deal with it in a logical and open-minded manner. Instead you dismiss the evidence, or dismiss the people presenting the evidence. Myra, please: be as critical as you want, be as abrasive as you want, be downright brutal, but please, please don't be disingenuous. It's beneath you. You've demonstrated conclusively that you are capable of so much more. I very specifically addressed "the words of expert marksman Craig Roberts" several times in this thread, and that was several times more than I thought it deserved. But I did, because it kept getting shoved in my face like a communion wafer. I addressed it: I spit it out. It's in the record. I expressed exactly and unequivocally my opinion of his opinion. And that's all it ever was and ever will be: his opinion. Now, I'm very in tune with the fact that "'Expert' Worship" is one of the primary religions in the world today. All the talking heads on TV, and every rag on the newstands bilk the world for billions every year selling us the latest, greatest "expert" on everything from zits to warfare to cancer to panty lines. And this may come as a shock to you, but it really wasn't a life-changing news flash to me that such mere opinion is listened to with open-mouthed awe in so-called courts of law (the couplet is a set-up for...): but so was Johnnie Cochran. As to Mr. Expert Marksman Craig Roberts, how can I make you understand my viewpoint of what he opined if you don't understand it by now? Do you think somehow that your publically berating me about it is magically going to change my opinion of his opinion? If so, please quit wasting your time. It isn't. I look—for myself—at the area. I look—for myself—at the number of unsecured windows facing it. I look—for myself—at the sheer number of cars that multiple sources say were parked back there, and on which there is not a word of argument. I look—for myself—at an area surround on all sides by wide open spaces of broad daylight with no protected escape routes. I look—for myself—at an observation tower staring down directly on the location. I look—for myself—at two policemen stationed all morning just seconds away. I look—for myself—at five potential witnesses standing close enough to those locations to whisper to. And I've made my own adjudication of the suitability of that area as one that would have been chosen to gun down the President of the United States in cold blood, in broad daylight. And by my own observation using the means available to me that I consider valid, I personally find the entire idea so overburdened with liabilities and potential risks that it not only is ludicrous to me, it is grotesquely preposterous. Codswollop. Goofy. Idiotic. Comical. Risible. Suicidal. I'm genuinely, sincerely, deeply sorry if that offends you in some way. And apparently it has. It has no intent to offend in it. It merely is my own personal integrity to observe and state what I observe, for myself—without first going and asking some "expert" if it's all right for me to observe and think for myself. There is no aspersion being cast on you or on anyone by my keeping my own counsel, is there? I hope not. I hope you would have sufficient personal integrity to do the same. And I certainly value your observations. I think you're quite clever and observant. But on this specific issue, if you are going to keep attempting to require me to become an endorsing member of the Craig Roberts Fan Club, do us both a favor and just quit pulling the Ashton Gray lever. It ain't going to happen. In the immortal words of George, from "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf": "Now, Martha: I will carry your gin bottles out after midnight, and I will hold your hand when the boogie man comes, but I will not—repeat: not—light your cigarettes. And that, as they say, is that." Ashton

Why, Myra: I haven't taken any of your toys away from you. You and Ditto have everything you've had for the past 43 years. I've merely made my own observations about some parts of it that I consider garbage, and have said why. I haven't asked you or anyone to agree. You still have all the "testimony" and "experts" and "evidence" that you and the world have had available for 43 years. I wouldn't dream of taking even the tiniest scintilla or mote of it away from you. In fact, my lay advice is for you and Ditto to stick with it completely, ignore the films completely, and ignore every image and word I have posted in this forum. I think you'll both feel better generally. Ashton

Hi, Bill. If I recall correctly Plumlee said something along those lines about the South, not North, Knoll, but I've never been able to find anything giving a specific location, or I'd be happy to set up a view from there. In fact, someone asked for a view from the South Knoll several months back, and I did one or two images taken from there, but it was all guesswork about where to position the virtual camera. Although Dealey Plaza is a "small' area, it's also true that it contains a practical infinity of points from which to view. If someone will provide some kind of coordinate guidelines, in terms even of approximate number of yards from (fill in the blank), I'll be happy to set it up. I'm still hoping that Tosh Plumlee will pick up the white courtesy phone for the questions I've already got sitting in the forum for him, and if a dialogue starts, I'll certainly try to get more information about this. Ashton

I'm not able to answer your specific question, but I believe this is an important topic in relation to the Kennedy assassination, perhaps not only limited to possible affects on SS personnel. I have very limited time and will try to get more specific cites when I have more time, but wanted to mention that 1963 is the year of a CIA Inspector General's report that said in part that MKULTRA was a program "concerned with research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior." The IG report said that "additional avenues to the control of human behavior had been designated...as appropriate to investigation under the MKULTRA charter, including radiation, electroshock, various fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, graphology, harassment substances, and paramilitary devices and materials." The program as described (and supported by other CIA documents) included unwitting experimentation on humans with LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), brainwashing, and other interrogation methods. Of course the CIA primarily is in the business of lying and putting the best possible spin on everything dirty it does, so the "interrogation" mantle can be taken however one wishes, but there was one CIA publication of limited distribution that year (not declassified until much later, redacted, and probably not the original anyway) called “KUBARK [Codename for CIA headquarters] COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION—July 1963." Among other tactics described for "coercive" interrogation of "resistant sources" (including drugs and torture) is hypnosis. Ashton

Hi, Bernice, Ohhhhhhhh. See, I'm not real fast, but the good news is that when I get it, I really get. So: got it! And that aligns totally with something Gary Mack just sent me, saying that my "Badge Man" location image of the head shot was way off; that the retaining wall you're talking about would not be in the way (if a person was standing on something behind the picket fence). I think I may know now where such a glitch might have entered, when I resized the entire model, but had to resize the pergolas separately. I just noticed that they might not be correctly set "into" the terrain, making them slightly elevated. I can't go re-tooling all that at the moment, but plan to this weekend, and will get some new images generated when I do. As an aside, I just got the good news that I'm going to have a limosine modeled from the HSCA schematic sent to me probably sometime this weekend to use in the model, and by next week it looks like I'm also going to have some articulated 3D people to put in for JFK and Jacquie, so will be able to get them into correct positions, and even animate things to a degree. Any and all of these (and the other stuff you mentioned) I'll be happy to put in the model if I can get locations described as closely as possible. I don't see it as "the actions of lemmings" either (although I found John Dolva's information of interest), and of course everyone in Dealey Plaza didn't suddenly and mechanically bolt into the railroad yard/TSBD lot. I do very much, though, believe that there was planned misdirection there, and I believe that Decker's immediate announcement was entirely scripted. As you say: I entirely agree. And I believe that includes the red herrings and misdirection: they weren't second rate, either. My current opinion, subject to change, is that the Zapruder film and the Nix film—whatever their individual flaws and shortcomings in current versions—capture the dread moment in cruciform concordance, and in ways that could not possibly have been faked. In fact, I believe that is at least one reason why the Z film was withheld so long. It certainly was long enough to generate a tidal wave of anecdotal testimony—itself in conflict—creating so much tangled bramble and brush of contention and disunity that it only could guarantee a firestorm of controversy and contradictions around the film itself the moment it became available to ignite it. And it did. It is a conflagration raging out of control on this forum at this moment. And I will continue unabated—as long as they don't turn the forum into a popularity contest. I couldn't agree more, Bernice, which is why I'm completely amenable to putting in anything anyone requests, and viewing the scene from any viewpoint anyone requests. And I only hope this work will help all be able to look in ways never possible before. For me, it already has. Count on it. Ashton

Bernice, thanks again for all your help and great photos. I used several of them to locate "Hat Man" and the area of the smoke for my "Exhibit A" image earlier in this thread, and I wanted to let you know how I went about it to see if it makes sense to you. First, this is the image you uploaded that seemed to give the best reference points: I tried to approximate that as closely as I could (with my funky foliage, tree obviously not "bent" correctly) and placed a "Hat Man" person at what I thought was the right location: When I turned shadows on, he is nothing but shadow, and the other tree foliage shadows don't match up, of course, but then again my "foliage" is 2D and doesn't approach the physical reality at all. But here it is. Based on that location for "Hat Man" (and based on my understanding that the smoke came from about his same location), I've now done an overview that I hope takes into account all of the shooters that have been postulated to have been in the general area of the corner of the fence: The distance from the three men on the steps to each of the "shooters" behind the fence is approximately 25 feet. The distance from the three men on the steps to "Black Dog Man" (Dog? What dog?) is less than 20 feet by my calculations. By the way, on your earlier fence height suggestion: I have the fence five feet high, a figure I got from one of Jack's forum posts. If that isn't correct, someone let me know and I will adjust it. Hope this helps all concerned. Ashton

Hi, Jack. I'll be happy to as soon as I can, but I want to make sure I know where you mean. Is that down by the large steam pipe at the overpass end of the fence? And do you want it pointed at the motorcade? Headshot or alleged throat shot, or both? Let me know, but if I don't respond right away it's because I've already allowed this-week deadlines to get a stranglehold while I was doing, um, these other things. I figure if anybody would understand the deadlines nightmare it would be you. Ashton

One ringy-dingy... Ashton

I think that not only are these two events related, but also the events you chronicled in your topic The Flakey Power Grid, and that they all are linked to the arrival in Dallas of a team—of unknown number and assignment—that had been briefed by the CIA and flown into Dallas by Tosh Plumlee. This supposedly was an "abort team," having been given some kind of still unclear information about a possible attempt on the President's life that they somehow were to prevent. The legion of holes in the story as it exists makes it look like fishnet, and I already have posed questions for Mr. Plumlee about his avowed prior intelligence connections to Lee Harvey Oswald in a topic I started, Would Tosh Plumlee Please Pick Up the White Courtesy Phone? So far, he's not picking up. Meanwhile, this topic had already grabbed my attention when I saw that Gary Mack had hastened to get into the record, through Steve Thomas, that Margie Barnes was a secretary, not a dispatcher. When I responded that despite her job title, her job description was of great interest, lo and behold I was contacted by Gary Mack, calling the description Mark Valenti had given into question. So here, again, is how Mark described her job: In response to my having pointed that out, here is what I got from Gary Mack in two separate messages to me. In the first he said: You might consider asking Mark exactly where his characterization of Barnes' job comes from. My understanding is that only the dispatchers on duty could monitor the police radio. The secretaries' work, while important to daily operations, was hardly "crucial," as Mark termed it. Some clarification is in order, don't you agree? —Gary Mack Well, I believe it's no secret what an agreeable sort of chap I am, so I did agree. And so I asked Gary Mack for clarification of exactly where his characterization of Barnes's job came from. And he replied, in pertinent part: My information came initially from Bowles, the department supervisor, who said the secretaries weren't involved in the daily broadcasts. They did filing and typing, nothing more. That information matched what other JFK researchers such as Larry Harris had found. Only the dispatchers on duty heard and responded to the broadcasts. —Gary Mack Hmmm. This almost seems to be a tight-rope walk (by whom I don't know, if it is) across the relevant part of the job description originally provided by Mark, which doesn't say she "monitored the police radio" or that she was "involved in the daily broadcasts" or that she "heard and responded to the broadcasts." What it says is that she "received emergency calls and issued information directly to the dispatch officer in the downtown division headquarters." But my agreeability being equaled only by my fairmindedness, it only seems right to ask Mark Valenti now where he came by the job description he posted for Ms. Barnes. Pending the arrival of that, I have since wondered of the possibility of a planned emergency call that had to be made to police on 22 November 1963 by someone whose voice Ms. Barnes might be too familiar with. When I have time I plan to scour the records and make a list of any known calls of such nature that day, but if anyone happens to know or think of calls that might qualify, please post them here. Ashton

You're very welcome, Cliff, but if you knew how much I enjoyed doing the graphics, you wouldn't be thanking me—you'd be making me pay admission. Thanks for being a good and worthy jousting partner. I think that with all our combined efforts, one day, the truth will out. Whatever it is. And frankly, I don't care what it is. When it's the truth, we'll all know it. Ashton

Cliff, thank you for your heartfelt concern over my "getting my mind right" about there having been one to three (or more? I sure wish you'd settle on a number and locations) sniping assassins hiding somewhere behind the picket fence and the pergola retaining wall on 22 November 1963. I feel almost as if I am being inducted into a religion. I realize I am a hard heretic to bring to the alter, and I am agog at your industry in this effort. I am even more agog, though, at how eloquently you make my case for me that the locations you and others describe are perhaps the worst sniper positions in all the history of fact and fiction since the invention of gun powder. So I think I'll just lean back in my chair, stretch out my legs, and lace my hands behind my head while you do just that: make my case for me. First, though, just to help get people oriented to what you're describing, allow me to put up here on the easel "Ashton's Exhibit A," an annotated overview of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) parking lot and picket fence area at issue: Doh! I put that sucker up there upside down. I don't know what's got into me. Lemme fix that for you... There we go. You have the floor: Thank you. I rest my case. You've argued it about as persuasively as it could be argued. I'm entirely convinced: the purported positions for "Black Dog Man," "Badge Man" (plus spotter), and "Hat Man" are utterly absurd as shooting positions. Hordes of people, including policemen, flooded into the area in seconds from all directions. The entire area at issue was lousy with cops for two hours before, and not one witness in forty years has ever once suggested that even one of them carried a rifle, or that any person, in any mode of dress or garb, was ever seen in the area at issue with a rifle at any time. The entire area was searched carefully for empty shell casings immediately after the shooting and none were found. Not a single verifiable scrap of evidence of any shooters in those locations was found then, and not a single scrap of verifiable evidence has been found to this day. When are you going to make your case, though? Oh: maybe that was that question you had for me in the above, the one I've answered about ten times now, but you can't seem to get somehow. Let's do some remedial back-trackig. Go ahead—ask it again: Cliff? Have you been paying any attention at all? Can I get you to focus real hard for a sec? I mean, this is only the central and crucial point I have made repeatedly in this thread and others. And, Cliff: this ain't some theetie-weetie, airy-fairy theory, or bizarre clumps of shadow and light pulled out of grainy photos and colorized to look sort of humanoid. Un-unh; this is hard, cold, documented, incontrovertible, inarguable evidenciary fact. So please—please, for your old pal Ashton—try to pay attention this time. Here it is again, from all the way back on page 6 of this thread, as originally reported by Steve Thomas, and this time I'm going to make some things bold for you: For the love of Buddha, Cliff, at almost the instant of the shooting Decker was on the Dallas Police Department Channel 2 saying something had "happened in there" in "the railroad yard." Motorcycle policemen in the motorcade instantly dropped their bikes in the street and charged to that area, and people of course followed! Hell, Bowers himself says in his testimony that immediately after the shooting "there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline." They all had just been informed urgently on DPD Channel 2 that something "happened in there." What do you expect the cops on and near the scene to do? Go to Dunkin' Donuts? And what do you expect a crowd of onlookers to do when they see every cop on the scene racing toward the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) parking lot/railroad yard immediately after the President of the United States has just been shot right before their eyes? Within 40 seconds of Decker's broadcast, the Sheriff's Department made its broadcast. How many times have I made the point that Decker instantly ordered the County Courts building emptied? Let's consider this soberly: the first thought planted in the very instant of greatest shock was "something happened in there" in the railroad track area "just north of Elm." Meaning the TSBD parking lot. Meaning right where you to this day are insisting "something happened in there." And then what did the people running this little show do? They moved it all just slightly, into the TSBD. And they stuck the whole world right there. Do you know what "psy ops" means? Do you know how it works? Do you really know how these scum work? Do you know the significance, in the use of such black arts, of planting an idea in a moment of intense shock and dispersal and emotional stress and pain? If you don't, trust me: they do. But even if you don't buy that there was a psy-op involved (the effects of which are reverberating to this very instant), even with that discounted out of hand, just look at "Exhibit A," above. Just look with your eyes. I. Don't. Give. A. Damn. Can I make it any plainer? I wouldn't care if you marched in 10,000 army-classed female virgin sharpshooters dressed as angels singing "It's a sniper's paradise" in four-part harmony (assuming they have sopranos). I don't need professional government killers (I'm sorry: I meant "experts") or itchy-finger angels to tell me what I see with my own eyes. That my personal integrity, not theirs. And what I see in "Exhibit A" is one of the most ridiculous scenarios anybody could possibly dream up even in a fever, even on hallucinogens, for the daylight murder of the president of the most powerful nation in the world. That's what I see. You see whatever you want to see. As for what "world class sniper Craig Roberts" saw, did you bother to find out when he made a record of his Holy Epiphany Behind the Picket Fence? It wouldn't have been put into the book he released in the aftermath of the popular surge of Oliver Stone's "JFK," would it? Would you care to check? Did Myra before she dropped it into this thread explaining how she thought it "relevant"? Did Terry before she checked in with her Roberts endorsement? I did. So y'all party on behind the fence. You've sat there for forty-three years hoping to find a perp. (Or two. Or three. Or.... How many?) Sit there for another forty-three for all I care. And you won't find one—not one dressed as a cop, not one dressed as a tramp, not one dressed in drag, and not one dressed as Baby Jesus. It's a blind, dead fence corner. There is no trail. Fiction doesn't leave a trail. That's why you can't pick one up, into the area or out. And you never will. Of course I'm happy to provide any views of this model anybody wants to see. I'm happy to discuss actual evidence. But as for chasing will o' the wisps behind the fence, I'm done. I've already said I'm done. Thanks for the sermons, thanks for the religious artifacts, thanks for the concern about my research soul, and thanks especially to each of you for the offers to let me take a seat with you in the pew behind the fence. But you're simply not going to get a convert. And this sinner's got bid'ness elsewhere. Ashton

Somebody sure as hell is mistaken. Or lying. Or both. If you want to spend the rest of your life treading tar in that tar pit of contradictions in testimony and "medical evidence," step right in. I won't get in your way. I'll even help you in. But don't try to drag me in with you. I also think your incorrectly chosen definition of "anecdotal" stinks. Here's the one I'm using: "based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation." It's quite a distinction. (Homonymic pun intended.) There is no "systematic scientific evaluation" of the so-called "medical evidence" possible, because the anecdotal testimony and the physical evidence are in hopeless, eternal, permanent contradiction. It is in a state of unrelieved and unrelievable seizure. And it ain't by accident, either. Still, you are perfectly welcome to dance away following all the Pied Piper "experts" and "eyewitnesses" you want over the hills and into the woods, and into hopelessly contradictory tar pits as far as I'm concerned. I'm not stopping you. I'm not even slowing you down. I'm urging you along. Why? Because the CIA needs patsies, not only to pin murders on, but to carry their water for them. And their water is "confusion and contradiction." And it ain't water at all: it's tar. The invariable product of CIA operations can be summed up in one word as far as public knowledge goes: MAYBE. A big tar pit of "maybe." They know exactly how to create it, too. And that's all the so-called "medical evidence" is: a giant tar pit of "maybe" for suckers to sink into. Bray all you want about it, but don't forget to keep treading tar while you do, because it won't ever be anything but "maybe." They saw to it. Meanwhile, on this web page is a motion picture of a man very graphically getting the right front part of his skull blown outward—over and over and over and over and over. Go look, with your eyeballs. Go observe for yourself without listening to the cacophony of ten thousand contradictory voices telling you that what you see is not what you see. Then come back and tell me that you see the back of his head being blown out. I want to hear you say it, right here, in this thread. Go ahead. I'll wait. You don't have any "ballistic or medical information" that isn't contradictory! Go look with your eyeballs at the link I just gave you, and tell me what you see! Do you need some "expert" <SPIT!> to grant you a license to observe what is right before your eyes? Well, do you? If so, why do you? Have you ever seen, with your own eyes any slightest physical evidence of any such thing? And is that what you see happening on that page I just gave you a link to? I'm not asking you for what somebody else has "told you." I'm asking you to go to the link above and to look with your eyeballs at what is right in front of you, and tell me what you see. What do you see? I want to know what you see. And all you're holding is a big handful of "maybe." Ashton

And it is a source of infinite sadness that all the King's Experts and all the King's Friends haven't solved the case. Ashton

In an effort to examine the possibilities for the fatal head shot to John F. Kennedy having come from the County Courts building, a virtual camera was moved to each window in the building and pointed at a 3D mannequin that had been placed in an approximation of the position of Kennedy at the time of the head shot. The limitations of the placement of the mannequin in terms of the exact tilt of Kennedy's head at the time have been covered elsewhere in this forum, but for the purposes of this experiment it was felt that the current approximation was entirely adequte, at least to determine reasonable avenues for further pursuit, refinement, and inquiry. The results of the experiment produced 40 separate images. It was too much to attempt to put into the forum itself, so the individual images have been keyed by window number to a main front image of the County Courts building: That keyed image and all 40 individual images, one from each of those numbered windows, have been placed on a web site: County Courts Building Kennedy Head Shot Matrix. In creating the images, no great pains were taken to get each image at the exact same zoom factor as all the rest. They all use the same field of view, but the zoom levels do vary somewhat. The point was to establish the angle of a possible shot from each window. Many of the individual images you'll see on the web site appear to be very similar. This is a factor of the zoom and angles, but each angle is slightly different, those angles becoming more pronounced as the camera descended down the floors of the building. In sum, it demonstrates clearly that the head shot could have come from almost any one of those windows, yet no investigation at all, in all the decades since the murder, has ever been conducted concerning that building or its occupants at the time of the shooting. Ashton Gray

Excellent reference! Thanks, Jack. Ashton

I certainly wouldn't want to lure anyone from it, and I respect anyone's independent assessment and analysis of supportable fact. I've yet to explore the County Records building, per se, but I've just completed a rather involved exercise that took some time of setting up views from every window in the County Courts building. Once I can export jpegs of the view from each window, I think I'm going to post it in a separate thread. Could be. But I sure hope that "sure bet on the kill shot" wasn't supposed to come from the "Badge Man" location. Either that, or I hope that my model has some pretty significant elevation problems that I can get corrected. Because here's the "Badge Man" view of the "sure bet on the kill shot" the way it looks to me in the model at the moment: I'm actually hoping someone can provide some photographic evidence that would demonstrate that that's not the way it is, which would help me find flaws in the model's elevations. That's all I can conceive it to be, because the locations of landmarks are according to the Dealey Plaza schematics in circulation. That's very interesting to hear. I thought they read like spy fiction. I much prefer a quote that Mr. Roberts has at the top his own web site, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." I found the passage Myra quoted to be 99 and 99 one hundredths pure theory without a single substantive fact in view, and mused that Mr. Roberts could do worse than to follow the advice on his web site. Then again, I don't have books to sell, so I may be biased. I'm lost. Are those in this thread, or could you post them? I'm trying to get a location to put in the smoke, and I'll say again that I'm not convinced that there was a gunshot wound to the throat. It seems to me that that, too, is an unproven theory, upon which enough theories have been built to climb and touch the sky. If the "throat shot" theory is false, then as long as such a theory is held into place as indisputable fact, all theories built upon it necessarily will be false. It also seems to me—theoretically—that it would be in the greatest possible interests of culpable parties to introduce just such a fundamental falsehood into the record and have it become an unmovable datum around which all other data attempts to align. When that is accomplished well, all progress toward the truth stops and revolves infinitely around the anchored falsehood, like a kiddie pony ride. At the moment, with the information I've seen, the purported "throat wound" is a prime candidate for just such a hub of infinite spin. Ashton

I'll make you a deal: you write something that's understandable, I'll be sure to understand it. Work for you? So re: your "the green pickup" here are some very specific questions so I can approach understanding: 1. Specifically what "green pickup" are you referring to? 2. "It" was removed from what "scene," specifically? 3. How did it get into "the scene," and exactly where in "the scene" was it at the relevant times? 3. At what time was it removed from "the scene"? 4. By whom was it "removed from the scene," and to where? 6. Can you substantiate and prove that there was no green pickup in the location I depicted at the time of the photos and movies at issue? If so, how? Ashton

Oh, yes: given such evidenciary solidity as chit-chat and "etc.," I'd have to guess a minimum of 30 or 40 shooters with rifles scattered all over Dealey Plaza in a secret plot to murder the President. Maybe a few dancing girls dressed as avocados, too, to cascade down a spiral staircase lowered from a sky hook if it all went wrong. I feel we're on the very brink of a solution... Ashton

I've adjusted the attitudes of the 3D figures representing JFK and Jacquie in an attempt to get at least a little closer to actuality until I can get articulated models to put into the scene. Meanwhile, even without such accuracy down to fractions of degrees and millimeters, it's currently my conclusion that the head shot from the purported Oswald location is a joke, despite all the blood-drenched gold and silver passing hands to sell such a trainload of fertilizer: Compare that shot with the latest views from the lower window in the connecting structure between the County Courts and County Records buildings (even with a bigger tree put into the center spot in the north peristyle): Ashton Gray

Thanks, as always and invariably, for the great photos, Bernice. You are a godsend. I don't discount anything you've said about the possible relative shade behind the fence. I've attempted, probably without much success at all, to approximate with my wannabe "crepe myrtles" outside the fence what I see in the Stoughton photo taken right after the murder. (I've attached a crop of it, but don't know where in the message it will appear. I guess at the bottom.) Unfortunately, given the processing power I have available right now, I simply cannot populate the model with 3D trees and shrubs to arrive at a closer approximation of the actual light/shade conditions that day; 3D foliage is pretty much the most deadly processing drain because of the sheer number of points and faces needed to create the branches and leaves. As a result I'm relegated to using 2D images faked to stand in for trees and shrubs and always face the "camera". They do not, and never will, throw realistic shadows. And having done all that caveating, I still have to say that to me, at this point, it would not matter one whit how much more or less shading there was back there because of the ridiculously exposed ingress and egress routes and the completely unpredictable and uncontrollable potential for witnesses. I still feel—for myself only, having factored in every bit of information I so far have been able to gather—that these "Black Dog Man" and "Badge Man" positions and scenarios are absurd locations for anyone methodically planning to murder the President of the United States just after high noon and get away with it. And whoever did it got away with it. Someday someone may present something that would change my current evaluation of it. I tend to doubt it. Meanwhile, let me turn my attention to the photo of the County Records building you posted that you say is from 1964 and express my astonishment at the size of the middle tree in the north peristyle as it is shown in that photo. It simply doesn't reconcile with the other photos I've seen, which I've already included in this thread. I don't know quite what to do with this contradictory information. When I can I'm going to put in a second tree there that approximates what you've shown, and see what it does to views from various windows in the County Courts/County Records complex. I'd really love to get as accurate a location for the smoke as I can. If you or anyone has anything that could guide me, I would be grateful. Thank you again for all your gracious help. Ashton

I don't know if this will help or hinder, but in the Who Were the Shooters thread, discussion had come up about Ms. Julia Ann Mercer's account as a witness to having seen two men unloading something from a green truck that was parked on Elm Street on the morning of 22 November 1963, under the eye of policemen stationed on the overpass. In that thread, I said in pertinent part: When I encountered this discussion I wondered idly whether the two things could be related, and whether the two men in question might have parked their green truck behind the pergola, maybe in somebody's spot that they shouldn't have taken. Having just put some cars into the TSBD parking lot at Peter Lemkin's request, I discovered that I had a stock pick-up truck (which I painted green) that I could replace one of the cars with at very little effort. So I did that, placing it approximately where I thought such a truck might have had a chance of being seen in the Moorman photo: The next obvious thing to do was to attempt to approximate Moorman's position and the field of view of the camera. Although I can't claim to have hit it with any surveyor's accuracy, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I could, indeed, see the top of the pick-up truck I had put into the model: A host of unknown variables could render all of the above null and void. But I thought some might at least find it of interest. Ashton

Nag, nag, nag. Alllllllll right! Sheesh! Just for you, Peter. Since there's no record I know of showing exactly what vehicles were where at the relevant time (and you didn't supply any reference), I've used some arial shots from as close to the time of the assassination as I can determine, and put in just some of the vehicles (all copies of the same one, really) that I feel would be most applicable (if applicable at all) to your point. I also have textured the parking lot area to more closely approximate the dirt/mud lot it was, in place of the darker asphalt I had there before. So here it is, best that I can do to accommodate you for now. I've left the friendly neighborhood cop standing by the fence about where "Badge Man" supposedly was, and this is a somewhat wider-angle shot than before, I think, but it'll do. The first image is using the "generic" ambient light of the modeler without sunlight/shadows, then with sunlight/shadows set for 22 November at 12:29 p.m.: Nobody ever even seems to consider that the automobiles in the parking lot would be every bit as much as a deterent to any would-be assassin as they might be some kind of "concealment," because there is absolutely no guarantee at all that someone with a car parked there might not decide to drive their car somewhere during lunch. (Never mind a watch tower overlooking the entire lot that's probably manned 24/7 for track switching.) The whole thing is simply preposterous. So I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I am done chasing down bottomless rabbit holes after "Badge Man" and "Black Dog Man." Ya'll go on without me. Don't forget to take a lunch. Ashton