Ashton Gray

My one-word opinion is: Codswollop. My somewhat longer opinion is that no such bone fragment exists, or ever has existed, in evidence, and not one medical personnel ever testified to seeing any such bone fragment. Just as with the magic "frontal shot" bullet that never existed, it is a no-see-um. I don't subscribe to no-see-ums. It is a fiction that has to be invented in order to have something to believe in. I believe in what I see. What I SEE is a condition of the throat that stands, to me, as prima facie evidence that someone went to considerable work to make damned certain that no one would ever have a chance in hell of ever knowing exactly what that original roundish wound in the throat was. Now, the reason that is my opinion is because that is exactly the result. I believe it was the intended result, which is why it is the result, and which is why we now have 46 pages in this thread alone—and probably 46,000 pages on this subject over the course of the decades. (I'll resort to hyperbole whenever I feel like it.) When, how, and by whom the throat was put in that condition, or why, can be fodder for endless speculation, but I believe that it was intentional, and that the intent was to render forensic analysis of the original hole in the throat utterly impossible. That intent was accomplished prior to the autopsy. Here's how I know it was accomplished: BECAUSE IF IT HADN'T BEEN ACCOMPLISHED THE AUTOPSY REPORT WOULD HAVE CONTAINED A DETAILED AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINAL HOLE IN THE THROAT, AND WE WOULDN'T BE HERE WASTING OUR TIME GUESSING ABOUT IT. As Prudhomme has pointed out a number of times (but apparently hasn't realized himself, which is why he didn't get my "irony" comment earlier), the place where the tracheostomy was performed was not some "it absolutely has to be right at this exact location" location dictated by the gods of medicine: Perry CHOSE to slice right through the original hole in the throat. To me, that clearly demonstrates intent. Bone fragment? <Snort!> Ashton

No, Tom, he has grossly misrepresented me a number of times, asserting that I have posited some theory about about a bone fragment causing a hole in the throat. I told him clearly and in no uncertain terms that it was NOT my theory, and never had been, and asked him to QUOTE what I said in the future and not misrepresent me. He turned right around and willfully misrepresented me again with his OWN boneheaded (pun intended) theory, falsely attributing it to me. That's not "disagreeing": That's willful and malicious misrepresentation of what I said. There's no possible excuse for it. It demonstrates an utter lack of integrity, courtesy, and even decency. I've made my record. He'd better stop making a false record for me. As for "theories," he is the one clutching to a baseless THEORY that there was a frontal shot, when there is not now and never has been a bullet in evidence that could have caused any such shot, and when it is physically impossible for any bullet to have penetrated the throat from the front in the indicated location without going through many layers of tie material. No bullet went through many layers of tie material. Period. I'm tired of repeating myself about something that is obvious at a glance to anybody who will actually LOOK. My challenge still stands about the "above the collar" theory, and nobody has done it, because it can't be done. My statement that started this thread stands: There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat. Period. Ashton

I don't think you quite understand irony. Ashton

Assumes a bullet not in evidence. Ashton

Whatever I realize or not is really immaterial, because the quote about the third and fourth tracheal rings is from the autopsy report, and I have not the slightest doubt whatsoever that the three pathologists who signed the document—Hume, Boswell, and Finck—very thoroughly realized what you're asking me if I realize. So I realize what they realized, and the autopsy photos seem, to me, entirely consistent with their observations and assessment. I honestly don't see this as complicated. It is what it is. I realize that "what it is" doesn't sit well with the Front-Shot Faithful, which is why there are 43 pages to this thread, many of them an effort to insist that it all is something else. Hence all the complication. They can't simply confront the simple and obvious facts of where the wound was, and that the tracheostomy slice went right through it. It violates their religious beliefs. It matters completely where Perry made the incision, because it was in the EXACT place where it would destroy any later forensic analysis of what that wound was before he sliced through it. Damn lucky "shot," if you ask me, that could enter at the EXACT place where a tracheostomy incision would be made—and be able to arrive there without going through six layers of tie material. Now, THAT is the REAL "magic bullet." Ashton

No, that is NOT MY THEORY! I have NEVER STATED ANY SUCH THEORY, NOR DO I SUPPORT ANY SUCH THEORY! There, whatever you are. I've made it now so even a 5-year-old can read and understand it, so I'm hoping that I've finally managed to reach down to a reading level that you can comprehend. I asked you above to stop misrepresenting me, and to QUOTE anything you claim I said, but I see you haven't got anything even approaching such a level of decency and integrity, so now I'm blocking you, because I don't waste time with wormy, willful dishonesty. *PLONK* Ashton

TESTIMONY OF PERRY: Dr. PERRY: I . . . began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck. Ashton

AUTOPSY REPORT: Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the third and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges. That is entirely consistent with the autopsy photos. TESTIMONY OF PERRY: Dr. PERRY: I . . . began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck. Mr. SPECTER: Why did you elect to make the tracheotomy incision through the wound in the neck, Dr. Perry? Dr. PERRY: The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly, is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy. This isn't complicated. It's merely made complicated. Ashton

What "Ashton Gray theory" are you referring to, Michael? I want you to quote my "theory" here. Here's my prediction—and it will be 100-percent correct, because you're so utterly predictable: You won't quote the "Ashton Gray theory" you're objecting to, because you're making it up as you go, and fiction doesn't leave a paper trail. There is no such "Ashton Gray theory," and you're misrepresenting me. Here's a clue: I didn't do it for you. I did it for people who can look at obvious physical relationships with their own eyeballs and understand those physical relationships in accordance with simple, elementary physics. Of course it doesn't, because you can't possibly do it. It's a physical impossibility. This is physics, so if it "doesn't work" for you, join the Flat Earth Society. Meanwhile, neither you nor anyone in this forum has accepted my challenge and done it, and that's because it can't be done. So go right ahead and attempt to discredit me all you want. I could care less, because it only continues to prove that you can't demonstrate in the real world how a frontal shot could have entered the throat at the location clearly indicated in the autopsy photos, which is at the third and fourth tracheal rings—exactly as the autopsy report says, and exactly as my gifs on the first page of this thread show: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=1#entry123429 So here's my simple challenge again—for you to evade again: PROVE that a frontal shot to the throat that does not penetrate all layers of the knot of the tie, but instead enters the throat ABOVE the shirt and tie, is even POSSIBLE: 1. Locate the point between your third and fourth tracheal ring [ref: autopsy photos and autopsy report], and mark that location on your skin with a round mark of the appropriate size. (Testimony varies, ranging from 4 to 8 mm. You decide.) Check your location against the autopsy photos. 2. Put on a correctly fitting dress shirt, buttoned at the neck, and a tie, and using only natural motions of your head and neck, position the collar and tie so that a projectile could pass above the tie and collar, and penetrate at the spot you've marked on your skin without hitting the top of the collar or the tie. You may not pull down on the shirt or tie with your hands or by any artificial means. 3. Take a selfie, or have someone photograph you, and post it for us. This is so simple. All it takes is a Sharpie, a well-fitting dress shirt, and a tie to lay this to rest once and for all. You don't even need a piece of the One True Cross. (Well, it's almost Easter.) I 'm looking forward to seeing it. This is the second time you've attempted to link that "theory" to me, and it has zero to do with me. The first time you tried was in a post of yours on the previous page of this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=40#entry327710 There you said: I don't have a "fragment theory," and never have had a "fragment theory." It's not my theory. So you either can't read and comprehend what I've said, or you haven't bothered to read and comprehend what I've said, or you know very well that it's not my "theory" and are willfully misrepresenting me. Whichever it is, I'm going to ask you politely—once—to stop misrepresenting me. Don't claim I've said anything again without QUOTING what I've said. I've extended that courtesy to you, haven't I? I also gently urge you to stop misrepresenting others. No one has said they have to "check with Ashton Gray" on anything, and it's ludicrous, but that's between you and them if you want to keep misrepresenting them. But don't misrepresent me any more. Here's my prediction: You won't take the challenge, because it's patently impossible. If you do, I'm sure you'll demonstrate the integrity to come back here and admit publicly that the title of this thread is entirely valid, and also will apologize for misrepresenting me, won't you? Ashton

I think it at least should be mentioned in passing here that in the exact hour that JFK was shot, a CIA agent was in Paris “passing an assassination weapon, a ballpoint pen rigged with a hypodermic needle for Black Leaf 40 poison, to Rolando Cubela, AMLASH–1.” That's according to U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXXII, Dominican Republic; Cuba; Haiti; Guyana, Document 315. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v32/d315

You know, Michael, you've written 564 words here, but haven't advanced your case one whit. Yes, I'm flippant, because everybody, without exception, who insists (as you do) that there was a frontal shot will not perform the simple dispositive test I've described in my challenge to you that will prove it for all time one way or the other. Don't rely on my animated GIFs; ignore them. All they do is prove conclusively exactly what you would prove to yourself conclusively if you simply would accept the challenge. It's simple physics, and I'm afraid that physics is indifferent to your opinion. At this point, so am I. Don't rely on the WC testimony; throw it out. Perform the test. Either you can do it, or you can't. It's simple physics. Why won't you just do it and prove that what you claim for a frontal throat shot actually is possible? You can come back here and throw another 564 words of opinion at me, or another 1,064, but it won't change the physics of the question, and the physics of the question prove conclusively that there is no possible way that a bullet from the front could have entered JFK's throat between third and fourth tracheal ring. Of course, it will be very easy for you to prove me wrong. Just do it as described in my challenge. If you do, I will admit you have done it and will stand down. Until you or somebody does, the "case" for a frontal throat shot is closed forever as far as I'm concerned. It's a religion, not forensics, so enjoy your faith-based beliefs. Ashton

I've watched the Z film carefully, repeatedly, and it's not even slightly "obvious" to me. That's your opinion. It is not a fact. You wrote: "So I just don't see how the title of this thread is valid." That's because you've studiously ignored in wholesale lots the material facts that I have carefully laid out in the beginning of this thread, and you have supplanted them all with your opinion that Kennedy was reacting to a frontal shot. So how about you accept the challenge that I issued on the previous page to Jon G. Tidd, in this post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=37#entry325386 He whiffed. So have all the other "frontal throat shot" faithful. Not one of them has stepped up to the challenge. Let's see how you do with it: If the "frontal throat shot" is possible, then I'm sure you will have no problem proving it once and for all. Therefore, please: 1. Locate the point between your third and fourth tracheal ring, and mark that location on your skin with a round mark of the appropriate size. (Testimony varies, ranging from 4 to 8 mm. You decide.) 2. Put on a correctly fitting dress shirt, buttoned at the neck, and a tie, and using only natural motions of your head and neck, position the collar and tie so that a projectile could pass above the tie and collar, and penetrate at the spot you've marked on your skin without hitting the top of the collar or the tie. You may not pull down on the shirt or tie with your hands or by any artificial means. 3. Take a selfie, or have someone photograph you, and post it for us. This is so simple. All it takes is a sharpie, a well-fitting dress shirt, and a tie to lay this to rest once and for all. I 'm looking forward to seeing it. Here's my prediction: You'll whiff, too, because it's patently impossible. And if you do, I'm sure you'll demonstrate the integrity to come back here and admit publicly that the title of this thread is entirely valid, won't you? Ashton

Obviously, I can't answer your question directly, but this tells you something about what the CIA was doing in the field of hypnosis ~10 years before the JFK assassination. I can only hope that it may help find an answer. Personally, I don't believe at all that the involvement of Pullman and his wife with Ruby were what Pullman claims. Nor do I believe that Pullman switched from novelty dealer and furniture designer to doctor specializing in hypnosis in six years. Ashton Ashton, you would be surprised how many people use hypnosis. Kathy, I may not be as surprised as you think I'd be. The CIA wasn't limiting itself to the accomplishments of amateurs and parlor tricks in its exploitation of hypnosis. It also was combining hypnosis with pain and heavy drugs. The CIA use of hypnosis is covered in a number of excellent books. Just one of them I'll recommend to your attention is Walter Bowart's Operation Mind Control. It was heavily suppressed by the CIA when it came out and may be difficult to find, but an excerpt from the book on hypnosis, specifically, is here: http://www.whale.to/b/bowart_b.html Other works of interest include The Search for the Manchurian Candidate, by John Marks; Acid Dreams, by Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain; A Terrible Mistake—The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments, by H.P. Alberelli, Jr.; and The CIA Doctors—Human Rights Violations by American Psychiatrists, by Colin M. Ross, M.D. Good hunting. Ashton

The Mullen Company in Washington, D.C., was a surprisingly elaborate cover for the CIA and its minions, too. All of the covers that the CIA used for all of its members of the psycho-establishment who carried out unspeakable crimes against unwitting and unwilling subjects during Bluebird/Artichoke/MK-Ultra were surprisingly elaborate, too. They were so elaborate and effective that to this day there is no complete roster of the medical and psychiatric golems who carried out such atrocities for the CIA. One of the most amoral members of the "intelligence" cult, Daniel Ellsberg said it well: It became clear to me that journalists had no idea, no clue, even the best of them, just how often and how egregiously they were lied to. The lies themselves didn’t bother me. ...The overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. ...The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders. ...Once I was inside the government, my awareness of how easily and pervasively Congress, the public, and journalists were fooled and misled contributed to a lack of respect for them and their potential contribution to better policy. That in turn made it easier to accept, to participate in, to keep quiet about practices of secrecy and deception that fooled them further and kept them ignorant of the real issues that were occupying and dividing inside policy makers. Their resulting ignorance made it all the more obvious that they must leave these problems to us. Daniel Ellsberg Secrets Ashton

Our research led to Pullman because the CIA's mind-control programs during the Cold War are integral to Watergate: The Hoax. Here is an excerpt from my book discussing some of the CIA hypnosis experiments. This quotes several CIA documents released under FOIA. Names had been redacted in the original documents. Ordinarily a term such as “redacted” or “whited out” is used to indicate such redactions, but it reduces the subjects to impersonal objects. These subjects of experiments, often unwitting subjects, were real people with real lives, with families and feelings and hopes and dreams. For that reason, I've given fake names to them to at least preserve a sense of humanity in the book. ============BEGIN EXCERPT FROM WATERGATE: THE HOAX=============== The 1951 exposé was correct in saying that PDH [pain-drugs-hypnosis] “may be of considerably more use in conquering a society than the atom bomb,” as some of the available declassified documents on CIA mind control experiments with hypnosis demonstrate: Hypnotic Experimentation and Research, 10 February 1954 Miss [Doe] was then instructed (having previously expressed a fear of firearms in any fashion) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken Miss [Jones] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep) and failing in this, she would pick up a pistol nearby and fire it at Miss [Jones]. She was instructed that her rage would be so great that she would not hesitate to “kill” Miss [Jones] for failing to awaken. Miss [Doe] carried out these suggestions to the letter including firing the (unloaded pneumatic pistol) gun at Miss [Jones] and then proceeding to fall into a deep sleep. After proper suggestions were made, both were awakened and expressed complete amnesia for the entire sequence. Miss [Doe] was again handed the gun, which she refused (in an awakened state) to pick up or accept from the operator. She expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened. Two other subjects also carried out their post-hypnotic suggestions “to the letter” and had no memory of the experiment: SI [special Interrogations] and H [Hypnosis] Experimentation (25 September 1951) [Miss White] was instructed that upon awakening, she would proceed to [Mr. Black's] room where she would wait at the desk for a telephone call. Upon receiving the call, a person known as “Jim” would engage her in normal conversation. During the course of the conversation, this individual would mention a code word to [Miss White]. When she heard this code word she would pass into a SI trance state, but would not close her eyes and remain perfectly normal and continue the telephone conversation. She was told that thereafter upon conclusion of the telephone conversation, she would then carry out the following instructions: [Miss White], being in a complete SI state at this time, was then told to open her eyes and was shown an electric timing device. She was informed that this timing device was an incendiary bomb and was then instructed how to attach and set the device. After [Miss White] had indicated that she had learned how to set and attach the device, she was told to return to a sleep state and further instructed that upon concluding of the aforementioned conversation, she would take the timing device which was in a briefcase and proceed to the ladies room. In the ladies room, she would be met by a girl whom she had never seen who would identify herself by the code word “New York.” After identifying herself, [Miss White] was then to show this individual how to attach and set the timing device, and further instructions would be given the individual by [Miss White] that the timing device was to be carried in the briefcase to [Mr. Black's] room, placed in the nearest empty electric-light plug, and concealed in the bottom, left-hand drawer of [Mr. Black's] desk, with the device set for 82 seconds and turned on. [Miss White] was further instructed to tell this other girl that as soon as the device had been set and turned on, she was to take the briefcase, leave [Mr. Black's] room, go to the operations room, and go to the sofa and enter a deep sleep state. [Miss White] was further instructed that after completion of instructing the other girl and the transferring to the other girl of the incendiary bomb, she was to return at once to the operations room, sit on the sofa, and go into a deep sleep state. Hypnosis was so effective at getting young ladies to do things against their will that at least one such “expert” bragged to the CIA’s head of ARTICHOKE, Morse Allen, of some of his other uses of the technique: On 2 July 1951 approximately 1:00 p.m. the instruction began with [CIA Svengali] relating to the student some of his sexual experiences. [CIA Svengali] stated that he had constantly used hypnotism as a means of inducing young girls to engage in sexual intercourse with him. [Mrs. Clarinet], a performer in [Metropolis] orchestra, was forced to engage in sexual intercourse with [CIA Svengali] while under the influence of hypnotism. [CIA Svengali] stated that he first put her into a hypnotic trance and then suggested to her that he was her husband and that she desired sexual intercourse with him. =============END EXCERPT FROM WATERGATE: THE HOAX=============== Obviously, I can't answer your question directly, but this tells you something about what the CIA was doing in the field of hypnosis ~10 years before the JFK assassination. I can only hope that it may help find an answer. Personally, I don't believe at all that the involvement of Pullman and his wife with Ruby were what Pullman claims. Nor do I believe that Pullman switched from novelty dealer and furniture designer to doctor specializing in hypnosis in six years. Ashton

This is information that turned up ancillary to a line of research on my upcoming book, Watergate: The Hoax, but it is so bizarre, and so directly related to the JFK assassination, that I felt I must post it here. The way it first turned up in relation to the book is that a report of July 1972 by the Defense Intelligence Agency, called "Controlled Offensive Behavior —USSR," cites a source that is only referred to in the report as "Pullman." I'm going to put here exactly what the DIA report says about this "Pullman": According to Pullman (92), Director of the Southeast [sic: see below] Hypnosis Research Center in Dallas, Texas, before the end of the 1970s, Soviet diplomats will be able to sit in their foreign embassies and use ESP (in this case a form of the apport technique) to steal the secrets of their enemies. (See also reference 91, p. 216) Pullman states that a spy would be hypnotized, then his invisible "spirit" would be ordered to leave his body, travel across barriers of space and time to a foreign government's security facility, and there read top-secret documents and relay back their information. Such "astral projection" already has been accomplished in laboratory settings, Pullman said, adding that the Russians are probably now trying to perfect it. Pullman further states that the Soviets are at least 25 years ahead of the US in psychic research. According to Pullman, the Soviets have realized the immense military advantage of the psychic ability known as astral projection (out-of-the-body travel). In this reference, details are given for some of Pullman's work in the US with astral projection. Nobody involved in the research on my book could figure out who this "Pullman" was that DIA was citing as a source. Then a strange story turned up about a man named Edward J. Pullman involved in hypnosis in Dallas, Texas, and, again, I'm just going to quote the source, a book called Breakthrough 'Boys: The Story of the 1971 Super Bowl Champion Dallas Cowboys: Cowboy quarterback Craig Morton worked with a Dallas hypnotist for the last 12 games of the 1970 season on an experiment in posthypnotic suggestions. Edward J. Pullman, 58-year-old director of his Southwest Hypnosis Research Center, met with Morton once a week during this period and used hypnosis on game days when he talked with Morton on the phone. He said the practice was without the knowledge of coach Tom Landry or Cowboy officials. Sure enough, there is a record of a Southwest Hypnosis Research Center in Dallas, Texas (not "Southeast" as the DIA report says): SOUTHWEST HYPNOSIS RESERACH CENTER (inactive) 5444 Anita St Edward J Pullman, Dallas, TX 75206 Business Background Report Registration: Dec 21, 1977 State ID: 0042364901 Agent: Dr Edward J Pullman 5444 Anita, Dallas, TX (Physical) TIN: 30003424550 Note that here the agent, Edward J. Pullman, is listed with a "Dr." title. And what does this have to do with the JFK assassination? I'm so glad you asked. Here is a pertinent section of the testimony of Edward J. Pullman on 24 July 1964 to the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy: Mr. GRIFFIN. In calling you, we are particularly interested in any information that you might have about the activities of Jack Ruby on November 22, 1963, and November 23 and 24, including various other people that we know who were in contact with him and also some background information of Jack Ruby in terms of the various enterprises of his in at least one or two of which I understand you were associated in with him. Mr. PULLMAN. Yes; that's right. Mr. GRIFFIN. And also, perhaps, some general insights to the kind of person Mr. Ruby was. Mr. PULLMAN. How did you happen to get my name— I know I spoke to the FBI at the time. Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes; you were interviewed by the FBI, and other people that we have talked to have indicated that you, perhaps more so than any others, knew Jack pretty well? Mr. PULLMAN. Well, I knew him pretty well; he used to be at my house occasionally and I had an insight to his personal character. Mr. GRIFFIN. Then, let me ask you at this point if you will raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. PULLMAN. I do. Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you state your full name for the record, please? Mr. PULLMAN. Edward J. Pullman. Mr. GRIFFIN. Where do you live, Mr. Pullman? Mr. PULLMAN. 5454 Anita. Mr. GRIFFIN. Is that in Dallas? Mr. PULLMAN. Yes. Mr. GRIFFIN. When were you born? Mr. PULLMAN. July 12, 1928—no; that's July 28, 1912. Mr. GRIFFIN. What is your occupation? Mr. PULLMAN. I am a furniture designer and consultant—games, ideas, promotions—anything for the public; creative ideas for games and so forth. Mr. GRIFFIN. How long have you been in that business? Mr. PULLMAN. Oh, about 30 years. Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you have any formal training in that? Mr. PULLMAN. No; I just learned it all. Mr. GRIFFIN. Are you self-employed? Mr. PULLMAN. I am working for a company right now. Mr. GRIFFIN. And whom do you work for? Mr. PULLMAN. I'm working for Freed Furniture Co. Mr. GRIFFIN. And were you working for them at the time I have mentioned? Mr. PULLMAN. No; I just started with them. I was just working for myself—I have just started with them. I urge you to read his entire testimony, which I'm sure any of you have the skills to find. Here is a link to one transcript: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/pullman.htm Note that the address as given in testimony is 5454 Anita, whereas the address given in the business listing is 5444 Anita. Note also that his birth year given in testimony is 1912. That would make him 58 years old in 1970, the exact age of the Edward J. Pullman who was using hypnosis on Craig Morton in 1970. There's no question that this is the same Pullman who was buddies with Jack Ruby in 1963, was running post-hypnotic suggestions on a Dallas Cowboys QB in 1970, and later was quoted by the DIA as an expert in the status of psi research in the USSR—where Oswald had been. And the DIA never gave his full name in its report, while misstating the name of his hypnosis center. Yet he was "a furniture designer and consultant—games, ideas, promotions" in 1963-64? Right. Over to you... Ashton

It is clear to me that Weisberg neither recorded these interviews nor took notes during the interviews. Mr. Weisberg at no time refers to the presence of a third party during these interviews. Tom Right. Thanks, Tom, for your usual diligence. As I said: it's hearsay and nothing but. I would say that Weisberg's claims in this regard are worth as much as a charwoman's gossip over a back fence—except I don't know of any charwomen who've had a career in intelligence, as Weisberg had, so I'd have to be partial to the report of a good-hearted cleaning lady who had no agenda. Weisberg's hearsay "evidence" is undiluted poison, and is utterly reprehensible as far as I'm concerned. Ashton

If it's possible, then I'm sure you will have no problem proving it once and for all. Therefore, please: 1. Locate the point between your third and fourth tracheal ring, and mark that location on your skin with a round mark of the appropriate size. (Testimony varies, ranging from 4 to 8 mm. You decide.) 2. Put on a correctly fitting dress shirt, buttoned at the neck, and a tie, and using only natural motions of your head and neck, position the collar and tie so that a projectile could pass above the tie and collar, and penetrate at the spot you've marked on your skin without hitting the top of the collar or the tie. You may not pull down on the shirt or tie with your hands or by any artificial means. 3. Take a selfie, or have someone photograph you, and post it for us. I 'm looking forward to seeing it. Ashton

Why do you keep propagating this hearsay? Where's this alleged "interview"? Where is a record of it? Who witnessed it? And why do you also keep throwing irrelevant hearsay about the head wound into this thread on the throat wound? Why do you keep posting and reposting hearsay at all? Maybe I didn't make a mistake in turning this noise off before. Ashton

There is no such "testimony" by Carrico. I'm not going to waste a minute discussing fiction. If you're going to claim the existence of "testimony," post it, don't write it yourself. If you're referring to Weisberg's claim in Post Mortem, it is 100-percent uncorroborated hearsay. There is no recording of any such interview with Carrico. There is no transcript of any such interview with Carrico. There is zero record of what Weisberg might have asked or exactly what Carrico might have said—if anything—and there is no independent witness to any such statement ever having been made by Carrico to Weisberg. As I believe I've pointed out on a number of occasions, fiction doesn't leave a paper trail. Of course Weisberg always was part of the intel crowd, having come out of OSS, the predecessor to the CIA, so I guess no one should ever question anything he said. If you're referring to CIA Überführer Dulles inserting his own "testimony" and leading of the witness in the WC questioning of Carrico, then please exhibit the decency and respect for the sake of man's knowledge to name the actual source of your claims, and not falsely attribute them to Carrico. Please don't make up fiction and present it as "fact," Cliff. It poisons the groundwater of man's knowledge. VARNELL: There is more testimony to the wound being an entrance than there is testimony to "precisely" place the tracheotomy. That's more fiction, Cliff, which I demonstrated conclusively in the second post of this thread: Dr. Perry himself is on record under oath saying: "I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck." Dr. Gene Akin in his testimony, shown in the table above, says: "When I saw the wound, it had been cut across with a knife in the performance of the tracheotomy." Dr. Conrad Peters in his testimony, shown in the table above, says: "The neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there." That's THREE medical doctors, not nurses, who say that the tracheotomy incision was through that wound, including the doctor who performed the operation. Only ONE person who was in that trauma room, Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, said in sworn testimony that she thought it might be an entrance hole—and even she waffled on it. VARNELL: What about the Dealey Plaza testimony to JFK responding to throat trauma The OPINIONS of lay people who had never in their lives seen anyone reacting to any type of bullet wound anywhere are no more relevant to disinterested analysis of the pertinent facts than Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Here are some rhetorical questions for you, Cliff—and please don't bother to respond to them because they answer themselves: How many of these witnesses you embrace with such passion had EVER seen anyone responding to throat trauma? How many of these witnesses you embrace with such passion had EVER seen anyone responding to a bullet slamming into his back? How many of these witnesses you embrace with such passion had EVER seen anyone responding to a sudden severe attack of gout? VARNELL: ...and the Z film which shows the same thing? No, that's YOUR opinion, and it has no more probative value than G. Jesus's opinion or than the opinion of Tweedledee and Tweedledum. It is OPINION, not FACT, yet you peddle it incessantly as though it were incontrovertible fact. VARNELL: What about the neck x-ray with an air pocket the trajectory of which points to the wound between the 3rd and 4th trach rings? Thank you for stipulating that the wound, and the tracheotomy, were both exactly where the photos I have used show them, and exactly where the autopsy report says the incision was: "Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the third and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges." Of course, in doing so, you've now begun arguing with yourself on the location of the wound and tracheotomy opening that was cut "right through" it, but that's not my problem. VARNELL: There is no proof that we're looking at JFK's neck in those photos. Please allow me to suggest kindly that you re-read this post and the information in it as many times as it takes for you to grasp the evidence and information contained in it before replying and making further statements like that. But you do what you think is best. VARNELL: Ashton, has it ever occurred to you those photos were altered to make it appear the throat wound was an exit? What has "occurred" to me is neither here nor there, Cliff. The photos show exactly what the relevant medical testimony taken under oath describes: a lateral incision was made right through the throat wound, making it utterly impossible, post-tracheotomy, for anyone ever to determine exactly what made it, or whether it even was a projectile wound at all—much less whether it might have been an "entrance" or "exit" wound if it had been a projectile. The location of the tracheotomy and the condition of the tie prove beyond any reasonable doubt that unless the laws of physics were somehow magically suspended for one brief instant in Dealey Plaza, it is categorically impossible for the wound in the throat to have been caused by a projectile shot from the front. You said in your post above that you "enjoy the challenge." I want you to know without any ambiguity that I am not challenging you, and I have no desire to be engaged in a challenge with any individual. The facts and the disinformation surrounding this horrible history and murder case are challenge enough for all of us, individually, and for mankind at large. Something very dirty was done that day in Dallas, not just to a world leader, but to all of us. Nothing is to be gained, for anyone, by infighting and personal attacks. Let us all challenge only the dense fog of disinformation in the hopes of one day walking out of these long dark shadows of covert operations and organized deceit committed by the very people who claim to be protecting our security. Ashton

Now you're a psychiatrist, too? ... THIS IS THE LAST RESPONSE I WILL POST REGARDING YOUR ARMCHAIR PSYCHOANALYSIS. IT IS OT AND HINDERS THE PROGRESS OF THIS THREAD. "Peacemaker" is probably not my long suit, but I sincerely hope that both of you can set aside personal differences and return to a dispassionate discussion of the facts—rather than of each other—because I value the probative value of the analysis of relevant facts from each of you. Ashton

Then I'm sorry you've wasted so much of your life responding to them. I'd gently recommend that you not bother. Meanwhile, as for me: the photos that I used are PRECISELY CONSISTENT with all relevant testimony about the placement of the tracheotomy—about which there is ZERO contradiction—and are PRECISELY CONSISTENT with the testimony that the trach incision was right THROUGH the hole in the throat. I therefore don't care if they were taken with a Brownie Instamatic by a passing group of tourists from Tokyo. They prove conclusively that the hole in JFK's throat COULD NOT have been made by a projectile fired in Dealey Plaza from the front, which is, and at all times has been, my position. Thank you for stipulating to the fact that I set out to prove, and that I have proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Ashton

None of this has anything whatsoever with my being "angry" with you, Sandy. It has to do with being misrepresented. I make every effort not to misrepresent the statements of others, and I expect the same courtesy in return. If I ever inadvertently misrepresent you, please notify me right away and I will correct it in an instant. I always have been, and always will be, ready and willing to correct any erroneous statement I make about anyone here. I simply ask that I be properly quoted, and that people don't take the liberty of rewriting me, then attributing statements to me that I didn't make. Ashton

Cliff, you have surprised me before with your persistence on a dead-end path, but I have to say that you have gobsmacked me by trotting out that weary old "cough up a bullet" hack job video that goes coughing and hacking through Fantasy World. Here, in pertinent part, is the response I posted in this very thread over eight years ago, on 23 October 2007. It was my response then, and it is my response now: ==========BEGIN ORIGINAL RESPONSE======== Well, I guess it's only fitting that such snake-handling faith-based front-shot fervor would be the work product of somebody named "Jesus." ...The G. Jesus Hairball Cough-Up video is garbage. The only reason I'm responding to this nonsense at all is an attempt to keep any more people from falling into the endless punji pits dug by the "Front Shot Faithful." Gil Jesus didn't bother to look past what he wanted to see, and is too damned blinded by religious zeal to notice that at all relevant times in the little snippet of the Zapruder film that he latched onto like a snapping turtle and wouldn't let go of, Kennedy's tie is hidden by the right side of his coat as a result of his right arm being held up high, as, e.g., Zapruder 237 shows: And, as night follows day—while Front Shot Faithful hold hands and sing "I Shall Not Be Moved" and two choruses of "He Was Clutching at His Throat"— the continuity of the film, once Kennedy's right arm comes down and the right side of the coat is no longer blocking the view of the tie, proves conclusively to anybody who gives a tinker's dam about the truth that the tie, at all relevant times, has been sitting right where it would be expected: I'm not responding to any more of this junk. If anybody wants to discuss any rational aspects of the evidence, let me know. Meanwhile, I've made my record. ==========END ORIGINAL RESPONSE======== It certainly seems that you and Jesus didn't bother to notice that JFK has his coat buttoned in the limousine: It's an utterly crucial fact that accounts precisely for the way the front edges of the coat "billow" out as he raises his arms. Ignoring such crucial details is sloppy to the point of— Well, to the point of a Gil Jesus video claiming that JFK was trying to cough up a hairball. I mean, a bullet. As for the Senseney testimony, I'm very familiar with it, Cliff. In fact, it gets its own mileage in my book Watergate: The Hoax. Now that you've "opened the door" on it, though, I'm going to ask you a very specific question, and I'd like you to simply answer this question directly and honestly, if you can, without three pages of irrelevantly quoted bloviation: IF the CIA (or any tentacle of the "intelligence" gang of the U.S.) had indeed developed some sort of Top Secret delivery system for a powerful toxin, designed to be used against a human being, is it your considered and sober opinion that they MOST LIKELY would have deployed it: A. Out in broad daylight with hundreds of people looking on, OR, B. In the hands of a trained medical professional inside a medical facility, with that medical professional having known and cleared access to the target individual? A or B, Cliff? I'm on the edge of my seat awaiting your pithy answer. Ashton

There is no "Ashton's Theory," so please remove any and all such claims. At no time did I posit any "theory" on this subject. I have in good faith attempted to answer questions about what COULD have caused the hole in the throat, the slits/holes in the shirt, and the nick in the tie that was NOT a projectile from the front, because I emphatically and repeatedly have stated that the throat wound could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front. I have presented prima facie visual evidence that the hole in the throat could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front, and I absolutely stand by that. I further will state emphatically and repeatedly that the holes/slits in the shirt, and the nick in the tie, also could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front. And I absolutely stand by that. I do not carry the burden of supplying a "theory" of who or what DID cause any it. So please don't feed the trolls using my name with false claims about what I have said. I will speak for myself. If you want to claim I've said something, use the QUOTE function and quote me. Thanks. Ashton