Ashton Gray

I'll try to have it this weekend, Tom, but I've been handling a few of the requests while simultaneously redoing the topography for the infield, roads, and knolls, which is bloody hell, and it's at a stage at the moment that makes this difficult. Speaking of which, do you (or does anybody) know what the clearance sign on the overpass says, or what that clearance actually is? I've laid the footprints of everything out from the available schematics, but I'm having to extrapolate elevations and feature heights from a lot of photographic information and some of it is iffy. Ashton P.S. To anyone I haven't answered, I'm strapped by the "only one response in one thread until somebody else responds" genii in the forum, so I'll get back to it.

I'll try to get it done this weekend. Ashton

Could be. Here's from the southwest corner [sUNG] "Up on the roof..."[/sUNG] Unfortunately looking from there reminded me that I still have to put in that spur line of track. Also, does anybody have any way for me to know where to locate the switching tower with anything resembling accuracy? Ashton

I'm not entirely sure, Jack. It's a work in progress, and I swear my primary motivation was to be able to look out those windows. It started out to be a simple thing weeks ago, but became a very not-simple thing with a life of its own hounding me into giving up sleep pretty much altogether. (It was either sleep or work. I had to opt for sleep.) Here are a couple more views. This one is from near where the elusive Black Dog Blob is rumored to have been (although that 30° field of view notation should say 60° if my memory serves me): Here's one from the roof of Old Red: And one from the overpass: To keep the file size somewhat manageable, the trees are 2D-faux-3D (flat images set always to face the camera). Any place you want to look from? I haven't tried the Zapruder location yet. Do you know what focal length he was using? I'll try setting that up. Unfortunately, I don't have a limo modeled to put in. Yet. Nor do I have the lamposts or the Stemmons sign done yet. Ashton

Despite an apparent general indifference to the square-city-block of sucking vacuum called the County Courts (or Criminal Courts)/County Records building that looks down over Dealey Plaza, I was determined to pursue this—well, "angle" is the only word that will serve. To that end (and many others) I created a 3D model of Dealey Plaza, opened the damned windows of the place, and took a look. Here's what I saw from two of them: Here is a view from behind the north pergola that identifies the two windows being viewed through above. (The number/letter system of window identification is just an arbitrary system I created to keep track of them): Here's looking at you, kid. Ashton Gray

Hoooo, boy, and you just made that some bodacious gumbo, I guar-on-tee. Thanks for all you posted! Ashton

Would you be willing to receive an email from me with an attachment? I have about 100 pages of raw notes theat I've collected on the Christian Democratic Party and some of the people associated with the training camp - not the one where the explosives were found. Steve Thomas I've sent you a PM. Ashton

Hi Robin. I don't know where the two versions of the image above came from, but does the top one (posted in color) indicate that false framing has been added to it to induce the belief that that's the extent of the image, or is that framing the result of some duplicating process where it was framed that way in whatever was used to copy the original (or an earlier generation)? If you know. Asthon

There were two camps. The one with the explosives was raided on July 31, 1963. ARRESTED AT LACOMBE John Koch Gene, Sam Benton, Richard Lauchli, Earl J. Wassem Jr. Ralph Folkerts, Victor Espinosa, Carlos Eduardo Hernandez Sanchez, Acela Pedros Amores, Miguel Alvarez Jimenez, Antontio Soto Vasquez, Victor Panque. In response to FBI queries, Carlos Hernandez took the Fifth Amendment about the dynamite, and said he was associated with Manuel Artime. You might want to read ajweberman's Nodule 14, about two thirds ddown the page. http://ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec14.htm Thanks very much, Steve. The 31 July date is very helpful. Any other information that anyone has on this would be greatly appreciated. Bringuier refers in his testimony to several newspaper accounts of the raids of these camps, but in a confusing section of the testimony keeps referring to the dates of these newspaper accounts being in early September. Apparently these were in a Spanish language newspaper and they were not entered as exhibits. Ashton

Do you (or might anyone reading here) have any actual media or other accounts of that incident with the Lake Pontchartrain camp(s) being shut down and the arms cache that was confiscated with specific dates? Any web-accessible sources on this would be greatly appreciated. Ashton

Separated at birth? Jack, you think there's a case? Ashton

I have a section of a timeline in progress that has an account of a rather peculiar meeting between McGeoge Bundy and Daniel Ellsberg of RAND within weeks of the Kennedy inaguration. I located the primary source cited in the timeline for the event and am going to just quote the relevant passage. Although it isn't mentioned here, this is at almost the same time that Bundy was negotiating for one of Ellsberg's mentors, Kissinger, to be a part-time consultant for the Kennedy adminstration. That was arranged within weeks of this meeting between Bundy and Ellsberg, although within a year Kissinger was released from that arrangement because of a diplomatic faux pas he made while on a trip to India in January 1962. (I don't have the specifics of that incident to hand, but I believe it was on the subject of nuclear weapons.) With that, here is the account of Ellsberg's meeting with Bundy at the very inception of the Kennedy administration, quoted from "The Color of Truth" by Kai Bird, with the caveat that I don't believe the motivations for the meeting were quite as posed, and the primary caveat that there is no record of the actual substance of the meeting: n late January 1961, Bundy had been given an extraordinary briefing by Daniel Ellsberg, a twenty-nine-year-old analyst working for the RAND Corporation, a think tank that did classified studies for the federal government. A junior fellow at Harvard, and an expert in game theory, Ellsberg was one of only a handful of civilians who had seen the Joint Chiefs' operating war plans, known as the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP). What he saw sickened his stomach. The war plans called for the swift destruction of every city of any consequence in the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe. "It was just a trucking plan," Ellsberg said, "for moving thermonuclear explosives as fast as possible to every urban center in the Eastern bloc." Moscow alone was to receive 170 atomic and hydrogen bombs. There were no intermediate steps, no flexibility and no warnings. He called it a first-strike plan because it was the Joint Chiefs' planned response to any level of "armed conflict with the Soviet Union." The chiefs' planned response to a division-level Soviet attack on West Berlin, for instance, would be the annihilation of hundreds of millions of civilians. Ellsberg thought there were few safeguards against an accidental triggering of the JSCP. Worse, he had been told that Eisenhower had given individual commanders written authorization to use their nuclear weapons if in their best judgments they were under attack and out of communication with the White House. Ellsberg knew that the commander of the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific, for instance, was out of communications with Washington on average a few hours each day. So it was entirely possible that a nuclear war could be initiated by an isolated admiral without the president's knowledge. Ellsberg was worried. Within days of Kennedy's inauguration, he had convinced Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Nitze that he ought to see the JSCP. Nitze authorized his deputy, Harry Rowen, and Ellsberg, working under him, to study the whole problem. Almost immediately, Ellsberg and Rowen were stymied; after requesting a copy of the war plan for Nitze's reading, Ellsberg was told by a two-star army general working for Nitze, "No, he can't see it. He has no need to know." Nitze was not the kind of man who liked to be told no, and when he learned of this rebuff, Rowen arranged for Ellsberg to see Mac Bundy in the White House. When Ellsberg arrived, he began by trying to explain how he had received access to a document as sensitive as the general war plan. Bundy interrupted and said coldly, "Is this a briefing or a confessional?" Ellsberg pulled himself together and replied, "There is a plan which no president has read, and which no secretary of defense has read, and it has the following characteristics." He then reeled off the bare facts of the plan, emphasizing how small of an armed conflict could initiate full-scale nuclear war. Within thirty seconds Bundy took out a pad of paper and began scribbling notes. A briefing that was scheduled to last ten minutes stretched to an hour and a half. Mac was particularly astonished by Ellsberg's assertion that Eisenhower had issued presidential authorization in writing that would allow individual commanders to launch nuclear weapons. Soon after Ellsberg left, Bundy picked up the phone and called the staff director of the Joint Chiefs. When he got a deputy, he said, "This is Mac Bundy; the president wants to see the JSCP." There was a long silence at the other end of the line until the general replied, "Oh, we never release that." Bundy responded, "No, I don't think you understand. I'm calling for the president and he wants to see the JSCP." Again the general said, "But we don't release that." Dumbfounded, Bundy shouted, "I don't think I'm making myself clear." At this point the general offered a compromise, "Well, we could give the president a briefing on the JSCP." Bundy snapped, "The president is a great reader; he wants to read the JSCP." Bundy never did see the full war plan, but he wrote a memo to Kennedy describing a summary of the plan he had been given by the Joint Chiefs. He called it "dangerously rigid and, if continued without amendment, may leave you with very little choice as to how you face the moment of thermonuclear truth." I don't have relevant sections of the timeline for the intervening years leading to Kennedy's assassination, but I do recall from several sources that by the time of his famous American University speech in 1963 Kennedy was on a path that he hoped would "put an end to that nightmare of Mutually Assured Destruction [MAD] which appealed to Henry Kissinger, a disgruntled former employee of the Kennedy administration." ("George Bush, The Unauthorized Biography") Of course MAD had been the monstrous creation of Kissinger's protege, Daniel Ellsberg. Ashton Gray

Well, I find this quite amusing, if damned strange. The auction for the book actually ended on 8 August. I'm no Ebay hound, but last I knew (or thought I knew), their auctions lasted about a week, meaning it would have gone on the block around 1 August. Four days before that, on 28 July, I had posted the following: Unfortunately, I didn't get that section of timeline posted. But, by God, I think I'm going to soon. And I think I'll just say no more for the moment. (If it's quiet enough, I think we all might actually be able to hear the sound of the rats scurrying around like mad in the walls.) Ashton

That's why I don't do theories.The salient fact remains that Decker emptied the County Courts building (a.k.a. "Criminal Courts building") and sent all his force out behind the TSBD. That's good, solid ground, innit? That's gonna last longer than an all-day sucker. Asthon What I'd said is also good, solid ground, and indisputable fact. Forgive my facetiousness because the "ifs" are not really "ifs," but merely blanks. No, no, not at all, and I didn't mean to take a thing away from a single one of your fine, good solid indisputable facts. Just didn't want that one getting lost in all the Keystone Cops cattle-prodding that was going on that day. "Blanks" is an interesting choice of words in this context, too, because I still am in slack-jawed awe at what a giant "blank"—or, put another way, at what a massive sucking vacuum—sits across an entire city block of Houston Street, staring placidly, innocently—if blankly—down on Dealey Plaza. It seems to me a shooter's paradise with a custom made shooting gallery. Yet of the ten billion to the googleplex power of words and wailings and wishes and wonderings in all the Kennedy assassination lore, there is not a single goddamned syllable expended on who was in that entire city block and what the hell they were doing. It's just... It's... Well, it's blank. I don't think it was blanks that went off at the picket fence around the parking lot above the knoll, though: just flash powder, old school. And, no: Zapruder didn't flinch (just to give a nod back to the topic). Ashton

Yes - but the detention will be with Ashton not me And it's BYOB. Ashton

That's why I don't do theories. The salient fact remains that Decker emptied the County Courts building (a.k.a. "Criminal Courts building") and sent all his force out behind the TSBD. That's good, solid ground, innit? That's gonna last longer than an all-day sucker. Asthon

Ashton

I'm sure they do have something in common somewhere and are quite important. As you and others can supply dates and any more information about each incident I'll pass it along to the people I know who are doing timelines (though I think some are lurking here now from time to time and picking up more info while also collecting data from other sources). I think you have hold of one of the hot strings that when correlated with other information in sequence is going to peel away more layers of the fraud. Ashton

I find this a very interesting line of study, Bill, but, bluntly, every reference that doesn't have a date could be a listing from the 1978 Hong Kong telephone book and be every bit as useful for analysis in the Kennedy murder. Ashton

Allen Dulles' briar? Dunhill, undoubtably. Ashton

I'm not a moderator in this forum, but have noticed some members having trouble with quoting other members when replying, so this is an unsolicited and completely unofficial primer on quoting and posting with the forum software in use here. This article deals with two aspects of forum participation when replying to another member: 1. The nuts and bolts of quoting and replying using the tools of this specific forum, and, 2. (Briefly) Conventions of courtesy and consideration for others when using those tools ("netiquette") 1. NUTS AND BOLTS OF QUOTING ANOTHER MESSAGE Here is the simplest way to quote any text from anywhere, at any time. Just type the following into any message editor, and type it exactly the way you see it in the "CODE" box below: [quote]This is the piece of text I want to quote.[/quote] The code word "quote" inside the square brackets at the beginning of the text turns quoting ON. The code word "/quote" (with a forward slash in front of "quote") inside square brackets at the end of the text turns quoting OFF. These are simple ON/OFF switches using simple "programming" code that the forum understands. If you go into a message editor and type just what you see inside the CODE box above, then use the "Preview Post" button at the bottom of the message editor, you will see this: It really is just that simple. There is nothing else to it at all. But there are just a few important things to keep in mind, or you will have trouble with it: The single most important thing to keep in mind is that the "quote" and "/quote" codes inside square brackets are ON/OFF switches, and for every ON quote code there must be a matching OFF quote code (and vice versa—for every OFF code, there must be a matching ON code). If you have even one unmatched ON or OFF quote code anywhere in a message, it will screw up the the rest of your matched pairs, and nothing you tried to quote will appear properly in quote boxes. Instead you will see a lot of "quote" and "/quote" codes (in square brackets) scattered all over the posted version of the message like bugs on a windshield. That's difficult to reproduce here without destroying this message, but if you've spent any time in these forums, you've seen it. To identify the member you're quoting, the ON quote code takes a slightly more complex form, described below. But it isn't really complex, since the forum software creates it for you when you hit the "Reply" button on a posted message. Let's look at that: Here's an example of the first line of text you normally see in a message editor when you hit the "Reply" button on any forum message: [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM'] If it starts to seem awfully complex, take a deep breath and notice that it is nothing whatsoever but a longer form of the simple ON "quote" code above. It still keeps it inside square brackets, but adds information that identifies the member you're quoting, gives a unique "post" number to the message you're replying to, and adds a date and time. The OFF quote code, described earlier, never changes. So here's how to use that "long form" ON quote code above to quote some text: [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM']This is some text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.[/quote] If you copy and paste that into a message editor exactly as you see it in the CODE box above, then use the "Preview Post" button at the bottom of the message editor, this is what you'll see: Notice that in the blue band at the top of the quote box, instead of just saying "QUOTE" (which is what the simpler "short form" of the code, shown above, gives you) it says "QUOTE" followed by the name of the person being quoted, the date/time, and then a little icon you can click on to go to the original message it was quoted from. And that really is all there is to it! If you're quoting and replying to several passages in the same message from one member, you can use the "long form" quote ON code for the first passage you're replying to, then use the "short form" quote ON code from there on out in your message, like this nonsense example: [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM']This is some text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.[/quote] If you aren't who you say you are, why are you saying you are? [quote]This is some MORE text that isn't really from a real Ashton Gray post.[/quote] Adding "MORE" to your nonsense only makes it MORE nonsense! That would look like this when posted (the lines and indenting are just to designate beginning/ending of posted message, and would not appear): ______________________________ If you aren't who you say you are, why are you saying you are? Adding "MORE" to your nonsense only makes it MORE nonsense! ______________________________ And yes, that really is all there is to it even when quoting people quoting other people. In that case, you merely are "nesting" pairs of ON/OFF quote codes inside each other, as in this example (all using just my own Ashton Gray "long form" ON code): [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM'] [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='72030' date='Aug 12 2006, 10:04 AM'] This is Ashton Gray quoting something else Ashton Gray said [/quote] [/quote] Notice that there are TWO ON QUOTE CODES and TWO OFF QUOTE CODES. Copying and pasting the above into a message editor and hitting the "Preview Post" button will give you this: No matter how many such quotes you "nest" inside of each other, the only thing that you must keep in mind is that for every ON quote code there must be a matching OFF quote code That's it. That's all there is to it. So if you see the codes themselves showing up in your messages after they are posted, hit the "Edit" button at the bottom of your own posts, and go in and find where you have either an ON quote code without a matching OFF quote code, or vice versa. That is the ONLY REASON why quoting fails. So having covered the nuts and bolts, here are a few conventions of "netiquette" that have developed over many years in many forums and USENET groups: 2. CONVENTIONS AND COURTESY Although the following points are derived from conventions that more or less prevail across the 'net, obviously there are no hard-and-fast laws governing such conventions, and there are no "Posting Police" that are going to enforce anything written below. It's up to users to try to do what they can to make the forum as pleasant and functional as possible. The guidelines below are purely my own observations of conventional usage. When replying to a message, quote only what's precisely pertinent to what you are replying to. If the message you're replying to is four yards long, don't quote all four yards in order to ask a specific question about something in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. Quote the second sentence of the fourth paragraph ONLY. DO quote specifically what someone else has said if you're taking issue with it. DO NOT rewrite the person and take issue with your own alteration of what they purportedly said. If you're only adding a non-critical and general comment about something someone else posted, DO NOT quote the message at all. What they said is already in the thread. That's why forum messages are arranged in continuing threads, so there is a record of the discussion. The exception to that, of course, is when a number of messages have intervened between what you're responding to and your response. Just use judgment and quote only what's necessary to have your message make sense in the context of the thread. DO NOT use color, bold, lines of asterisks, chevrons, quotation marks, or other hacks to quote people. It makes reading difficult enough, and makes standard quoting-and-replying to your messages damned near impossible for others. Just learn how to quote using the tools that are provided. It's really not that hard, and helps everyone. Using a separate text editor like NotePad (PC) or TextEdit (Mac) can help quite a lot when creating a message with lots of quote-reply sequences, or nested quotes. When finished editing it, just copy and paste it into the forum message editor. And I hope all that helps someone. Ashton Gray

Marx, Hegel, Nietzsche, Darwin, Freud, Wundt, and Jung all were disciples of the slaveringly insane asthmatic runt John Locke, who poisoned every philosophical/religious/mental well in existence before he regrettably was allowed to die a natural death. However much any one of them "took issue" with some of his concepts, every one of them took some portion of his malignant madness and spread the deadly plague to every crevice in the world. One of Locke's chief disciples was Wundt, who made Locke's utterly moronic "blank slate" theory of the human mind a platform from which to launch all the horrors of Rudin and the Nazi torture and death machines, the direct ancestors of "eugenics" and Helms and Gottlieb's MK/ULTRA with "Jolly" West and the rest of the CIA's still-standing invisible army of psychiatrists, including their links to Eli Lilly and the LSD vats of the 50s and 60s, followed by the current massive campaign to convince every man, woman, and child on the planet that they are poor victims of "depression" needing chemical "balancing." One little tentacle of this diseased beast that hasn't been pulled on hard enough yet is Mary Bancroft's close association with Jung from 1941 to 1945 (at least) while she also was the cooing mistress in Switzerland and surrounds of Allen Dulles. Bancroft was the life-long friend of Ruth Forbes Paine (not Ruth Hyde Paine—just more CIA twosies), mother of Michael Paine. This is the lineage of the madness that has made the entire world a Bedlam without walls, with only the most deranged and psychopathic allowed to run the asylum. Ashton Gray

Hi, Cliff. I've taken the liberty of excerpting the quotes above from several of your messages, not to comment on the evidence at issue—since I believe the "medical evidence" is almost exclusively the game of the disinformationists for reasons set forth herein—but to comment on the games played on their selected playing fields. The boundaries of their playing fields are always marked by the edges of the mists of ambiguity. Hardly any greater ambiguity exists than the provenance and validity of the "medical evidence." It is a Klein bottle of "evidence," existing inside and outside itself with no entrance and no exit (and that can be taken in any way anyone wishes, literally or figuratively). Their playing fields are governed, in terms of time, only by infinity, and, in terms of goals, only by conflict: time never expires, conflicts are never resolved, scores cannot be made, arguments can be neither won nor lost. But the game can be won infinitely by the playing field owners, since the only goal anywhere on the field is the continuance of the conflict through any means, any tactic, without the slightest regard for any rules of engagement, debate, or decency. Anyone reckless enough to play their game on their own fields of ambiguity with the hope of any other possible outcome is doomed by stepping on the field. Their overriding and ruling rule is chaos, not order. Even if one should be clever or observant enough to make inroads of clarity on their foggy fields of ambiguity, the amorphous boundaries—like the time that governs play—are infinitely movable and infinitely expandable through the infinite accusation of fictional "arguments" never argued or proposed, just as you bemoan above. If you should be so astute as actually to take one tiny piece of their ground, 20,000 more acres of mist are created from nothing in an instant and added to the field stretched out before you. And what does it matter, anyway, once one has accepted and donned the hideous uniform/costume/frightmask they created for the "Conspiracy Theorist," a non-existent and entirely generalized "persona" that the disinformationists have so thoroughly discredited that to wear the garment is to lose the game. As long as they can make the game one of "CTs" versus them—in their own endless conspiracy of disinformation, a delicious irony—they have assured for themselves infinite conflict on their own fields of infinite ambiguity, and that is the only game they will play. Ashton Gray

Yes. And might I amend the above with another mention of smoke (literally) from the knoll/fence area (including an officer later testifying that he'd burned his hand on something he erroneously had believed to be a steam pipe, but nobody ever determined what it was), and Decker immediately emptying the County Courts/Criminal Courts building of law enforcement presence, herding them all into the area behind the knoll/TSBD. Ashton

I can't answer John's question, either, and some questions are unanswerable. What follows may be one of them, but I sure am curious about this, which I think is the next to last frame of the Zap Wonder DivX version I have: Anybody know any way to account for a skewed frame? Ashton