Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ashton Gray

Members
  • Posts

    1,199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ashton Gray

  1. I'm am updating the list of doctors at Parkland hospital who worked on both John F. Kennedy and on Lee Harvey Oswald to include Dr. Ronald Coy Jones. As before, I am listing the doctors in the order they arrived in Trauma Room One the day they worked on Kennedy. Jones arrived with Perry so those two are merely in alphabetical order: Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins (anesthesiologist) Dr. Ronald Coy Jones Dr. Malcolm O. Perry Dr. Charles Rufus Baxter Dr. Gene Coleman Akin As before, this list is inclusive, not exclusive. This list has become of further interest in relation to the thread started by Charles Drago on the chest tubes and cut-downs, so I also am posting it there. I'll remark in passing that I find it somewhat perplexing that there seems to have been, to date, so little attention given to this question of doctors common to the treatment of both Kennedy and Oswald. There's more to come on the subject in this thread on the throat wound and in the thread on the chest tubes. Ashton
  2. That's a whole lotta' speculating from where I sit; the record says it was a Bundy operation, and its date has everything to do with de Mohrenschildt relocating to Haiti 12 days later and the launching of Operation Red Cross (a.k.a. Operation Crypt/Operation Tilt) five days after that: Monday, 20 May 1963 Date of a meeting between John F. Kennedy and McGeorge Bundy on the subject of "Future Policy Toward Haiti." [NOTE: Although the TOP SECRET document recording this meeting is not produced by Bundy until 23 May as National Security Action Memorandum No. 246, the text of that NSAM is being placed here to memorialize the outcome of the meeting]: NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 246 TO: The Secretary of State The Secretary of Defense The Director of Central Intelligence SUBJECT: Future Policy Toward Haiti The following conclusions were reached during a meeting with the President on Haiti on May 20, 1963. 1. Ambassador Thurston should be recalled for consultation and a final decision on his return to Haiti will be held in abeyance until the Ambassador can give his views on this matter. (Action: Department of State) 2. Fleet units now positioned off the island of Gonaive may be withdrawn after May 23 if there have been no untoward developments before then indicating reconsideration of this decision. Tuesday, 21 May 1963 Quoted from CIA memo: IX-193 21 May 1963 CONTACT REPORT WUBRINY - George deMOHRENSHILDT [sic: George de Mohrenschildt] 1. WUBRINY/1 telephoned on the sterile line at approximately 1630 hours to pass the following information. 2. Mr. deMOHRENSHILDT dropped into the [illegible handwriting, two letters; could be "01" or "Q1" or "Q/"]SALINE offices this afternoon. He said that M. Clemard Joseph CHARLES has returned to Haiti and is being seriously considered as the next President. Subject said that M. CHARLES is receiving considerable support and in subject's opinion would make an excellent President of Haiti as soon as Duvalier can be gotten out. 3. deMOHRENSHILDT said that he has obtained some Texas financial backing and that he has visited interested people in Washington regarding M. CHARLES candidacy. He did not identify these contacts to WUBRINY/1. C. FRANK STONE, III Chief DO/DOEO DO/COEO/CFS:jj(22 May 1963) Distribution: Orig - EO subject 1 - EO chrono 1 - WUBRINY ops Wednesday, 22 May 1963 • An unnamed Chargé is sent to Haiti from the U.S., purportedly to attend the "self-coronation" of Duvalier. • On the same day, William Pawley has a discussion with CIA's JM/WAVE Station Chief Ted Shackley. Friday, 24 May 1963 Date U.S. fleet units positioned off the island of Gonaive are withdrawn per National Security Action Memorandum No. 246. Sunday, 26 May 1963 U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Thurston is recalled to Washington, D.C. Thursday, 30 May 1963 George de Mohrenschildt and his wife return to Dallas from a trip to Washington, D.C., New York City, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He will be in Dallas for two days before relocating to Haiti. Sunday, 2 June 1963 George de Mohrenschildt and his wife arrive in Haiti, having stayed overnight in the Dominican Republic. Wednesday, 5 June 1963 • John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, John Connally, Cliff Carter, and Fred Korth are all in attendance at a meeting at the Cortez Hotel in El Paso, Texas. Part of the meeting involves a discussion of JFK visiting Dallas. The first date discussed is August 27, 1963, to coincide with Johnson's birthday, but it is rejected as being "too close to Labory Day." The date of 21 November is set as the earliest feasible date considering Kennedy's other committments. • On the same day, at 6:00 p.m., William Pawley's ship The Flying Tiger departs Miami, Florida, launching CIA's Operation Red Cross (a.k.a. Operation Crypt/Operation Tilt). Ashton
  3. Dreadful diction: One hijacks planes or treasure My dictionary defines "Thread Hijacking" as "the act of trying to steer a web forum discussion thread off topic by discussing a subject entirely unrelated to the subject at hand." Of course, anyone with a modicum of common sense and decency understands this and doesn't do it. I suppose that's why it's necessary to explain it to you. Then again, without guttersnipes, we might lose sight of why we attempt to have a civilization at all. But do you get it now? Or would you like me to dumb it down even more and explain it to you publically again? I'll be happy to oblige you. What a pity you don’t understand the meaning of the verb “to decimate” – then again, only one in ten do. My dictionary defines "decimate" in its first definition as "to destroy a great number or proportion of." What a pity you find yourself amongst the nine out of ten who—according to you—don't understand the meaning of the word. Let's see now: so far that's two terms of common usage that you don't know the meaning of, while assaying to lecture me on them. It seems almost hypocritical. It's precisely because I've decimated your Fabulous Fable of the Moving Head-Hole in the appropriate thread that you're back over here petulantly attempting—again—to hijack this thread. I notice you haven't responded there, where it would be appropriate and on-topic. I have to assume you haven't because I proved conclusively there to anyone with a central nervous system just how ludicrous the fiction you tried to peddle as "fact" really is, and you have no valid answer, so your only option is to attempt to disrupt this thread as much as you possibly can with another little hijacking tantrum. My dictionary says: "HYPOCRISY: Paul Rigby." Works for me. Ashton Gray
  4. Chuck, I'm back for a second run at responding to this interesting point you raise, because I believe there are other, more personal methods of "persuasion" that cannot be discounted—especially when considering the possibility of involvement behind the scenes by such amoral scum as CIA operatives (but I repeat myself). What I'm about to say is nothing but grandly circumstantial, but I still feel it should be taken into account for context: In 1962—when Perry went to San Francisco—just one of CIA's secret domestic atrocities was the George Hunter White black operation called "Operation Midnight Climax," which had been running in San Francisco since having been moved there from Greenwich Village in 1955. In this delightful setup, White had a CIA "safe house" operation equipped with one-way mirrors and surveillance gadgets under the aegis of MKULTRA and Dr. Sidney Gottlieb. "Safe houses" had been established around San Francisco, and White had a stable of prostitute drug addicts who would lure men from bars back to the safe houses after their drinks had been spiked with LSD. White then would film the events that ensued. The purported purpose of these "national security brothels" was to enable the CIA to "experiment with the act of lovemaking for extracting information from men." Doncha' know. If you haven't run off to the loo to puke, I just thought this should be put here as merely one example of the kinds of control operations the criminal cruds at CIA had at their disposal (your tax dollars at work, kids) at relevant times—this one just happening to be running in San Francisco, where Perry was for a year prior to the assassination. Some other ancillary information that admittedly is a grab-bag, but related to LSD, is that on 23 March 1963, U.S. Patent 2,438,259 for LSD expired, making the formula no longer a secret of Sandoz, Ltd. in Fribourg, Switzerland. Up until that date, CIA had enjoyed something of a functional monopoly on LSD for black ops. And wouldn't you just know it: very shortly after this patent expiration, the Inspector General of CIA suddenly got a blinding flash of religion, and "discovered" <SPIT!> that [GASP!] some naughty CIA people had been using LSD in unwitting experimentation on humans—but just for "interrogation methods." Doncha' know. <SPIT!> Of course the rest of the world didn't find out about the CIA Inspector General's grippe of holy morality until much later indeed. So all the above is dropped into the FWIW* bin. I felt it needed to be said here in relation to possible motive (read: "blackmail") of individuals. Ashton *For What It's Worth
  5. I think this is a very fruitful avenue to explore, Charles. Evica's assessment of the only four possibilities for the glaring discrepency certainly are correct, although based on emerging information and analysis, (including the thread There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat, where I mentioned in passing this exact issue of the chest tubes), I would tend now to set aside Evica's "unlikely" characterization of the Dallas personnel—particularly, but not limited to, those who worked on both Kennedy and Oswald. In his Warren Commission testimony, Commander Humes, who conducted the autopsy, is unequivocal about the fact that no chest tubes had been inserted (my bold emphasis throughout): COMMANDER HUMES: [T]hese were knife wounds, these were incised wounds on either side of the chest... . Their intention was to incise through the President's chest to place tubes into his chest. We examined those wounds very carefully, and found that they, however, did not enter the chest cavity. They only went through the skin. I presume that as they were performing that procedure it was obvious that the President had died, and they didn't pursue this. He later goes on to say this about both the chest incisions and the cut-downs: COMMANDER HUMES: Those wounds [chest tube incisions and cut-downs] showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional. In his deposition before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), Humes revisits the same theme of no chest tube insertion having been done: COMMANDER HUMES: [T]here were a couple of small—you never heard much about this, either—a couple of small incised wounds on the chest, and I forget— I wrote down, wherever I wrote it down, that it looked to me like somebody was going to think of putting in a chest tube. But they never did, because all they did was go through the skin. They obviously— I imagine they decided the President was deceased before they were going to pursue it. But somebody started, apparently, to insert chest tubes, which would not be an unreasonable thing to do. They were, you know, maybe two centimeters long, something like that, and between the ribs, low in the anterior chest. This stands in sharp contrast to testimony of several of the Parkland doctors, who say categorically that chest tubes had been inserted into the chest. I don't have the time at the moment to process their testimony on this, but I think it's going to become enlightening as it develops. Ashton P.S. It would be a help if a moderator could correct the spelling of "Chest" in the topic title for search engine purposes.
  6. Ashton, is there any information available about prior Military Service for any of these persons? If so, what branches did they serve in? Patriotic duty has always been a strong motivational factor when asking, or ordering, someone to "do their duty". You ask a very good and pertinent question, Chuck, but I'm woefully short on worthwhile answers. Perry, after he became a doctor in 1955, spent a year as an intern at Letterman Hospital in San Francisco, then was in the Air Force for two years, sometime in the years 1957 and 1958, stationed in Spokane, Washington. When he got out of the Air Force he went to Parkland Hospital and was there for four years as a general surgeon. I posted some number of months ago mention of an event that I found at least of some interest regarding Perry, and it piqued my interest primarily because of its time relationship to the "Jolly" West murder-by-LSD of Tusko the elephant—3 August 1962—and the assassination of JFK. In brief, Perry left Parkland about a month after the Tusko event, in September 1962, and went to the University of California at San Francisco for a year to study vascular surgery. He returned to Parkland in September 1963, around the same time that Nurse Diana Bowron—who unquestionably lied about the throat wound—arrived at Parkland from England, purportedly from an employment ad she had found. The information on Perry comes from the Wikipedia page on him, so you can take it on a "whatever it's worth" basis. I'd certainly like to see more developed on the backgrounds of these medical personnel, especially, but not limited to, the ones who tended to both Kennedy and Oswald. I don't know when I might get to it, and hope some of the excellent researchers here can add to the storehouse of knowledge on this point. Ashton
  7. I've read about it but never been able to locate a copy of it, Charles. If you know of its availability, please PM me. Ashton
  8. I've considered just such possibilities, Peter. I personally believe that if any such coup de grace were contemplated and effected and it involved the administration of a powerful and fast-acting toxin, those kinds of traditional delivery systems would have been ruled out for a variety of reasons that I'll go into if they don't become apparent by thinking them through. I agree with your whole sentence. Of course not all could have been complicit. As far as explaining the wound away, if in fact it was made by hand with a piercing implement, it intentionally was made in a way to be consistent enough with bullet wounds that it could be mistaken for one by the few people who got a brief look at it before Perry sliced through it. It was designed to be explained away exactly the way it has been explained away. Its very existence was withheld from the autopsy personnel until it was too late for them to do anything about determining whether it actually was a bullet wound or not. No, and I haven't suggested it was. The large gaping wound is the tracheostomy incision that eradicated the evidence of the small round wound that could have been made with a piercing implement, but that has been attributed—falsely—to a bullet or other projectile. I demonstrated in the first post in this thread that the hole could not possibly have been made by a bullet or other projectile, so there certainly has to be some other explanation. I believe that some sort of small round piercing implement is consistent with the facts, and such a device could have been used to deliver a toxin to ensure Kennedy's death. Yes, a tracheal tube was inserted, but I don't quite understand your point. I've never suggested that a cut of any description killed Kennedy. I've said that a small round piercing implement of a size that could have created the original small round throat wound—before the tracheostomy was performed—conceivably could have been used as a method of rapidly injecting a large amount of toxin into Kennedy, while also producing a wound that could be "explained" away as having been a bullet wound. Ashton
  9. Hi, Bernice. Always nice to see you, and I appreciate your contributing your excellent collection of photos to this topic. I've always had a bit of curiosity about the knotted tie and tie-on-hanger photos. Do you know their origins? The knotted tie image has held its own fascination for me, and played at least some part in the deductions that led to this very thread you've posted in. I realize that you're probably a bit put out with me, and that you have a certain investment of your own efforts in the Front Shot scenarios, but I've always valued your contributions, so I'd very much like to get your thoughts about some reasoning of mine concerning that knotted tie image. It seems to me obvious that the single defect in only one surface of the tie where the knot is tells an impartial observer several things: It is entirely inconsistent with a bullet or any other projectile going through the knot in either direction—in or out—because any such projectile would have to have penetrated all layers through all turns of the knot—which would be at least 15 layers of fabric. Would you agree? It is entirely inconsistent with such a defect having been made by a knife or scissors being used to remove the tie, because it is the most unlikely place to attempt to cut through a tie to remove it. Would you agree? However, I find such an odd defect in just that top layer of fabric entirely consistent with this: an attempt to put a piercing device through the knot, then, realizing it will be impossible to get it all the way through 15 layers of fabric, slipping the device under the tie and either between the plackets or through the shirt into the throat. Would you consider that to be a possible explanation both for the visual physical evidence of the tie, and for the wound in the throat? That's not entirely accurate. Actually, here are Burkley's own words: ADMIRAL BURKLEY: I was there probably within three to five minutes of the time the President arrived. I went immediately in to see the President, and went to the table on which he was being treated... . Of course it's important to keep in mind that after the President's limousine arrived at Parkland, there was at least some small amount of time before the stretchers and personnel arrived at the car, then there were the efforts required to get Connally out of the limo first and onto a stretcher, then Kennedy was taken out after Connally, then Kennedy was rolled the distance to the entrance, then down the hallway and into Trauma Room One. Then there was a good deal of initial confusion with Mrs. Kennedy and the SS agents in the room while efforts were being made to get them to leave the room and get Mrs. Kennedy seated outside Trauma Room One. So "within three to five minutes of the time the President arrived" puts Burkley in Trauma Room One very early on in the medical proceedings that took place inside the trauma room. I don't really know the precise agenda of those who try to make it seem that Burkley was late for the party unless they are trying to make it seem that he was ignorant of the throat wound and tracheostomy, but a close study of the record proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he wasn't late at all, that he knew about the throat wound, and that he was present when Perry arrived and the tracheostomy subsequently was done. Yes, that's correct: Burkley supervised the autopsy, and throughout the entire procedure kept Humes and the other autopsy personnel completely in the dark about the throat wound and about the tracheostomy that had obliterated it. Even though Humes assumed that he what he saw on the throat was the result of a tracheostomy, he had to call Perry at Parkland the next morning even to confirm that there had been a tracheostomy, and only then—after it was too late to do anything further about it—learned from Perry that there had been a wound in the throat. Why do you think Burkley withheld the information about the throat wound from the autopsy personnel? Ah. And what would it mean if the throat wound had been inflicted at Parkland Hospital by hand? Ashton
  10. Oh, I don't know Well, that's the first step to recovery, so I'm glad to see you've finally come to realize that you don't know. And when I'm finished with this post you probably still won't know—not because of any deficiency of the facts but because of your own repeatedly demonstrated inability to comprehend them. Frankly, though, after your loathsome, petulant recent attempt to hijack the thread I started, There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat, in order to drench it with the same defiled muck you've filled this thread with, I don't give a damn what you know or don't know. What I know is that after I'm through here, nobody with the cognitive spark of a pissant will waste another second of their time listening to your spinning of delusional fairy tales about an entirely mythological "bullet entrance wound to the front of the head" (or left temple—you can't even seem to make up your own mind where your mythological hole should be placed) of John F. Kennedy. So as of the end of this paragraph, I'm not addressing you at all. You can sit on your thumb massaging your brain as far as I'm concerned. I'm addressing the rest of this message to the sentient: To those who've followed this thread or are just jumping in, Paul Rigby has subjected the Queen's English to unspeakable persecution and mutilation in an agonizing attempt to sell the world on an airy-fairy fable that on the afternoon of the day John F. Kennedy was murdered Dr. Malcolm O. Perry said at the news conference that "the entrance wound was in the front of the head." Now, I use the word "fable" advisedly, because Rigby does not have a single scrap of first-hand verifiable record of Malcolm O. Perry ever having said any such thing. How, then, you might reasonably ask, could Rigby possibly manufacture such a boneheaded fiction? Well, Rigby's droning, colorless cant is that there once was a record of Perry having said that, but then somebody twiddled with the transcript of the press conference and edited that out! Doncha' know. Oooooooooooooooooo! It's fiction and nothing but. Malcolm O. Perry never said there was a bullet entrance wound in the front of the head or anything remotely like it. In fact, if Rigby ever had possessed the thinnest shaving of integrity in this matter, this is the very first statement—from the sworn testimony of Malcolm O. Perry himself—that Rigby would have put right at the beginning of this nonsense thread he started (my bold emphasis added): DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY: [T]here was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium. I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly. I did not see any other wounds. I'm sorry, Dr. Perry: would you repeat that—just for those with IQs not quite equal to their age? And could you speak up just a bit? DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY: I did not see any other wounds. Oh. Well, then, I guess that if Rigby ever had been in possession of enough integrity to put that at the top of his thread, there wouldn't have been any thread at all, would there. But if there weren't any thread at all, then Rigby wouldn't have provided himself the opportunity of subjecting us all to page after page of syntax that reads like teeth scraping across a blackboard while he parades out one secondary or tertiary "source" <SPIT!> after another, trying desperately to prove that Perry, in saying under oath what I just quoted, is a damned xxxx. Well, now, wait just a minute—here's a fine conundrum: you, gentle reader, must be asking yourself, "Is Rigby actually trying to impeach his own star witness?" Why, yes: believe it or not, he is. I absolutely am not saying that Rigby is dumb as a rutabaga, because I don't talk about rutabagas that way, but I am saying that he has been just as busy as a ten-tick dawg digging up every little scrap of newspaper clipping and quotes from wannabe second-guessers that he can get his stumpy little fingers on, peering at them myopically, sorting through them like Scrooge McDuck ["QUACK!"] counting wooden nickels, just so he can prove that Malcolm O. Perry is a conscienceless xxxx under oath, and that Perry did see another wound—damn it!—and that it just had to be an entrance wound in the front of John F. Kennedy's head! The Associated Press said so! Quack! Wok! Or... No, hang on minute: Rigby then turns right around and says that this alleged entrance wound actually was in John F. Kennedy's left temple—which, if you've reached kindergarten, you know is on the side of the head, not the front. Well, which is it? Does Rigby know? No, he does not. He keeps moving the mythological hole from the front to the left side and then back to the front again and then back to the left side and then... You think I'm just making this up, don't you? You think I'm joking now or something. If only I were. Have you read Rigby's thread? Let's have a refresher course on Rigby's "evidence" that Perry must have lied when Perry said under oath: DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY: I did not see any other wounds. Rigby won't stand for it! He won't stand for it, do you hear! Here's what Rigby wants you to believe instead, and I swear these are the actual quotes from all kinds of so-called "sources" that Rigby has thrown into the pile like junk into a utility drawer to try to make his "case"—whatever it is. Don't take my word for it, though—go back and read through this thread, which is where I got them from, if you doubt me: Oh, for chrissake, make up your flaming mind! Jeeeeeeeez! Okay, if you've managed to make it this far through The Fabulous Fable of the Incredible Moving Head-Hole and haven't either choked the cat to death or scared it to death from laughing, let's regroup for a moment, and then start to find out just how ludicrous this entire farce really is. Because you ain't heard nothin' yet, I promise you. First, let's try to dig out of this mound of madness something at least resembling Rigby's major premise (assuming, arguendo, that he has one). Essentially, it is this, edited down for readability from Rigby's death-by-paper-cuts prolixity, and please allow me to emphasize a few items in boldface: Got it? This is Rigby's big nuclear issue and the entire foundation on which he builds his Mad Hatter mythology: the Associated Press (AP) mangling of "the front of the throat" and alteration of it to "the front of the head." And Rigby's entire premise is that the AP got it right, and the transcript is wrong. Of course this is the same AP that falsely reported, e.g., that Valerie Plame was no longer in an undercover job when Robert Novak leaked her identity. But this doesn't give Rigby a moment's pause. Oh, no: the transcript of the press conference is wrong, the Associated Press goof is the gospel. But wait: let's just do the one thing that Rigby—if he'd had even a whiff of integrity—would have done at the outset, before he rigged up his tools of syntactical torture, and let's compare Perry's own sworn testimony to what Rigby himself admits that the transcript of the press conference says. Here's Perry again: DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY: [T]here was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium. I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly. I did not see any other wounds. Count with me now: Perry said under sworn testimony that he saw two and only two wounds: a "large avulsive wound" on the right back of the head, and a "small, roughly circular wound" in the lower part of the throat. Well, then what does Rigby say is in the news conference transcript—which he claims has been monkeyed with? Let me quote Rigby again: Well... But... Yes: they are exactly consistent. The news conference transcript reports exactly what Perry said under oath that he saw: two wounds. What else was it again that Perry said under oath—which Rigby has carefully omitted from his entire screeching screed? DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY: I did not see any other wounds. That's right. I remember now. Oh, but this won't do for Rigby. Oh, no. You see, the Associated Press reported otherwise, and therefore Paul Rigby has devoted a rather unseemly portion of his existence, apparently, to trying to prove that some likely-hung-over reporter from the Associated Press got it right and that Perry himself is not just a damned xxxx, but a knowing perjurer. "No, no, no," you must be screaming, "there has to be more to it than that!" No. There isn't. That's it. That's Rigby's entire "case". Because every other so-called "source" <SPIT!> that Rigby trots across the stage like ghoulish, skeletal Rockettes dancing the same high-stepping dance falls into one of the following completely absurd categories: Rehash/repeat of the AP garbage Vague, uncertain, unsubstantiated guesswork (Dr. Jenkins) Retracted and recanted false report (Dr. McClelland, from Jenkins) Rehash/repeat of the recanted Jenkins/McClelland garbage I already proved earlier in this thread just how ridiculous the Jenkins/McClelland garbage is, but here it is again for those who missed it or were too dense or prejudiced to get it the first time (not that I think that class will get it a second time). Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) interviewing Ronald Coy Jones, M.D., Malcolm O. Perry, M.D., Paul C. Peters, M.D., and Robert M. Mcclelland, M.D: DR. McCLELLAND: Dr. [Marion] Jenkins, when I came in the room [Trauma Room One], told me as I walked by to come up to the head of the table and he said, "Bob, there's a wound in the left temple there." And so I went to the table and I thought—you know, knowing nothing else about any of the circumstances—that's like that— (indicating). MR. GUNN: Just for the record, you're pointing in with your— DR. McCLELLAND: Yeah, the left temple— MR. GUNN: —finger at the left temple, and now the back of the head. DR. McCLELLAND: —came out the back. And there was a lot of blood on the left temple. There was blood everywhere, but there was a lot of blood on the left temple, so I didn't question that. ...But the upshot of it is what that led to was Mr. Garrison's case in New Orleans, and he put together a scenario where he thought someone—because of what I had said about the left temple bullet—was in the storm sewer on the left side of the car and fired this bullet that killed the President, another gunman. ...Garrison never contacted me until it was essentially time to have the case in court. ...And so I got a call one morning and it was from his office—one of the people in Garrison's office, and he wanted to know if I would come to New Orleans and testify. And I said, "Well, you know, it's odd that none of you had talked to me before this. I've been hearing something about it on television and whatnot." And they said, "Well, we assumed that you still believed that the course of the bullet was as you said in your written testimony right after," and I said, "No." And his voice went up about three octaves and he said, "What?" And I said, "No." And I explained to him that I had learned other things about the circumstances at the time, and that Jenkins had told me; I didn't see any wound there. I was just stating what I had been told and that I wrote that down in my written statement right after the assassination. And so that was—kind of took the wind out of the sails in that particular prosecution. McClelland's "report" was never anything at all but sheer useless hearsay, and the man can only be marvelled at for having the guts finally to admit his unspeakable irresponsibility. As I've also pointed out earlier in this thread, Malcolm Perry was sitting right there with McClelland during the above statements by McClelland, and Perry never once opened his mouth in protest or to correct the record that McClelland was making. And what ephemeral hocus-pocus of hearsay was it that McClelland originally based his baseless report on? It was this gem of forensic genius that gassed forth out of the mouth of Dr. Marion Jenkins: DR. JENKINS: I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process. MR. SPECTER: The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins. DR. JENKINS: Well, I was feeling for— I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also. And what of the other "reliable source" doctors, like Shaw and Stewart, who Rigby takes great pains to selectively quote? They weren't there! They have no foundation whatsoever to have opened their traps at all, and in every case, their baseless bloviating statements were made after the fact of McClelland's report and the idiotic AP perversion of the truth. And the single source of McClelland's false report was Marion Jenkins. Does Rigby even notice that his so-called "sources" <SPIT!> are just recycling the same slop, like some closed, circular sewage pump system? Apparently not. Does he care? Apparently not. He's too caught up in his own blind-faith belief in a no-see-um front shooter ever to see anything except little scraps and snippets of wishful thinking and third-hand barren sentence fragments that might somehow give him the momentary fleeting illusion of substance for a shooter that never existed shooting a gun that never existed from some unlocated location that utterly is impossible in order to make an entrance wound that never existed. Hell, he can't even decide if he wants this mythological "entrance wound" in the front of the head or on the left side of the head. This is called "research" in some circles. <SPIT!> And even if Rigby could scrape together enough third-hand so-called "evidence"—like the laughable newspaper report of a priest purportedly saying "left," without reporter or anyone bothering to ask the obvious question, "whose left?"—to seduce the not-quite-bright into his world of make-believe, what will he have accomplished? Well, he will have accomplished nothing but impeaching Malcolm O. Perry—the very person who he simultaneously is trying to convince you told "the suppressed truth" about having seen an "entrance wound at the front of the head" during the press conference. Because what did Perry say under oath? DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY: I did not see any other wounds. That's right. I remember now. Maybe you, gentle reader, will want to ask Rigby: Did Perry lie then, under oath, or did Perry lie at the press conference when he purportedly said he had seen an "entrance wound at the front of the head" (which he never said). I won't be bothering to ask. You might also want to ask Rigby why Perry didn't say it was "an entrance wound on the left side at the temple." I won't be bothering. Rigby's entire fantastic fable is as circular and profitless as the endless recyling of the AP and Jenkins/McClelland sewage: round and round and round and round, endlessly going nowhere at all. Enjoy the ride. Ashton Gray
  11. No, it is not. The same data is in Rigby's thread, which you can get to by clicking here, where there is a prayer meeting of the Front Shot Faithful going full-bore in all its hand-clapping glory on the subject of head wounds, and where Rigby knows very well he should have left it. This thread is not about head wounds at all. No, it is not the appropriate thread. Ashton
  12. Would you please take it to an appropriate thread? Thanks. Ashton
  13. Silly claim I cannot express my contempt for your jejune attempt to hijack this thread, particularly after I've already decimated the bulk of the idiocy you've now spewed here by appropriately replying in the thread you started to peddle your favorite myth—in an educational forum—as though it were "fact." <SPIT!> I gently tried to bring you to your senses on this issue in that thread, where it was on-topic and appropriate, and I won't stoop to your miserable, pathetic, unprincipled hijacking tactics, but know this: I'll soon be returning to that thread you started, and this time I'm going to finish the job. Gird your loins, boy. I just took the gloves off. Ashton Gray P.S. If there's a moderator with integrity, I request that you appropriately move Rigby's grossly off-topic spew out of this thread and into his thread, where it belongs. Of course I won't be holding my breath.
  14. See my brief timeline above regarding de Mohrenschildt vis a vis DIA and military mapping functions. The third and almost invisible partner in the de Mohrenschildt/Clemard Joseph Charles operation was Frenchman B. Juindine Tardieu. How this all ties in with the Diem murders in Viet Nam, orchestrated by CIA through Lucien Conein 20 days before CIA assassinated Kennedy, is for another time, another place... Ashton
  15. Given that the premise of this thread includes, of necessity, the possibility that medical personnel at Parkland hospital may have been witting conspirators in the assassination, and even that one of them might have inflicted the throat wound at Parkland Hospital as a coup de grace to ensure the death of the President and therefore the success of the assassination, I felt it appropriate at this time to post here briefly a list of doctors who worked on both Kennedy and Oswald at Parkland. I am listing them here in the order in which they arrived in Trauma Room One when Kennedy was being treated: Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins (anesthesiologist) Dr. Malcolm O. Perry Dr. Charles Rufus Baxter Dr. Gene Coleman Akin This list is inclusive, not exclusive. I place it here because if there were, in fact, witting conspirators among the medical personnel at Parkland to guarantee the death of the President, it stands to reason that just such a guarantee would be needed also for the death of the patsy. I will mention that in addition to Marion Thomas Jenkins having arrived in Trauma Room One before Perry during the treatment of Kennedy, Jenkins is the sole source of the blatant falsehood of a bullet wound to Kennedy's left temple. Jenkins told Dr. McClelland in Trauma Room One, falsely, that there was such a wound, and McClelland then wrote that into his report later that afternoon without ever having seen such a wound. McClelland later recanted what he had written in that report and admitted that he never had seen any such wound. Jenkins later testified that he only thought there was such a wound. I've covered this with the relevant testimony in a separate thread. I don't raise this point here to invite dicussion of head wounds in this thread, and I will not respond to discussion of head wounds in this thread. If the reason I raise it here isn't apparent to anyone, I also won't explain to them why I consider it entirely germane to this thread, because they wouldn't get it even if I did. Ashton
  16. I wish you wouldn't keep making me answer you in this thread, but, damn it, I can't resist mentioning very briefly that one of the most extraordinary events (among many) that has been shaking out of this research is the fact that on 5 March 1963, the U.S. Army Area Analysis Intelligence Agency was discontinued as a Department of the Army activity. Its functions were transferred to the Defense Intelligence Agency. Now, maybe you don't find that to be terribly extraordinary on its face. But let me put it into timeline perspective with a few other ancillary events, reaching back a few months to the fall of 1962: 21 November 1962 Department of Defense Directive 5105.27, “Defense Intelligence Agency (Mapping, Charting and Geodesy),” provides for control of the mapping activities of the armed forces by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). 26 December 1962 Marina Oswald writes in a letter to relatives in Russia: "We meet with one family, they are Russians but have never been to Russia and were born in China. They are very charming and good and travel a lot on foot. He himself is a geologist, loves Negroes and Russia. Soon he will be leaving to go to work in Haiti. His name is George de Mohrenschildt." 5 March 1963 From Department of the Army General Orders 12: "I. U.S. Army Area Analysis Intelligence Agency. Effective 5 March 1963, the U.S. Army Area Analysis Intelligence Agency, a class II activity under the under the jurisdiction of the Chief of Engineers, is discontinued as a Department of the Army activity." Its functions are transferred to the Defense Intelligence Agency. 11 c. March 1963 George de Mohrenschildt travels to Haiti via the Dominican Republic. 12 March 1963 Ruth Hyde Paine is at the Oswald house on Neely Street. Lee Harvey Oswald orders a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a scope sight from the Klein's Sporting Goods Company of Chicago, Illinois, under the name of A.J. Hidell. 13 March 1963 George de Mohrenschildt is in Haiti and signs a contract with the Haiti government. The enterprise is to "include conducting a geological survey of Haiti to plot out oil and geological resources on the island." The contract guarantees that de Mohrenschildt will be paid $285,000 for the survey, with $20,000 paid in cash, and the remainder to be "paid out in a 10-year concession on a sisal plantation." [NOTE: George de Mohrenschildt's office in Port au Prince, Haiti for the contract is in fact inside the office of the Inter-American Geodetic Survey (IAGS)—which a week earlier, on 5 March 1963, had come under the auspices of the Defense Intelligence Agence (DIA).] Please keep the safety bar snugly in place and keep arms and legs inside the cars at all times. Ashton
  17. Manchester—who was not there—notwithstanding, you nonetheless raise an incisively (pardon the pun) apposite issue by mentioning that the throat wound has been described as exuding blood. It may be of interest to you to learn that Malcolm O. Perry—not Manchester—is the sole source of that description of the throat wound. In the sequence in which Perry's relevant comments were made (my bold emphasis added): Perry's deposition by Specter at Parkland: DR. PERRY: There was a small wound in the lower anterior third in the midline of the neck, from which blood was exuding very slowly. ...The wound was roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched-out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut, but the blood obscured any detail about the edges of the wound exactly. MR. SPECTER: What was the condition of the edges of the wound, if you can recollect? DR. PERRY: I couldn't state with certainty, due to the fact that they were covered by blood, and I did not make a minute examination. I determined only the fact that there was a wound there, roughly 5 mm. in size or so. From Perry's testimony before the Warren Commission: DR. PERRY: In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly. ...This was situated in the lower anterior one-third of the neck, approximately 5 mm. in diameter. It was exuding blood slowly which partially obscured it. Its edges were neither ragged nor were they punched out, but rather clean. ...As I originally described it, the edges were neither cleancut—that is punched out—nor were they very ragged. I realize that is not a very specific description but it is in between those two areas....It was exuding blood during that procedure and thus I did not examine it very closely. From Perry's testimony with Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB): DR. PERRY: The neck wound—very few people saw that. I didn't even wipe the blood off on the right side, so I estimated it at five millimeters or so of exuding blood and I cut right through it, as Dr. Jones knows, so nobody else saw it after that. It was small. ...It—as I said the wound was exuding blood slowly, but Dr. Baxter mentioned about ineffective attempts to bag him because of the position of the wound in the trach. And when I opened the neck, there was an injury to the trachea on the right lateral side. There was air and blood in that area of the mediastinum. That's when I asked that a chest tube be put in place... For what it's worth, no other medical personnel in the record described this throat wound as "exuding blood," but please pay close attention to the last sentence by Perry above, going to the sequence in which the throat wound was opened and Perry subsequently asked that a chest tube be put in place, because that sequence is quite important to the subject of this thread, which I will get to in a moment, but first let me address the following that you said: First, let me say that from my study of the available images of the clothing, the amount of blood around the front shirt collar area, and particularly its contiguity with blood all over other areas of the shirt, renders that visual evidence ineffectual for determining how much might have been from the throat wound. It also is unlikely that the tie would have been subjected to much, if any, blood staining from such a wound, however it was inflicted, because four layers of shirt placket material would have been between the flesh and the tie during any and all periods that the tie was in place, and the tie knot normally rides in a small arc away from the body at the location of the wound. Having said all that, let me address your implied question about the likelihood of any such hand-inflicted piercing wound having been sustained before or after the shirt and tie were removed. I believe it could have been either, and here is why: As I already mentioned, a man's tie knot ordinarily rides in a small arc away from the body at the location of the wound. Additionally, because of the way a man's shirt buttons, the placket opening is on his right-hand side. Recall that the wound was slightly to the right of the midline of the throat. This means that such a piercing device could have been slipped under the knot of the tie and into the right-side opening between the shirt plackets before the shirt and tie were removed, or during the process of such removal. In fact this very act could be construed to account, in such a scenario, for the wound having been slightly right of the midline of the throat. This is why I said that I believe the wound could have been inflicted anywhere from the time JFK was removed from the limo—with his suit coat having been put over his head to roll him into Parkland—until the time that Perry and Dr. Ronald Coy Jones arrived (they arrived together). Now I'd like to return to the sequence I mentioned before concerning when Perry made the throat incision, and when he asked for chest tubes to be put into place. I turn now to the testimony of Commander James J. Humes, who performed the autopsy. I beg your indulgence for the length of the excerpts below, but I feel that the testimony is exactly relevant to the question of when such a piercing wound reasonably might have been made—particularly in contrast to the testimony above about the throat wound exuding small amounts of blood: Testimony of Commander James J. Humes before the Warren Commission: COMMANDER HUMES: In speaking of that wound in the neck [the throat wound], Doctor Perry told me that before he enlarged it to make the tracheotomy wound it was a "few millimeters in diameter." Of course by the time we saw it, as my associates and as you have heard, it was considerably larger and no longer at all obvious as a missile wound. The report states, and Doctor Perry told me in telephone conversation, that there was bubbling of air and blood in the vicinity of this wound when he made the tracheotomy. This caused him to believe that perhaps there had been a violation of one of the—one or other of the pleural cavities by a missile. He, therefore, asked one of his associates—and the record is to me somewhat confused as to which of his associates—he asked one of his associates to put in a chest tube. This is a maneuver which is—was—quite logical under the circumstances, and which would, if a tube that were placed through all layers of the wall of the chest, and the chest cavity had been violated one could remove air that had gotten in there and greatly assist respiration. So when we examined the President, in addition to the large wound which we found in conversation with Doctor Perry was the tracheotomy wound, there were two smaller wounds on the upper anterior chest. ...[T]hese were knife wounds, these were incised wounds on either side of the chest... . We examined those wounds very carefully, and found that they, however, did not enter the chest cavity. They only went through the skin. I presume that as they were performing that procedure it was obvious that the President had died, and they didn't pursue this. ...When examining the wounds in the base of the President's neck anteriorly [the throat wound], the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. ...Now, we also made note of the types of wounds which I mentioned to you before in this testimony on the chest which were going to be used by the doctors there to place chest tubes. They also made other wounds. one on the left arm, and a wound on the ankle of the President with the idea of administering intravenous blood and other fluids in hope of replacing the blood which the President had lost from his extensive wounds. Those wounds showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional. Deposition of Commander James J. Humes before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB): COMMANDER HUMES: [T]here was a gaping defect that was obviously a tracheotomy incision in the anterior neck, and there were a couple of small--you never heard much about this, either. A couple of small incised wounds on the chest, and I forget—I wrote down, wherever I wrote it down, that it looked to me like somebody was going to think of putting in a chest tube. But they never did, because all they did was go through the skin. They obviously— I imagine they decided the President was deceased before they were going to pursue it. But somebody started, apparently, to insert chest tubes, which would not be an unreasonable thing to do. They were, you know, maybe two centimeters long, something like that, and between the ribs, low in the anterior chest. I want to leave alone for the moment the extraordinary conflict about whether or not chest tubes ever actually were inserted. I will develop this further, but the salient point for the time being is that when Perry saw the throat wound and began to make the incision in the throat, Kennedy's circulatory system still had some function (the exuding of blood from the throat wound), as apparently also was the case with the respiratory system (consensus on agonal breathing, Perry testimony of bubbling of blood around the trachea). Yet just moments, perhaps seconds, later, when the incisions for the chest tubes were made (only through the skin), the circulatory system was "very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional." This supports the possibility that a hand-inflicted throat wound made shortly before Perry's arrival and incision very well could have introduced a powerful and fast-acting toxin. Ashton
  18. I also earlier posted about the strange case of Phineas P. Gage, who, in a moment of distraction (women, gnats, who knows?) while "working on the railroad all the live-long day," managed to get a prodigious iron tamping bar blown through his head, viz: The diagram demonstrates the path and size of the missile, not that it lodged in his head, because it did not (it landed nearly thirty yards away), but the point is that Phineas lived (in a manner of speaking), even went back to work for a while before becoming a sideshow attraction. The fact that Phineas lived gave the world the great gift of psychiatry's favorite form of butchery for decades, the lobotomy. With such precedent, I don't believe that uncertainty about Kennedy's chances for survival in the very early few minutes at Parkland would have been limited to some medically-uninformed person at all. This, in fact, brings to the surface yet another unattractive but crucial factor in consideration of all the foregoing in this thread, something perhaps best introduced in the words of the very man who destroyed all evidenciary value of the throat wound and obliterated any chance of anyone ever finding out how the throat wound had been inflicted—Dr. Malcolm O. Perry (bold emphasis added): 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 is one of the safest and easiest spots to reach the trachea. Now, considering for the moment, just arguendo, the Front Shot Faithful dogma that this wound was a bullet wound (which it could not possibly have been), I have no idea how any mere mortal even would approach the challenge of computing the odds of such a small round wound to the throat just happening to be right-smack-dab at "one of the...easiest spots to reach the trachea" and right-smack-dab at the location that Perry says is "customarily the spot one would electively perform" a tracheostomy (but stay tuned). I dare venture that it's not even possible to compute such odds; I doubt that medical literature holds enough records to make any such computation possible. It's safe to say, though, that it's got to be one of the eeriest "coincidences" in the entirety of the Kennedy assassination—even for the most die-hard fanatic of the Front Shot Faithful cult. If, though, the throat wound was, in fact, inflicted at Parkland hospital with a piercing device (and, really, it could not be otherwise), then this absolutely astounding "coincidence" is no "coincidence" at all: the placement of the wound was precisely planned so that a tracheostomy could eradicate evidence of it having been inflicted by hand. The very fact of its propitious location then militates ponderously toward a conclusion that the hand that wielded such a device was very thoroughly familiar with tracheostomy procedure, and stabbed the device precisely where a tracheostomy could justifiably be placed to eradicate the evidence. This brings us immediately back to the statement by Perry that the location of the punture wound was "customarily the spot one would electively perform" a tracheostomy. The operative word is "electively." There are many papers, articles, and dissertations on the particulars of tracheostomy. I don't aim to attempt to synthesize them all, and don't claim to be qualified, but one that I find a useful summary of those that I have read is "Traheostomy: Introduction," by Ara A. Chalian, M.D. In pertinent part, that article says (my bold emphasis): The cutaneous incision may be made either vertically or horizontally. ...The level and location of the incision may vary, depending on individual surgeons' preferences. In general, a good placement is 1 cm below the cricoid or halfway between the cricoid and the sternal notch . The size of the incision is also, to an extent, a matter of individual preference. ...I strive to use the smallest possible safe incision. For transverse incisions, 2 to 2.5 cm is often adequate. In an emergency setting, a longer incision—often vertical—may facilitate exposure and help the surgeon avoid...anterior jugular veins. In the case of Perry's carving on Kennedy's throat, we find that Perry elected to make a transverse (horizontal, across the throat) incision rather than a vertical (along the midline of the trachea) incision. At this point, and in light of the foregoing, let's revisit Perry's artistry: My, my. (Of course there's nothing in the record to suggest that Perry actually used a chain saw to make the incision—but it seems he might have.) Leaving alone for now questions of the elective size and elective location of what could be called "Perry Canyon," I want to focus on the "vertical vs. transverse" incision decision that Perry made. As Dr. Chalian points out (and other literature suggests), the vertical incision is common, and even can be safer "in an emergency setting" than a transverse incision, to avoid, e.g., risk of cutting jugular veins (as well as other considerations that I won't take up here). So why did Perry elect to make the incision transverse—across the throat—when the incision electively could have been made vertically, along the midline of the trachea, and might well have been safer if it were vertical? The record is silent on the question. Assume for a moment, though, arguendo, that Perry's intention in performing the tracheostomy did, indeed, include willful and witting intent to destroy evidence of the throat wound, and read the following descriptions of the throat wound by Dr. Carrico and by Perry himself: DR. CARRICO: This was probably a 4-7 mm. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. DR. PERRY: Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made...the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left... . I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. Clearly, the puncture wound was not on the midline of the trachea: it was slightly to the right side of the midline of the throat. As a result, the trachea had a slight laceration on that side and also had been pushed slightly to the left. Therefore, if, indeed, it were part of Perry's willful and witting intent to destroy evidence of the wound, then Perry had no choice but to make a transverse incision, because a vertical incision up the midline of the trachea would not have obliterated the wound. I could not possibly have put it better. Ashton
  19. Back on 10 January of this year, in the first message of this thread, I wrote: I'm renewing this request for help in locating these documents. I'm in a state of when it comes to locating NARA documents by any such numbering scheme through the use of the internet. Does anyone know if it's even possible? If not, can anyone tell me how I go about finding these documents through any means at all? All that failing, does anyone know how to contact Weberman? As in January, any help would be appreciated, and now even would be greatly appreciated. (No, I do not and will not tap dance.) Ashton
  20. An outrage - it's the pub. Of course. It stands to reason (witness this thread), so I stand corrected. All of which explains, why, three years after the event, and with the AP despatch in question nowhere to be seen in the work of the first generation critics (Lane, Weisberg, et al), Manchester returned to it in the manner he did. Or perhaps not. Or perhaps not. Or perhaps so. Or perhaps I don't care if the Archangel Michael returned to it holding hands with Beelzebub, the entire construct of "a shot to the front of the head" is a myth of Brobdingnagian proportions, and you are using an educational forum to peddle this baseless mythology as though it were a fact, when you do not have one tiniest mote or sliver of valid evidence that Perry ever said any such thing. Was it? Why, yes, as a matter of fact, it was the consensus, by the exact definition of "consensus." I'm glad you asked. It most assuredly and inarguably was. And Malcolm Perry never said anything at all at the press conference about any front shot to the head. But don't let me impede your swan dive onto the rocks. Do go on with your "proof" that it was otherwise: How much time you been spending in that pub with the other Front Shot Faithful, Paul? You know, if you'd spend less time studying the heads on pints and more time studying the record about the head of John F. Kennedy, you might have gotten around to reading the exact cite I just gave you: Jeremy Gunn interviewing Ronald Coy Jones, M.D., Malcolm O. Perry, M.D., Paul C. Peters, M.D., and one more—oh, yeah! It was Robert M. Mcclelland, M.D. And here's what McClelland himself had to say in that interview about his "Admission Note," written 22 November 1963 at 4:45 p.m., that you're so busy waving around (my bold emphasis): DR. McCLELLAND: Dr. [Marion] Jenkins, when I came in the room [Trauma Room One], told me as I walked by to come up to the head of the table and he said, "Bob, there's a wound in the left temple there." And so I went to the table and I thought—you know, knowing nothing else about any of the circumstances—that's like that— (indicating). MR. GUNN: Just for the record, you're pointing in with your— DR. McCLELLAND: Yeah, the left temple— MR. GUNN: —finger at the left temple, and now the back of the head. DR. McCLELLAND: —came out the back. And there was a lot of blood on the left temple. There was blood everywhere, but there was a lot of blood on the left temple, so I didn't question that. ...But the upshot of it is what that led to was Mr. Garrison's case in New Orleans, and he put together a scenario where he thought someone—because of what I had said about the left temple bullet—was in the storm sewer on the left side of the car and fired this bullet that killed the President, another gunman. ...Garrison never contacted me until it was essentially time to have the case in court. ...And so I got a call one morning and it was from his office—one of the people in Garrison's office, and he wanted to know if I would come to New Orleans and testify. And I said, "Well, you know, it's odd that none of you had talked to me before this. I've been hearing something about it on television and whatnot." And they said, "Well, we assumed that you still believed that the course of the bullet was as you said in your written testimony right after," and I said, "No." And his voice went up about three octaves and he said, "What?" And I said, "No." And I explained to him that I had learned other things about the circumstances at the time, and that Jenkins had told me; I didn't see any wound there. I was just stating what I had been told and that I wrote that down in my written statement right after the assassination. And so that was—kind of took the wind out of the sails in that particular prosecution. Would you like to order up another pint, Paul? Did you take note of the fact that Malcolm O. Perry was sitting right there at the table with Robert McClelland in August 1998 when McClelland described to Jeremy Gunn how he came to be deluded into a false belief that there had been a bullet entrance wound to the left temple of John F. Kennedy's head, and did you take note of the fact that Malcolm O. Perry didn't say a damned syllable to the contrary? And did you take special note of the name of the doctor who was the source of the delusional false belief that there was an entrance wound in Kennedy's left temple? It's right in the first sentence of the indented section above: Dr. Marion Jenkins. And you might want to make that next pint a double, because I certainly have taken note of who you're trotting out next to "testify" about this mythological "entrance wound to the head." Let's all have a peek at who it is—and I'm going to tidy up your cite just a bit with some bold emphasis: :blink: No wonder you Front Shot Faithful take refuge in the pub. This is it? This is what you got? You come in here with a handful of guesswork and hearsay and utterly countermanded "evidence"—in McClelland's case—that has been specifically revoked and nullified by the very author of that so-called "evidence," and on no more foundation than air so rarified it would make the Denver atmosphere look like concrete, you make blatant declarative statements in an educational forum that "Perry said there was a frontal head wound," while not able to produce even a scrap of record of Perry ever having uttered any such thing? You cannot possibly be doing any such reprehensibly irresponsible thing. Surely—surely—you have something of substance. Please... Now you're clutching at Shaws. He wasn't there! He was operating on Connally, for the love of Guy Fawkes! Who gives a damn what he claims? He didn't see Kennedy's head. He has no standing. What do you have of substance? He wasn't there, and he's a damned xxxx! It was not remotely "the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance" <SPIT!>. Why are you peddling such swill? Put down that pint and look at me: how many fingers am I holding up? Did you say "six"? Try again. "Nine"? Try again. "Four"? No! It's TWO. Got it? One, TWO. That's how many "physician's who were in attendance" mistakenly thought there might have been a wound in the left temple, and one of those recanted his statement to that effect, acknowledging that he never saw any such wound! I think I want to propose that the name of this place be changed from "The Education Forum" to "The Remedial Education Forum," since it's beginning to seem that an inordinate percentage of its population not only cannot read and comprehend the record, but apparently cannot even count to two. Ashton Gray
  21. Bevilaqua is flooding and choking this forum and now the Watergate forum with tens of thousands of words of boilerplate crap from ancient news that never was news, and that I wouldn't wrap rotted red herrings in. He also, as part of the operation of his worthless flood, is providing a perfect foil for the little staged Punch'n'Judy show with the other chronic flooder, Gratz, who of course started this very go-nowhere thread to keep the "conflict" with Bevilaqua going and further flood and choke the forum with garbage. Bill Miller is the other chronic flooder and has his own group of "foils" who help keep his sewage flowing like the Nile. Meanwhile, the administrators and moderators suit up in full armor like White Knights to protect and empower these full-tilt assaults on knowledge and orderly discussion while waving the giant satin banner of "free speech" over them, yet get their panties in a gargantuan Gordian knot if anybody gives a proven xxxx the label that so rightfully applies. When is someone here going to wake up to the blatant tools of disinformation and the wanton, malicious destruction of informational lines in the name of "free speech"? Ever? Ashton Gray
  22. Continuing my reply to Jack White from the message immediately above: Yes. Burkley had opportunity, as I documented in my previous message. No. Others saw the wound before Perry arrived in Trauma Room One. Yes. Bowron was involved in the removal of the clothing and had opportunity. Yes to both. In response to 4., it is inarguable that Bowron lied about the throat wound. I'll also say here that a material lie, such as Bowron is proven to have told, is not the only form of obfuscation. Omitting vital information or vital facts is one of the most common and insidious methods of obfuscation. Obviously, if someone who was in Trauma Room One created the throat wound, whoever it was has omitted that fact from the record. Less obviously, the presence of Burkley at relevant times has been so omitted or downplayed by all personnel who testified that it implies strongly an intentional suppression of the fact and circumstances of Burkley's presense. In response to 5., others who may have had opportunity include several of the SS agents, an orderly named "Joe" who helped Bowron roll Kennedy into the emergency room area, Dr. Carrico, and Nurse Henchliffe. That list is inclusive, not necessarily exclusive. I actually already answered this in my previous message, but to state it again, I believe it most likely by far that the puncture wound in Kennedy's throat was administered after he was removed from the limousine, either while being rolled toward Trauma Room One or once he was inside Trauma Room One, before or as the tie and shirt were being removed. I hope this helps. Ashton
  23. Cliff, I agree that what you've been posting here is of extreme importance, although we disagree on its suitability for this thread. I'm posting briefly here only to say that I have not abandoned this, that I am working on creating a unified timeline of relevant events for a separate thread, that I'm having to dance between raindrops to do it, and also that I am having to rely on the assistance and contributions of several other people to help me get it pulled together and to get some of the kinks worked out (and there are more than a few kinks, let me tell you). I can't say with any degree of accurate prediction when I'll be able to post the other thread, but please be aware that it is being worked on diligently, and that all of your data is being very thoroughly appreciated and incorporated. As soon as I possibly can I will post what has been put together on this. I believe you will find it all of great interest. Ashton
  24. Jack, the point and distinction I was making earlier is that what you have inferred was inferred from the facts I've presented and not from any statement or assertion from me of "complicity of Burkley, Bowron or Perry." That I am the one who presented the facts does not equate to my stating such an assertion or conclusion. I haven't. I don't want to beat this distinction to death, but when people reach a conclusion from the facts concerning possible "complicity of Burkley, Bowron or Perry," I think it is important for them to understand that I have not made any such assertion. I've merely laid out relevant incontrovertible facts about the statements and actions of Burkley, Bowron, and Perry, amongst others. What I have said unequivocally—it's even in the title of this thread—and have demonstrated with visual evidence is that no bullet (or any projectile) possibly could have made such a wound in Kennedy's throat. Pursuant to that rather obvious observation and conclusion, I further have stated that the only possibility left is that the throat wound was inflicted somewhere between Dealey Plaza and the time that Dr. Malcolm O. Perry entered Trauma Room One at Parkland hospital and destroyed the wound by slicing through it. I consider it highly unlikely that the throat wound was inflicted in the limo en route to Parkland hospital, and unless and until some evidence emerges to support such an unlikely event, I consider it eliminated. That leaves only a relatively small window of opportunity for the inflicting of such a wound: between the time Kennedy was removed from the limousine and the time that Perry made the tracheostomy incision. I quite agree that Burkley is suspect, which I have stated in agreement with Paul Rigby on this point just within the last 24 hours. I already have discussed the question of opportunity for Burkley in this and other threads, but I'll summate it briefly here: Dr. James Carrico, the first Parkland doctor to attend Kennedy, testified: "Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he [the President] got to the hospital." Burkley himself said: "I was there probably within three to five minutes of the time the President arrived. I went immediately in to see the President, and went to the table on which he was being treated... ." Burkley further says that he "checked the President's physical condition." Burkley was in Trauma Room One when Perry arrived and is the person who gave the doctors the adrenaline steroids—Sol U Cortef according to Burkley, also called Solu Cortef—to administer intravenously. There is no question in my mind that Burkley had opportunity, and there is nothing in the record that precludes such opportunity. It reasonably could be postulated—though it is not in the record—that as personal physician to the President of the United States, Burkley was afforded a certain amount of deference by the nurses and Dr. Carrico when he "checked the President's condition," and that as a result he might have enjoyed unique opportunity. Of course this is something that I cannot prove, but I feel it's worthy of consideration and I can say unequivocally that it is not excluded by the evidence and testimony of record. Perry is very unlikely for having created the piercing wound and the evidence strongly suggests that he can be eliminated as having created the wound. At the same time there is no question whatsoever that he is the one who destroyed all evidenciary value of the wound and thereby precluded any chance of anyone ever determining how it had been created. Bowron had opportunity for creating the wound. Okay. I'll say again that the President of the United States was not dead when he arrived at Parkland hospital. However grave his condition might have been, he was not dead. If there were a conspiracy involved to murder John F. Kennedy, it seems rather obvious that the architects of the conspiracy would have "ordered it" as the contingency plan for Kennedy arriving at Parkland still alive. In fact, I believe that this is a very good time to introduce the following rather chilling statement from Malcolm O. Perry himself concerning Kennedy's agonal breathing, with a bit of context leading up to it, my bold emphasis added: DR. PETERS: I have asked many people over the years, "Did you really see the President take a breath," and Dr. Baxter— or Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Carrico both said they thought they saw an agonal respiration. DR. PERRY: So did I. DR. McCLELLAND: I did, too. DR. BAXTER: I think we all did. DR. McCLELLAND: Yeah. When I came in the room the very first thing— DR. PETERS: Well, that's— DR. McCLELLAND: —that hit me was— DR. PERRY: Had he not— DR. McCLELLAND: —he did that. DR. PERRY: In the absence of a pulse and the absence of detectable pressures and everything, had he not had that, I would not have done the trach. I believe the reason Perry "would not have done the trach" is that had there been no such agonal respiration, there would have been no throat wound for Perry to eradicate the evidence of. Now in order to avoid the forum's tyrannical "Quotations Nanny," I'll have to continue this reply in another message immediately to follow. Ashton
  25. It would be an enormous help to me if you would quote the specific purported conclusions of mine with which you disagree. Assuming, arguendo, that I have drawn any such conclusion, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the particulars and my rationale for any such conclusion rather than leaving a grand cloud of generality floating in the forum. I feel there's far too much smoke already. First, I really don't ask anyone to accept anything. On the contrary, I urge others to question and inspect everything. That has its own application to this very issue—which I'll get to in a moment Second, I have made every good faith effort to confine my presentation as much as possible to a dispassionate recitation of facts of records and visual evidence—spiced only with my own stylistic jabs and pokes of fun at hyperinflated seriousness. (I realize that my sometimes ascerbic humor alienates some people, but there's no malice in it; it's nothing more than a rhetorical device to hold interest and get people to look at the facts.) Third, pursuant to "second" above, I have willfully refrained from putting forth any "planned scenarios"—hypotheses or theories—that would embrace the facts I'm presenting. If you will reread this thread carefully, I believe you will find that to be the actual case. I just responded to a similar comment by Paul Rigby in a thread he started, Why transcript 1327C is a fraud. He, too, suggested that I had asserted that these medical personnel at issue were co-conspirators, and he, too, did not quote me as having said any such thing anywhere. The phenomenon seems to have this anatomy: I post relevant evidence and facts of record. Readers follow these facts and see that they are well researched and accurate. In following the facts I post, readers arrive at their own conclusions from the facts. Readers then incorrectly attribute their own conclusions from the facts to me. Whether any given reader's conclusions from the facts align with any conclusion I might privately have arrived at or not is beside the point. The point is that it is the facts that are creating a trail that leads readers to a conclusion of their own creation. It isn't me. Which brings me to your next comment: You would have my rapt attention if you—or anyone—would posit such a theory that does embrace all the facts and yet leaves all the medical personnel who were at Parkland that fateful afternoon free of any and all suspicion of complicity. The problem that I predict you will find is exactly the problem that you already have encountered—and mistakenly attributed to me: the facts have led you logically to a conclusion that emotionally you don't want to accept. Your rejection of such a conclusion is made easier if you deny your own responsibility for having created that conclusion yourself and incorrectly attribute the conclusion to me. I realize I am stepping well outside my own boundaries of presentation of facts of records here, but I think it's very important, at this point, to explore at least briefly a factor of black psy ops that I believe is forcefully at work in this entire issue. It is the principle of the "ally." Most simply put, there is no more powerful emotional force that can be brought into play than reliance upon and trust in allies. In the group trauma of the murder of John F. Kennedy, at all relevant times the medical personnel at Parkland hospital have been presented as having been dedicated allies working selflessly to attempt to save the life of John F. Kennedy. They are the heroes of the drama. They are the White Hats. They are the Good Guys. They are beyond suspicion. I have jokingly referred to belief in a frontal shot as being tantamount to a religion and based on faith. While there is no question that I have taken that analogy to hyperbolic extremes, at the core of it is a powerful truth, and it is precisely this unshakable faith in the medical personnel as allies. This is no treatise on how "the ally computation" figures into black psy ops on a societal level—and it is a rich subject indeed—but unless and until one can separate oneself from just such an unquestioning faith in and reliance upon persons conceived to be allies as being entirely beyond suspicion, one has prejudiced and crippled the freedom of his own logical analysis in favor of powerful emotions. It is why mothers never can bring themselves to believe their offspring capable of having done harm, no matter how many bodies are brought out from under the house. I'm afraid your statement makes the case for the "ally computation" more powerfully than I ever could do myself. Ashton
×
×
  • Create New...