Ashton Gray

...for the record, I agree with you (and many others) that Burkley was indeed a witting conspirator.

In fact I think you'll find in my own record no such overt statement of conclusion, but I'll go on the record here saying that I now believe he was, indeed, a witting conspirator, and will rejoice in our having found a point of agreement.

…and that the Blue Meanies or the CIA or the Warren Commission (same difference) fiddle-faddled with the transcript of a press conference that was witnessed by Gawd knows how many press members and public (in the age of recording devices) in order to eradicate or diminish or twist one purported mention of a frontal wound—while leaving in another!

So let me see if I have your logic right: Perry, a CIA plant among the Parkland doctors, goes before the afternoon press conference primed with a rank piece of CIA disinformation - to the effect that Kennedy had an entrance wound in the front of the head – delivers said piece of rank disinfo, only for the CIA to suppress its own corker of a piece of disinformation from that day forth?

No, you have twisted my logic until it is unrecognizable.

The disinformation that Perry planted in the press conference, and that remained in the record, was the falsehood that there was a bullet entrance wound in the front (anterior) of John F. Kennedy's throat (neck).

There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat. Period.

The source of the original falsehood that a bullet caused a wound in John F. Kennedy's throat, which falsehood is still in the record, was Malcolm O. Perry. It is inarguable. It is by Perry's own admission. It is in the press conference transcript to this day. It is an incontrovertible fact of record that it was Perry who first planted the lie in the public mind.

And Malcolm O. Perry is the very person who destroyed all evidence of the wound that was in Kennedy's throat...

Hyperbolic tosh. Perry did no such thing.

Oh, yes, it is exactly what Perry did.

From Perry's testimony before the Warren Commission, bold emphasis added:

From Perry's testimony to Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), bold emphasis added:

From Perry's initial interview with Specter, bold emphasis added:

Of course Perry is being inordinately modest when he says that it was "difficult...to ascertain the exact nature of this wound" as a result of his carving: the autopsy personnel didn't know there had been any throat wound at all until Humes called Perry the next morning!

That is incontrovertible fact, and if you feel an itch to argue it with me, it is a measure of my esteem that I adjure you to restudy the record with great care before succumbing to any such reckless urge.

Ashton

And it's no surprise at all to me that Burkley and Perry would be the precise two people to deliver the "shot from the front" hypnotic implant at the height of confusion as the precise black CIA psy op it was, to set up an unresolvable dichotomy of diametrically opposing "scenarios". It's straight text-book.

A very useful concept, “an unresolvable dichotomy of diametrically opposing ‘scenarios,’”* but not, alas, in this instance:

It is precisely an unresolvable dichotomy of diametrically opposing "scenarios": claims and evidence of a shot or shots from the rear, standing in direct opposition to claims and purported "evidence" of a shot or shots from the front. If you want to seek comfort in slicing and dicing degrees of an arc, be my guest. It is the last refuge of the Front Shot Faithful.

a true diametric opposition would have Burkley informing Kilduff that the entrance wound was in the back of the head ie at the other end of the diameter, as opposed to Perry’s insistence – suppressed by 1327C – that there was an entrance wound in the front of the head.

This desperation in clutching at the fervidly flawed proclamation of a breathless AP reporter hammering out his assininely afflicted description of the press conference certainly is worthy of unshakable Faith (with a capital "F") and the credulity that attends it, but I'm frankly surprised to find someone of your scholarship preaching it.

The moron at AP got it wrong, that's all. You solved it yourself in your first post when you reported correctly that after Perry pointed to his own throat and lied and said that the wound in the throat was an entrance bullet wound, a reporter asked, "Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?" If only you had stopped there!

Bell ran off to his typewriter to describe what he understood from the press conference to be a single head wound with a single entrance hole (in the throat) with a single exit hole (that he understood to be a gaping hole in the back of the head on the right side), and so idiotically shorthanded his description of this purported bullet shot that exploded the head by saying "the entrance wound was in the front of the head." And it can go even further: for all you or I know, all Bell actually wrote was "the entrance wound was in the front," and an editor at AP added "of the head" thinking he was clarifying the report, when in fact he was confusing it all to hell.

Then some local-yokel papers picked the the AP garbage and propagated it, as always happens.

But whether Bell himself wrote the utterly perverse description, or some greenhorn AP stringer, or whether it was "enhanced" by an AP desk editor, it's completely immaterial and irrelevant.

As recently as 27 August 1998—long after the transcript was available—Ronald Coy Jones, M.D., Robert M. Mcclelland, M.D., Malcolm O. Perry, M.D., and Paul C. Peters, M.D.—all doctors who were there in Trauma Room One that day—were gathered for questioning as a group by Jeremy Gunn, general counsel of the Assassination Records Review Board. During that questioning, Paul Peters summated the exact frame of mind that was the consensus view at the time of the press conference (based on the patently false idea that there had been a bullet wound to the throat):

That was the consensus. That is what was stated at the press conference.

In the same group questioning of the doctors by Jeremy Gunn, Ronald Coy Jones erased any possibility of doubt on this entire non-issue (italic emphasis added):

And that is entirely consistent with SS Agent Kellerman's description of JFK's face inside Trauma Room One, which I've posted in pertinent part in the thread There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat.

The AP idiots mischaracterized it. It's that simple.

If I were armed with a steam shovel, I could not possibly heap enough praise on Richard Dudman for relegating the mythical "entrance wound in the front of the head" to historical oblivion, and the only criticism I have is that he did not burn it in the fires of Hell.

I've thoroughly covered exactly why it's no surprise to me at all that the messengers of just such a fraud would be Burkley and Perry in the thread There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat, particularly in this linked post in that thread.

“Thoroughly”? No, you haven’t. With regard to Perry, you’ve simply kept asserting he was a conspirator.

I notice you don't quote even one instance of my asserting that Perry was a conspirator, much less the multiplicity of such assertions that you assert. Lest any gentle reader have a twitching urge to run off to the search function to find out why you haven't quoted me making any such assertion, I'll save them the trouble: you can't.

What I have done is post incontrovertible facts about Perry's actions and statements, and you—yes, that is you—have synthesized those facts yourself into a conclusion that Perry was a conspirator, and have falsely attributed your own conclusions to me.

At least have the integrity to take responsibility for your own conclusions from facts, and don't try to pin them on me.

Repeated assertion is just that, assertion.

I couldn't agree more. Maybe next time you'll quote me instead of falsely asserting that I have asserted things that I never asserted.

But I've waited for you to get around to your major premise in this thread you've started, and after five rather lengthy messages you've posted, you still haven't gotten around to saying what your major premise is. What is it? Why is transcript 1327C a fraud, according to your model?

What you rather grandly call my “major premise” couldn’t be more obvious, and is contained in the thread’s opening piece: contemporaneous new reports v. a manuscript which surfaced publicly only in 1976. Your incomprehension is thus feigned, and born of an ulterior motive. To illustrate the perversity of your interpretation, let’s revisit that alleged failure of mine to venture my, yes, “major premise”:

According to 1327C, Perry and Clark described only two wounds, the entrance wound in the front of the throat (8), and “a large, gaping loss of tissue” (9) at “the back of his head” (10), “principally on his right side” (11). The questions attributed to the unnamed reporters present reinforces this two-wound scenario, for example, when one of them supposedly asked of Perry, following his pointing to this own throat to show where the bullet had entered, “Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?” (12). So much for 1327C. Now let us turn to the contemporaneous news reports.

Here we find something very different. The Associated Press reported, shortly after 2 pm, CST, that ‘Dr. Perry said the entrance wound—which is the medical description—the entrance wound was in the front of the head’” (13); while WOR Radio, New York, quoted Perry to this effect at 2:43 pm, CST, (14). So, instead of just two wounds, the Parkland duo actually described three – there was, in addition to the entrance wound just below the Adam’s apple on the front of the throat, also an entrance wound “in the front of the head” (15). It is thus not merely a matter of altering a word or two, but, necessarily, considerable portions of transcript 1327C, including the questions attributed to the anonymous reporters.

Very opaque, I must say.

I couldn't agree more.

You still haven't made a simple statement of what you are trying to build a case for.

If it is that there actually was "an entrance wound 'in the front of the head'" and that there was a grand conspiracy to cover it up by tweaking the transcript of the Parkland press conference way back in 1976 (and I still can't tell for certain, because you won't just say so), I humbly suggest that you would have better luck resurrecting Lazarus a second time. Or maybe even Kennedy himself.

Ashton

MY NAME IS MARK HOWELL. I AM A SENIOR WRITER FOR "SOLARES HILL", THE WEEKLY ARTS & LITERATURE SUPLLEMENT TO "THE KEY WEST CITIZEN".

AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, TIM GRATZ AND I HAVE AUTHORED SEVERAL ARTICLES ABOUT THE JFK ASSASSINATION, OFTEN CONCENTRATING ON THE POSSIBLE KEYS' CONNECTION.

TIM EXPLAINED TO ME THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS THREAD ABOUT WHETHER A MAN IDENTIFIED AS "PEARL'S FATHER" WORKED ON THE STAFF OF SEN BARRY GOLDWATER. HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD CONTACTED MRS JUDY EISENHOWER, THE LONG-TIME CHIEF OF STAFF TO SENATOR GOLDWATER, FIRST BY PHONE AND LATER BY E-MAIL. SHE DENIED ANY SUCH PERSON WORKED ON THE GOLDWATER STAFF.

TIM THEN SAID THAT AT LEAST ONE PERSON ON THIS FORUM HAD ACCUSED HIM OF LYING ABOUT HIS CONTACT WITH MRS, EISENHOWER. HE ASKED ME TO LOOK AT HIS E-MAIL TO CONFIRM HIS CONTACT WITH MRS. EISENHOWER, SO A THIRD PARTY COULD DO SO.

I DID.

TIM SENT THIS E-MAIL TO MRS EISENHOWER ON SAT OCT 20 AT 6:28 p.m.:

Dear Mrs. Eisenhower:

Have you had a chance to read you the material I sent you re the allegations of Bradley Ayers re the father of a lady he identifies as "Pearl" who Ayers says Pearl says was a long-time member of Sen. Goldwater's staff?

Was there anyone associated with BG who met the description of the man Ayers describes as "Pearl's father" even if the man had no daughter named Pearl?

Thank you for any assistance you can provide so I can definitively "debunk" this lie.

I ALSO CONFIRMED THAT WHAT TIM SENT MRS EISENHOWER WAS CHAPTERS 31 AND 32 OF BRADLEY AYERS' BOOK.

THIS WAS MRS. EISENHOWER'S E-MAIL REPLY TO TIM, SENT TO TIM SUNDAY, OCTOBER 21st.

There was no one who met the description of a man such as [Ayers] describes on the Goldwater staff ever.

----- Original Message -----

I DO NOT FEEL AT LIBERTY TO DISCLOSE THE E-MAIL ADDRESS OF MRS. EISENHOWER.

I PRESUME THIS DISPOSES OF ANY POSSIBLE THOUGHT THAT TIM LIED ABOUT CONTACTING MRS. EISENHOWER OR WHAT SHE TOLD HIM.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO, I CAN VERIFY THIS POSTING MADE BY TIM BUT AT MY DIRECTION. MY E-MAIL ADDRESS IS

mhowell33040@yahoo.com.

THANK YOU.

One’s head literally spins from all the errors, omissions, distortions, self-serving misinterpretations, misstatements of fact, and unsupportable inferences drawn by Tim Gratz in his quest to discredit Brad Ayers.

With all due respect to Mark Howell, Tim Gratz’s co-author of a number of spurious articles written with the intent of pinning the Kennedy assassination on Castro, Howell’s confirmation of the Gratz/Eisenhower e-mail exchange, while quite telling in some ways, is not what Tim originally promised when he posted:

Oct 23 2007, 09:45 PM

“To satisfy you, I will provide someone on the Forum with my e-mail exchange with Mrs. Eisenhower.”

Mark is neither a Forum member nor an impartial and disinterested party, but a colleague in Tim’s past attempts to blame the assassination on Castro. Moreover, while the e-mail address provided may be his, it is demonstrable that anybody, using any name, can concoct a yahoo e-mail address.

Indeed.

Furthermore:

1. Without full headers included (in which Ms. Eisenhower's e-mail address could be redacted), claims of an e-mail exchange are absurd and have all the value of wet toilet paper.
   
2. On 13 October, in this thread, Gratz claimed: "I sent Mrs. Eisenhower a link to Chapters 31 and 32... ." Where is such a link?
   
3. By 20 October, Gratz had changed his claims about the "link" to Chapters 31 and 32, saying in this thread: "I e-mailed Mrs. Eisenhower Chapters 31 and 32 of Ayers' book and asked her to read them carefully... ." This is what the alleged Howell e-mail purports to confirm.
   
4. On 13 October, in this thread, Gratz claimed he located Ms. Eisenhower through Google, discovering there that "she was a member of a Phoenix lobbying firm." What "Phoenix lobbying firm," and where is their contact information?
   
5. According to the claims of Gratz and the completely unconfirmed claims of Howell, Ms. Eisenhower must have so trusted this complete stranger that she gave him her private, not business, e-mail address, since the Gratz/Eisenhower e-mail exhange supposedly "documented" by Gratz above is purported to have taken place on 20 October (Gratz to Eisenhower), which was a Saturday, and on 21 October (Eisenhower to Gratz), which was a Sunday.
   

Ashton

Mark, in the list I posted, in my last post above, of items I thought were worth mentioning relevant to this thread, I omitted some important points. Forgive the oversight, but I think, and hope, you understand there is a great deal of data to sift and categorize, and some of it emerges and takes on proper relationship only after it has been compared to and correlated with other data from many diverse sources.

I'd like to correct the oversight now by amending and extending the list I posted before and adding a bit of discussion to it:

1. Kennedy's head, throat, and upper torso were covered by his suit coat while he was being wheeled into Parkland, down the corridor, and into Trauma Room One.
   
2. Nurse Diana Bowron, who was one of the personnel wheeling the cart, lied about the throat wound, claiming under oath in Warren Commission testimony that she never saw it until after Kennedy had been pronounced dead (when, of course, it had been obliterated by the tracheostomy), but claiming in a written statement and in an interview with Harrison Livingstone that she saw the throat wound while Kennedy was still in the car (even though he still had on his shirt and tie in the car).
   
3. Nurse Diana Bowron was involved in removing Kennedy's shirt and tie inside Trauma Room One.
   
4. John F. Kennedy's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, was inside Trauma Room One when Malcolm Perry arrived, meaning Burkley was there and had examined Kennedy before the tracheostomy was started by Perry.
   
5. Prior to and during the tracheostomy, while Burkley was present in the small Trauma Room One, there was a not insignificant amount of discussion amongst the doctors present about the throat wound.
   
6. Admiral Burkley supplied the cortisteroids (hydrocortisone—specifically Sol U Cortef a.k.a. Solu Cortef) to be administered intravenously, telling the doctors that Kennedy had Addison's disease.
   
7. Both Dr. Malcolm Perry—who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound—and Dr. Ronald Coy Jones lied about the source of the hydrocortisone, about the source of the information concerning the reason for its introduction, and about who determined that it should be administered, claiming it was Carrico's idea based on "general knowledge" that Kennedy had Addison's, when in fact the information and the Solu Cortef had been supplied in Trauma Room One by Burkley.
   
8. Almost immediately after destroying the evidence of the throat wound, Malcolm Perry participated in a press conference in which he first planted the idea in the public mind that the throat wound was made by a bullet fired from the front.
   
9. Admiral Burkley supervised the autopsy.
   
10. Admiral Burkley, in supervising the autopsy, did not apprise any of the autopsy personnel of the throat wound that had been sliced through by Malcolm Perry, leaving the autopsy personnel with the impression throughout the autopsy that the damage to the throat was solely attributable to the tracheostomy.
    
11. In stark contrast to the claims by Malcolm Perry and Ronald Coy Jones regarding the hydrocortisone having been administered as a result of "common knowledge" about Kennedy having Addison's disease—a deficiency of the adrenal glands—Burkley, in supervising the autopsy, issued express orders not to include the adrenals in the autopsy, supposedly because of sensitivity for the family, to keep the issue of Kennedy's adrenal condition out of the press and public knowledge.
    

It's clear that Admiral Burkley knew full well of the throat wound, and of it having been destroyed by Perry, which means that Burkley willfully withheld this information throughout the autopsy that he supervised.

It is quite an irony that Burkley's own insistence on keeping the adrenals out of the autopsy completely proves the lie told by Malcolm Perry and Ronald Coy Jones about the hydrocortisone in order to obfuscate Burkley's presence in Trauma Room One at significantly relevant times prior to the tracheostomy.

A question I have not had time even to inquire into is what the adrenals in autopsy might have told about any possible toxicity.

Ashton

Ashton, that's an interesting (revised) list of items you posted. Why would Nurse Bowron give conflicting accounts of what she saw?

One lesson I've finally learned in life—and I do mean the hard way—is not to try to comprehend the incomprehensible. Of course there is no rational reason why anyone at all would tell a material lie about the most infamous murder in centuries, so I won't be so foolish as to attempt to posit any "reason" for her having lied that clutches at rationality. I will, though, say what I feel rationally can be said about the fact of a lie having been told:

1. Bowron unquestionably lied about having seen the alleged "bullet wound" in Kennedy's throat while he was still in the limo and she was there to get him out of the limo. See, e.g., Kellerman's testimony above about no throat wound being visible with the shirt and tie still on.
   
2. Bowron likely lied also about not having seen the puncture wound in Kennedy's throat while in Trauma Room One after his shirt and tie were removed, which removal she helped with according to her own and others' testimony. Dr. Carrico, ostensibly the first Parkland doctor on the scene (omitting, for the moment, consideration of whether Burkley was already there in Trauma Room One when Carrico arrived), testified: "We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck... ."
   
3. If Bowron did, in fact, see the wound in Trauma Room One, and had any knowledge that it was not a bullet wound, she would be complicit, which very well could account for her later having lied about seeing the wound in the limo in order to reinforce the lie that it was a bullet wound.
   
4. If, on the other hand, Bowron told the truth when she said she did not see the throat wound in Trauma Room One, even though she was involved in removing the shirt and tie, then the only possible conclusion is that the wound was administered during some instant after the shirt and tie were removed, but before Perry arrived and sliced through the wound.
   

And Burkley's actions concerning the throat wound would seem to indicate a desire to conceal the real nature of the that wound.

I don't know how else they could be interpreted. It is impossible for Burkley to have been ignorant of the throat wound. It is impossible for Burkley to have been ignorant of the tracheostomy. Burkley supervised the autopsy at Bethesda, and withheld the fact of the throat wound throughout the entire procedure.

But then it gets even stranger: Hume, who performed the autopsy, later called Perry purportedly to ask Perry if a tracheostomy had been done, and only then learned, from Perry, that the tracheostomy incision had been placed directly through a small round wound. Now, it really takes a great deal of furrowed-brow thought to think through the enormous number of utterly raving illogics in that single sentence:

1. Hume had performed the autopsy at Bethesda, Maryland, under Burkley's supervision, without any confirmed knowledge that a tracheostomy had been done at Parkland, even though Burkley had been in Trauma Room One at Parkland before and throughout the tracheostomy.
   
2. Hume—who was in Bethesda, Maryland, with Burkley there—had to call Perry in Dallas the next morning (Saturday morning) even to get confirmed his assumption that a tracheostomy had been done.
   
3. Only during the call by Hume to Perry, supposedly to "confirm" the obvious—that a tracheostomy had been done, which Burkley could have told Hume without the call to Perry—did Hume purportedly learn from Perry of the prior existence of a wound in the throat that had been destroyed by the tracheostomy.
   

It just is to make one's head spin around on the shoulders like a draydl. Burkley could have told Hume about both the throat wound and the tracheostomy, but did not tell Hume about either. And who is at the center of this absolutely spinning madness? Burkley and Perry. Burkley and Perry. Burkley and Perry. And a throat wound that could not have been caused by any projectile going in any direction.

Could Admiral Burkley be implicated?

Oh, perish the thought.

How does that square with his attempts to inform the HSCA that he had information which indicated Oswald did not act alone?

Yeah? Where is it? See my sig.

Burkley was also a link in the chain of possession concerning JFK's much discussed missing brain--or what was left of it.

Wasn't he, though.

I'd like to know what the elder statesmen of the research community (no disrespect intended) think of this argument.

No disrepect taken. I'd like to hear from them, too.

Damned quiet in here, innit?

Ashton

Just as an aside, I'm finding the sudden flood of the forum with red herrings of great and entertaining interest in relation to this thread.

Ashton

Why is it so difficult for some folks to grasp such a simple concept?

Reading many of the responses, it is clear that some effort is being made to steer discussion away from the topic.

You are certainly ruffling someone's feathers Ashton.

And birds of a feather ruffle together.

Ashton

Both Burkley (via Kilduff) and Perry, in the early afternoon of 22 November, uttered heresy to the pre-planned scenario of a lone gunman firing from high to the right rear.

And it's no surprise at all to me that Burkley and Perry would be the precise two people to deliver the "shot from the front" hypnotic implant at the height of confusion as the precise black CIA psy op it was, to set up an unresolvable dichotomy of diametrically opposing "scenarios". It's straight text-book. I've thoroughly covered exactly why it's no surprise to me at all that the messengers of just such a fraud would be Burkley and Perry in the thread There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat, particularly in this linked post in that thread.

But I've waited for you to get around to your major premise in this thread you've started, and after five rather lengthy messages you've posted, you still haven't gotten around to saying what your major premise is. What is it? Why is transcript 1327C a fraud, according to your model?

You seem (although I'll be the first to admit that it's difficult to tell) to be building a case that Perry and Burkley were the shining messengers of Truth, Justice, and the American Way, that John F. Kennedy was, indeed, shot from the front, and that the Blue Meanies or the CIA or the Warren Commission (same difference) fiddle-faddled with the transcript of a press conference that was witnessed by Gawd knows how many press members and public (in the age of recording devices) in order to eradicate or diminish or twist one purported mention of a frontal wound—while leaving in another!

I can't even figure out where you're going with it. What could be the point?

So while I certainly will wait with bated breath for you to get to your elusive point, I'm going jump right to mine: there was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat, period. It's not possible, as I've made clear with copious visual evidence in the thread I've just linked to.

And Malcolm O. Perry is the very person who destroyed all evidence of the wound that was in Kennedy's throat (which could not have been a wound made by a projectile of any description), then marched right out and told the world the grand lie that there had been a projectile wound in Kennedy's throat, and that it had been a projectile wound of entrance. It was, and is, and forever will be a lie.

That's the fraud of transcript 1327C. It's one of the biggest fraud's ever run on the world. And guess what: that CIA fraud made it into transcript 1327C.

Ashton

Just as an aside, I'm finding the sudden flood of the forum with red herrings of great and entertaining interest in relation to this thread.

Ashton

Friday, 26 April 1963:

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

Train, Cabot and Associates.

The Train was John Train, CIA-connected descendant of the Enoch Train

opium operation in the 19th century.

And the Cabot family was a leading Boston Brahmin opium smuggling outfit

in the 19th Century.

Makes one wonder whether Train, Cabot was a CIA front -- or was the CIA

a front for the likes of Train, Cabot?

That's a thwacking good question. Whoever was fronting for whom, there's so much more to the George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles show that it royally deserves its own thread.

This is absolutely on topic. The black ops behind the Castro-did-it black op.

I'm of the view that an understanding of the "DeMoh & Charles Show" unlocks a

deeper understanding of the Kennedy assassination.

...Not in Kansas anymore, Dorothe. Seems to me heroin was their game.

I believe that was Dorothy to Toto, and I find your cobbled-together timeline of great and absorbing interest—but I really do believe it must be taken out of this thread, which specifically is concerned with propaganda, and the de Mohrenschildt/Charles show was the antithesis of propaganda, having been largely a covert operation

In the timeline of it, you're absolutely correct to have extended it into May, May and June 1963 being crucial months in which the play unfolds in tandem with Operation Red Cross and MacGeorge Bundy's sting on Kennedy to get U.S. ships out of the area.

I will present a specific timeline of those related events in a few days—probably Monday—in its own thread and incorporate there what you have included there. Out of respect for Bill Kelly's excellent work, I will not post more on this in this thread.

Ashton

Mark, in the list I posted, in my last post above, of items I thought were worth mentioning relevant to this thread, I omitted some important points. Forgive the oversight, but I think, and hope, you understand there is a great deal of data to sift and categorize, and some of it emerges and takes on proper relationship only after it has been compared to and correlated with other data from many diverse sources.

I'd like to correct the oversight now by amending and extending the list I posted before and adding a bit of discussion to it:

1. Kennedy's head, throat, and upper torso were covered by his suit coat while he was being wheeled into Parkland, down the corridor, and into Trauma Room One.
   
2. Nurse Diana Bowron, who was one of the personnel wheeling the cart, lied about the throat wound, claiming under oath in Warren Commission testimony that she never saw it until after Kennedy had been pronounced dead (when, of course, it had been obliterated by the tracheostomy), but claiming in a written statement and in an interview with Harrison Livingstone that she saw the throat wound while Kennedy was still in the car (even though he still had on his shirt and tie in the car).
   
3. Nurse Diana Bowron was involved in removing Kennedy's shirt and tie inside Trauma Room One.
   
4. John F. Kennedy's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, was inside Trauma Room One when Malcolm Perry arrived, meaning Burkley was there and had examined Kennedy before the tracheostomy was started by Perry.
   
5. Prior to and during the tracheostomy, while Burkley was present in the small Trauma Room One, there was a not insignificant amount of discussion amongst the doctors present about the throat wound.
   
6. Admiral Burkley supplied the cortisteroids (hydrocortisone—specifically Sol U Cortef a.k.a. Solu Cortef) to be administered intravenously, telling the doctors that Kennedy had Addison's disease.
   
7. Both Dr. Malcolm Perry—who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound—and Dr. Ronald Coy Jones lied about the source of the hydrocortisone, about the source of the information concerning the reason for its introduction, and about who determined that it should be administered, claiming it was Carrico's idea based on "general knowledge" that Kennedy had Addison's, when in fact the information and the Solu Cortef had been supplied in Trauma Room One by Burkley.
   
8. Almost immediately after destroying the evidence of the throat wound, Malcolm Perry participated in a press conference in which he first planted the idea in the public mind that the throat wound was made by a bullet fired from the front.
   
9. Admiral Burkley supervised the autopsy.
   
10. Admiral Burkley, in supervising the autopsy, did not apprise any of the autopsy personnel of the throat wound that had been sliced through by Malcolm Perry, leaving the autopsy personnel with the impression throughout the autopsy that the damage to the throat was solely attributable to the tracheostomy.
    
11. In stark contrast to the claims by Malcolm Perry and Ronald Coy Jones regarding the hydrocortisone having been administered as a result of "common knowledge" about Kennedy having Addison's disease—a deficiency of the adrenal glands—Burkley, in supervising the autopsy, issued express orders not to include the adrenals in the autopsy, supposedly because of sensitivity for the family, to keep the issue of Kennedy's adrenal condition out of the press and public knowledge.
    

It's clear that Admiral Burkley knew full well of the throat wound, and of it having been destroyed by Perry, which means that Burkley willfully withheld this information throughout the autopsy that he supervised.

It is quite an irony that Burkley's own insistence on keeping the adrenals out of the autopsy completely proves the lie told by Malcolm Perry and Ronald Coy Jones about the hydrocortisone in order to obfuscate Burkley's presence in Trauma Room One at significantly relevant times prior to the tracheostomy.

A question I have not had time even to inquire into is what the adrenals in autopsy might have told about any possible toxicity.

Ashton

I'm suggesting the possibility that a device similar to the piercing needle I pictured above could have been employed, and in very short order indeed. I am suggesting that if some similar device had been used—either during the removal of the clothing, or even before it was removed, by sliding such a device between the shirt plackets under the tie—it would have produced a wound consistent with descriptions by all eyewitnesses.

I believe that if such a device had in fact been used, it most likely would have been employed to administer a large quantity of some kind of toxin that would have been completely unsuspected, yet known to be fatal, and for which there was no existing test for detection in a human.

You could be right. Having a backup contingency like this is logical because the planners could not be certain that a kill shot would be made.

Assuming toxin was administered, then the SS would be my chief suspect.

Possibly. In the realm of speculative thinking, I don't know how any such backup contingency could have been in place, though, no matter who was designated to administer a toxin, absent the certainty of almost immediate irradication of the puncture wound evidence by electively-placed tracheostomy—something that could not be accomplished by any Secret Service personnel.

On the subject of toxins, though, I have these pesky timeline entries that I've been needing to do something with, so I think I'll put them here. This first one has a personal note from me italicized, and I have added some bold emphasis:

Friday, 3 August 1962

Louis Jolyon West, of the Depatment of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Behavioral Sciences, University of Oklahoma School of Medicine, shoots an elephant named Tusko, at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Oklahoma City, with a massive dose of LSD, equivalent to approximately 0.1 milligrams per killogram of weight.

[For what reason, nobody ever has been able to make the slightest sense of. —A.G.]

After about three minutes

of trumpeting and running around the pen,

the elephant collapsed

"heavily onto his right side, defecated, and went into status epilepticus. The limbs on the left side were hyperextended and held stiffly out from the body; the limbs on the right side were drawn up in partial flexion; there were tremors throughout. The eyes were closed and showed a spasm of the orbicularis occuli; the eyeballs were turned sharply to the left, with markedly dilated pupils. The mouth was open, but

breathing was extremely labored and stertorous, giving the impression of high respiratory obstruction due to laryngeal spasm.

The tongue, which had been bitten, was cyanotic. The picture was that of a tonic left-sided seizure in which mild clonic movements were present."

Within one hour and 40 minutes of the LSD injectin, Tusko was dead.

I'll point out in passing that this bizarre and murderous test by CIA's favorite lunatic psychiatrist was only a year and three months before the Kennedy assassination. (I probably shouldn't even mention in passing here that dear old "Jolly" West also later turns up connected to CIA's Remote Viewing program, which of course is heavily connected with Watergate, as anyone who has wandered through recent posts in the Watergate forum well knows, but it seems as though I did just mention it in passing anyway.)

Then, just a few months later, there is this equally bizarre event that took place on the first day of the year that Kennedy was assassinated, half a world away:

Tuesday, 1 January 1963

Dr Gilbert Stanley Bogle and his lover Mrs Margaret Olive Chandler née Morphett—each married to other people, and both employees of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)—are found murdered in mysterious circumstances on the banks of the Lane Cove River in Sydney, Australia. There is no apparent cause of death. Their murder has never been solved, nor has the cause of death ever been determined with certainty. [NOTE: In 1989 heart tissues from both Bogle and Chandler had been preserved and new forensic techniques were applied to them. These techniques gave evidence of the presence of LSD. These techniques were not claimed as conclusive, but they were presented as evidence that Bogle and Chandler had used LSD and some authorities suggested that they died of an overdose.]

There is a great deal of controversy-without-evidence concerning whether LSD can be fatal or not. Then again, no human volunteers have been found to try a dosage equal in ratio to the hit that sent Tusko on his one-way trip into psychedelia.

In any case, according to my best information there was no test for LSD in 1963.

Ashton

Interesting. I was unaware that traces of LSD could be detected in human tissue because I read some time ago that the active component of the drug actually exits the body via the pores of the skin before the celebrated hallucinagenic effects begin to occur--which led doctors to speculate that the drug itself is just a trigger which releases a chemical stored within the brain, similar to the way adrenaline is released into the bloodstream by external triggers.

I can't claim any expert knowledge, but one test for ergot alkaloids that's been around for some time is the Van Urk test, which is discussed, e.g., in an article on Forensic Toxicology as a test for LSD. I can't so far determine when it began being used for LSD. It seems that there's a more recent test with the acronym ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbant Assay). This is really as far as I've taken pursuit of this question so far.

I don't know if a high dose of LSD would kill a person--I've never heard of a fatal overdose of this drug, although it would probably induce permanent psychosis. But I'm sorry to hear about poor Tusko.

As I acknowledged, nobody's stepped up to volunteer to take the human equivalent of the Tusko dose, but apparently the lethal toxicity level of LSD has been determined to vary significantly amongst mammals, and there are "predictions" of a lethal dose for humans.

Clinical Management of Poisoning and Drug Overdose says on page 459 regarding lethal doses of LSD:

There is at least one death upon which there seems to be a consensus that it was caused by LSD. The Psychedelics Encyclopedia says on page 70:

None of this is said here to exclude any other possible toxin. But the eerie case of Tusko, conducted by an infamous CIA psych, and its timing in relation to the assassination is something I find a bit difficult to shake off—particularly given CIA's love affair with and use of LSD reaching all the way back to 1950 and Project Bluebird, continued through Project Artichoke and MK/ULTRA, including the death of CIA's own Frank Olsen and the atrocities of George Hunter White.

That the equally bizarre unsolved murders of Bogle and Chandler occured between the Tusko experiment and the Kennedy assassination, later to have LSD suspected as the agent of those murders, caused me to feel that it deserved mention.

I still find your scenario to be a plausible one, although I maintain that if a toxin was administerd in the way you describe, the SS, who were in control of the body from DP to Parkland, heads the list of likely suspects.

After an incalculable number of hours (not all my own) in study and analysis of the testimony of people present at Parkland, including an heroic effort (not my own) to timeline what is perhaps the most confused half-hour in the history of time itself, my own evaluation of the admittedly incomplete results is that more than a few people had reasonable opportunity to surreptitiously insert such a device as has been discussed in this thread into the throat of John F. Kennedy, and I'll acknowledge that that cannot exclude at least a few of the Secret Service agents.

That said, I believe a full treatment of the question of opportunity likely is going to require its own thread, and I am not prepared at the moment to launch into an exhaustive analysis of the extraordinarily conflicting and contradictory testimony that is relevant. I will, though, mention just a few points here that I believe bear mention:

1. Kennedy's head, throat, and upper torso were covered by his suit coat while he was being wheeled into Parkland, down the corridor, and into Trauma Room One.
   
2. Nurse Diana Bowron, who was one of the personnel wheeling the cart, lied about the throat wound, claiming under oath in Warren Commission testimony that she never saw it until after Kennedy had been pronounced dead (when, of course, it had been obliterated by the tracheostomy), but claiming in a written statement and in an interview with Harrison Livingstone that she saw the throat wound while Kennedy was still in the car (even though he still had on his shirt and tie in the car).
   
3. Nurse Diana Bowron was involved in removing Kennedy's shirt and tie inside Trauma Room One.
   
4. John F. Kennedy's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, was inside Trauma Room One when Malcolm Perry arrived, meaning Burkley was there and had examined Kennedy before the tracheostomy was started by Perry.
   
5. Admiral Burkley supplied the cortisteroids (hydrocortisone—specifically Sol U Cortef a.k.a. Solu Cortef) to be administered intravenously, telling the doctors that Kennedy had Addison's disease.
   
6. Both Dr. Malcolm Perry—who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound—and Dr. Ronald Coy Jones lied about the source of the hydrocortisone, about the source of the information concerning the reason for its introduction, and about who determined that it should be administered, claiming it was Carrico's idea based on "general knowledge" that Kennedy had Addison's, when in fact the information and the Solu Cortef had been supplied in Trauma Room One by Burkley.
   
7. Admiral Burkley supervised the autopsy.
   

To read the Warren Commission testimony, and almost all subsequent testimony by relevant personnel, Burkley is "The Invisible Man" in Trauma Room One. He's hardly mentioned at all, and at times described only as an anonymous "gentleman" with Jackie. The lies about the hydrocortisone seem to have no other purpose but the dual one of masking Burkley's presence in Trauma Room One as much as possible, and, even given any realization of his presence, to introduce as much confusion as possible about the time frame of his having been there.

But he was there before the tracheostomy.

What if the toxin was administered by the SS in the minute or so before JFK was wheeled into the Trauma Room and the doctors were persuaded by the wound (looking similar to a bullet entry wound) to perform the tracheotomy? Perhaps someone in the SS made the suggestion to the doctors.

Without discounting any opportunities that any of the Secret Service agents might have had, there is no evidence I can find that any of them were still in Trauma Room One when Kennedy's shirt and tie came off, or that any of them even claim ever to have seen the throat wound. As far as I can determine at the moment—and I do not suggest by any means that this is conclusive—Kellerman was the last SS agent in Trauma Room One, and he testified that the last time he saw Kennedy before leaving the room, Kennedy's shirt and tie were still on:

Malcolm Perry became the doctor in charge as soon as he arrived, and it was Perry's decision in his sole discretion to perform the unusually large tracheostomy directly through the throat wound, which electively-placed slice very thoroughly destroyed the evidence of the throat wound. I believe you'll find the record is consistent on this point.

Ashton

Excellent thread.

So I have to ask the obvious question. If, as Ashton argues, it was not a bullet wound at all, then what the hell was it?

This is one candidate:

Ashton

This is what I was talking about in post #6. You shoo-shooed it and now you come up with just the type of device I was describing. What do you say to that?

The first thing I say to that is that you've misrepresented the facts, and the second thing I have to say is that I'm going to keep the record straight, viz:

1. That image of a piercing needle is not what you were "talking about in post #6," because it is not by any stretch of the imagination a missile (which I addressed unequivocally in another message in this thread, and which I'll get to), and you specifically referred in post #6 to "a missile":

Could an extremely thin missile, say a dart from an umbrella-fashioned weapon, have entered his neck from the front right?

My answer there was, and my answer now is, and my answer forevermore will be "No." Not just "No," but "NO!" The entire point of this thread, and the entire foundation of my position in it—given that you seem somehow to have missed it entirely (even though this is your third post to it)—is as follows:

How can I make this more plain? How can I make it more simple? How can I engender understanding?

2. I already fully covered in this thread the question of how a device similar to the piercing needle might have been employed:

Are you suggesting a poison dart may have been used or a piercing needle?

I'm suggesting the possibility that a device similar to the piercing needle I pictured above could have been employed, and in very short order indeed. I am suggesting that if some similar device had been used—either during the removal of the clothing, or even before it was removed, by sliding such a device between the shirt plackets under the tie—it would have produced a wound consistent with descriptions by all eyewitnesses.

I believe that if such a device had in fact been used, it most likely would have been employed to administer a large quantity of some kind of toxin that would have been completely unsuspected, yet known to be fatal, and for which there was no existing test for detection in a human.

However improbable some may consider it, it yet is not impossible—which clearly is the case in re a bullet having caused such a wound as has been described, which I have demonstrated dispositively.

If the latter, then why? Is there a weapon which can propel such a projectile? A needle has no ballistics. How could it otherwise be inserted?

By hand, as I described just above.

I don't know how to make this any more understandable to you.

Also, you beg people not to destroy this thread. Then you go ahead and do it with Purvis, asking him about whether he learned how to brainwash somebody!

I don't beg.

And I will continue to ask Mr. Purvis the very pertinent question until he stops evading it and answers it. He has absolutely glutted this forum repeatedly with hundreds or possibly at this point thousands of posts that are nothing but a redundant, repetitive, hammered, pounded snake-oil sales pitch that a bullet fragment that does not exist created the very throat wound that this thread and the evidence I have provided herein proves beyond reasonable doubt could not have been created by any such fragment—even if it existed, which it does not!

Maybe you haven't bothered to inform yourself about the function of the Green Berets, and if you haven't that's not my problem, but here's a primer for anybody who isn't so totally hypnotized that they believe a no-see-um bullet fragment that doesn't exist made a hole in Kennedy's throat without having to pass through his tie and shirt:

And Thomas H. Purvis not only was a Green Beret trained in all the arcane arts listed above, HE TRAINED OTHERS IN DISINFORMATION AND CIA INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, which is why he keeps evading the question USING CIA METHODS OF EVADING PERTINENT QUESTIONS.

Any more questions or helpful suggestions?

Ashton Gray

Jacks diagram's work great with a man standing perfectly upright, but Kennedy was sitting hunched in a car waving his arms about, surly that tie knot could have moved left/right out of the projectiles path.

If so, that sucker danced a jig to dodge that purported bullet. Here is the last reasonably un-motion-streaked Z-film image before JFK disappears behind the freeway sign. I've outlined the freeway sign in green. He's hardly "waving his arms about." His right arm is resting on the side of the car in a dignified wave, and his tie is right where it reasonbly would be expected—covering the area where a bullet supposedly penetrated:

If anything, it poses even more of a problem for the Front Shot Faithful, since testimony about the throat wound places it just slightly to the right side of the midline of the throat.

But look: if somebody sees the Virgin Mary in a tortilla, I say consecrate the tortilla and build it a shrine. I'm not here to knock anybody's religion. I'm only trying to follow the facts, and the facts—at least of this universe—are that bullets don't meld their way through the spaces between the molecules of five turns of a tie, either coming or going.

Ashton

So glad to see Ashton and Charlie here, it was looking like an entire lone nut thread.

Dawn

My vote for one-liner of the month. Could be a contender for the year.

Ashton

My, but the double posts seem to be in season. Actual post below.

Friday, 26 April 1963:

George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles go to a CIA front business in New York City:

Train, Cabot and Associates.

The Train was John Train, CIA-connected descendant of the Enoch Train

opium operation in the 19th century.

And the Cabot family was a leading Boston Brahmin opium smuggling outfit

in the 19th Century.

Makes one wonder whether Train, Cabot was a CIA front -- or was the CIA

a front for the likes of Train, Cabot?

That's a thwacking good question. Whoever was fronting for whom, there's so much more to the George De Mohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles show that it royally deserves its own thread. With apologies to Bill Kelly, I'll just say briefly here that it seems clear to me now that Operation Red Cross was actually a CIA op to deliver a gaggle of Cubans for something connected with those two, of course having nothing whatsoever to do with picking up any Soviets. (And, naturally, a gaggle of Cubans with arms disappeared, and no Soviets came back.)

Ashton

I'm suggesting the possibility that a device similar to the piercing needle I pictured above could have been employed, and in very short order indeed. I am suggesting that if some similar device had been used—either during the removal of the clothing, or even before it was removed, by sliding such a device between the shirt plackets under the tie—it would have produced a wound consistent with descriptions by all eyewitnesses.

I believe that if such a device had in fact been used, it most likely would have been employed to administer a large quantity of some kind of toxin that would have been completely unsuspected, yet known to be fatal, and for which there was no existing test for detection in a human.

You could be right. Having a backup contingency like this is logical because the planners could not be certain that a kill shot would be made.

Assuming toxin was administered, then the SS would be my chief suspect.

Possibly. In the realm of speculative thinking, I don't know how any such backup contingency could have been in place, though, no matter who was designated to administer a toxin, absent the certainty of almost immediate irradication of the puncture wound evidence by electively-placed tracheostomy—something that could not be accomplished by any Secret Service personnel.

On the subject of toxins, though, I have these pesky timeline entries that I've been needing to do something with, so I think I'll put them here. This first one has a personal note from me italicized, and I have added some bold emphasis:

I'll point out in passing that this bizarre and murderous test by CIA's favorite lunatic psychiatrist was only a year and three months before the Kennedy assassination. (I probably shouldn't even mention in passing here that dear old "Jolly" West also later turns up connected to CIA's Remote Viewing program, which of course is heavily connected with Watergate, as anyone who has wandered through recent posts in the Watergate forum well knows, but it seems as though I did just mention it in passing anyway.)

Then, just a few months later, there is this equally bizarre event that took place on the first day of the year that Kennedy was assassinated, half a world away:

There is a great deal of controversy-without-evidence concerning whether LSD can be fatal or not. Then again, no human volunteers have been found to try a dosage equal in ratio to the hit that sent Tusko on his one-way trip into psychedelia.

In any case, according to my best information there was no test for LSD in 1963.

Ashton

Don't know how the double posts keep happening. Request again that this be deleted. Actual post immediately below.

The "Anti-Ashton" in the rakish green beret has resurrected—for about the sixtieth time, in yet another thread where he posts message after message after message talking to himself—his DOA "case" that a bullet fragment exited the throat of John F. Kennedy, causing what the resident intelligence agent from the Green Berets calls "The Anterior Neck Wound".

Now, I will be the first to admit that the resident Green Beret spook's long dialogs with self are so disjointed and confusing that it practically is impossible for any mere mortal to figure out what the hell he's raging on with himself about. But I have made a very close study of his strident claims, so please allow me to blow away pages and pages of smoke for you, and pages and pages about missing tree limbs, and allow me to bring his key piece of "evidence" for his claims about what made the hole in John F. Kennedy's throat out here to you in a petri dish held with long tongs for you to view. So here it is, and please pay very close attention:

...[W]hen the HSCA went to re-examine the JFK evidence...the cone-shaped; flat-based; 0.9grain weight fragment had disappeared.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Waaaaaaaaaaait a minute," you're thinking to yourself. "Ashton is pullin' our leg here! He's holding out an empty petri dish with long tongs. That ain't what old Purvis is claiming made the hole in John F. Kennedy's throat!"

Welllll...yes. I'm afraid it is. Yes, I'm afraid that it's another no-see-um. It is a not-ness. It is a no-thing. It's a "poofy." What you see in the proffered petri dish—which is nothing—is the precise thing around which our resident government intelligence agent has whipped up a perfect storm of forum pages running into the high hundreds if not thousands of pages.

And who do we have to thank for the only apparent record ever of the existence—or purported existence—of any such "cone-shaped; flat-based; 0.9grain weight fragment" having been part of the actual detritus from the shooting, upon which purported bullet fragment the resident intelligence agent now hangs his green beret, and which purported bullet fragment the resident spook claims made the hole in JFK's throat?

Why, the Warren Commission, of course, run by the most vicious party-line CIA ghouls who ever plagued the ground they walked on.

If that patented spook-generated no-see-um ain't good enough for you, Warren Commission Exhibit 840—where the purported fragment once allegedly resided before disappearing into thin air—is a patented spook-gimmick twosie: there's one photo of "CE 840" showing three fragments (without in-photo ruler or in-photo labeling), and another "CE 840" image showing only two fragments (with in-photo ruler and in-photo labeling).

And despite all the hundreds (or thousands) of spooky pages raging on and on and on and on and on about a no-see-um that purportedly made a hole in John F. Kennedy's throat, the laws of physics still remain: just as no bullet could have entered JFK's throat at the claimed location without going through fifteen layers of tie fabric and four layers of shirt fabric, no bullet possibly could have exited JFK's throat at the claimed location without going through fifteen layers of tie fabric and four layers of shirt fabric.

There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat. Period.

Ashton Gray

Double-post from forum time-out. Please delete. Actual post immediately below.

To even imply that JFK entered Parkland Hospital without an anterior neck wound, when virtually every medical person who entered the Trauma room observed this injury... .

Your fundamental assertion is false on its face, as I've documented dispositively in the thread There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat. Six, and only six, medical personnel who testified claimed to have seen the neck wound before Malcolm Perry electively chose the center of the wound to slice through for a tracheostomy, and the six could not agree on what type of wound it was or on its dimensions, documented in the linked thread above with their own testimony.

Isn't it true that gaining officer and instructor status in the Special Forces, as you attained, required considerable training in brainwashing and coercive persuasion techniques, including but not limited to familiarity with works referenced in the CIA manual "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation," et seq.?

That's not "personal": that goes to social engineering, and I think it's a very, very relevant disclosure that should be made, pertinent to exactly what these forums are addressing, and especially pertinent to what you are attempting to do to this thread by disseminating patently and provably false information.

Ashton Gray

Seven postings, by my count, have disappeared without

explanation or warning. I would like an explanation. This is not something I did, but something some "moderator" has done.

Jack, I certainly understand that there is something going on affecting your ability to post and to view certain pages of the forum, as you have posted in this thread and in the thread about the throat shot that I recently started. While I'm concerned that it get resolved, there is a forum section specifically set up to handle traffic about such issues:

Forum Information, Development and Communication

The continuity of the threads in this and the other forums would be best served if the traffic on forum technical and moderation issues was properly placed there—and if the moderators moved such traffic where it belongs.

You also always can e-mail me anything you're having difficulty posting.

Ashton

If your favorite indoor sport is trying to figure out or "prove" whether the purported bullet wound that "everybody knows" was in John F. Kennedy's throat was an inny or an outty, this article is useless to you, so please pass on by and find something else to do.

It doesn't work that way around here.

But out of respect for you, Brother Ashton, I will simply note

a far more compelling counter-argument and withdraw.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

Well, I guess it's only fitting that such snake-handling faith-based front-shot fervor would be the work product of somebody named "Jesus."

If that's "respect" for me, I think I've had about all the respect I can absorb, so count me out of the "Brother"hood.

The G. Jesus Hairball Cough-Up video is garbage. The only reason I'm responding to this nonsense at all is an attempt to keep any more people from falling into the endless punji pits dug by the "Front Shot Faithful."

Gil Jesus didn't bother to look past what he wanted to see, and is too damned blinded by religious zeal to notice that at all relevant times in the little snippet of the Zapruder film that he latched onto like a snapping turtle and wouldn't let go of, Kennedy's tie is hidden by the right side of his coat as a result of his right arm being held up high, as, e.g., Zapruder 237 shows:

And, as night follows day—while Front Shot Faithful hold hands and sing "I Shall Not Be Moved" and two choruses of "He Was Clutching at His Throat"— the continuity of the film, once Kennedy's right arm comes down and the right side of the coat is no longer blocking the view of the tie, proves conclusively to anybody who gives a tinker's dam about the truth that the tie, at all relevant times, has been sitting right where it would be expected:

I'm not responding to any more of this junk. If anybody wants to discuss any rational aspects of the evidence, let me know.

Meanwhile, I've made my record.

Ashton

A slightly different view of JFK's bloody shirt with some damage visible below the collar button.

Courtesy of FBI?

Thanks, Antti, for the image.

Ashton

(Posting Jack White's slides prepared for HSCA)

From Jack.....

B...

Thanks very much Jack, and thank you, Bernice, for posting them. Very interesting set of images.

Ashton

Ashton,

In your early posts on this thread you mention that the anterior neck wound was described as having been some 1.5 - 5 centimeters in diameter. I believe you want to change that to millimeter. 5 millimeters is roughly one fifth of an inch, whereas 5 centimeters is roughly 2 inches.

Heh. You're absolutely right, Antti. It seems that I copied the first cm reference from what obviously (well, it's obvious now) must be a typoed transcript of testimony and then rather mindlessly propagated that silly error. (This is what can happen when Americans are turned loose on the world with metric measurements.)

I've discovered that it was in my own text copy of the testimony of Dr. Akin, which is on the web here. It's in the second line on that page where either the testimony is mistranscribed or Dr. Akin misspoke.

Sorry for having spread the confusion. I'm off to correct it now in the posts and in my own copy of that testimony.

Ashton