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

[Ashton Gray]

At no time did JFK "grab" or "clutch" his throat. This has been proven over and over, and to try to claim his hands were doing so is a non-starter.

I accurately described what the film clearly shows -- he held his hands in front of his throat and with his left forefinger grabbed at his tie

What tripe. No, he did NOT grab at his tie at any time. You can sit here and recite "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" 200 times, too, but it will still be jejune fantasy, not fact, no matter how many times you spout it. The difference is that at least might entertain some children, not poison the groundwater of human knowledge.

You've never even bothered to notice that JFK HAD HIS COAT BUTTONED IN THE LIMOUSINE:

That caused his COAT LAPELS to billow out when he reacted to being shot in the back. You, though, need to fantasize that his left lapel is his TIE, to feed your quasi-religious conviction that he was shot in the throat, no matter how many laws of physics prove conclusively that it is IMPOSSIBLE. You may as well claim that he was clutching at a Burning Bush, and his tie turned into a serpent that bit him. It would make as much sense as this drivel about him grabbing at his tie.

In this image sequence I have ROUGHLY outlined his tie, when visible, in bright green, and his left lapel edge in magenta. It shows with shudderingly conclusive proof that his hands never go ANYWHERE NEAR HIS TIE OR HIS THROAT:

His body is turned slightly to his right when he is shot in the back. His hands go up almost IMMEDIATELY in FRONT OF HIS FACE, and HIS TIE REMAINS ON HIS CHEST AT ALL TIMES, where gravity likes it, as his torso rotates to a more forward-facing position after he is shot IN THE BACK.

Now live in whatever fairy-tale fantasy world brings you comfort.

Ashton

[Ashton Gray]

How did the bullet get through JFK's tie knot? Or do you believe the throat wound was above the collar? Have you even read the medical proof I posted on the back wound thread that shows the throat wound was below the top of the collar?

Would you be thinking of holding your breath if your inability to breathe came as a complete surprise to you?

Have you read Perry's medical report written on the day of the assassination? Or the medical reports of the other doctors? Here is the link:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

...The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery.

NO, Carrico was NOT the first physician to see JFK in the trauma room. It was JFK's personal physician, George G. Burkley, while Carrico was still across the hall with Connally. This is proven conclusively in the record.

Why don't you try getting your facts straight, and stop propagating wrong information? Or is that what you intend to do?

How could Carrico have seen the throat wound unless it was above the collar?

What a perfectly absurd question. It bespeaks a profound ignorance of the most fundamental relevant facts:

DR. CARRICO: After I had opened his shirt and coat, I proceeded with the examination and the nurses removed his clothing as is the usual procedure.

New to this? Or just very good at seeding the record with disinformation?

How could Henchliffe have seen a wound that wasn't above the collar?

What part of Carrico's statement that "the nurses removed his clothing" are you having trouble with? Are there too many big words?

Ashton

[Cliff Varnell]

At no time did JFK "grab" or "clutch" his throat. This has been proven over and over, and to try to claim his hands were doing so is a non-starter.

I accurately described what the film clearly shows -- he held his hands in front of his throat and with his left forefinger grabbed at his tie

What tripe. No, he did NOT grab at his tie at any time.

And yet two close proximity witnesses testified under oath his hands were at his throat.

That you can deny he held his hands in front of his throat is amazing.

You can sit here and recite "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" 200 times, too, but it will still be jejune fantasy, not fact, no matter how many times you spout it.

Uh-hunh.

The difference is that at least might entertain some children, not poison the groundwater of human knowledge.

This just had to get personal, didn't it?

You've never even bothered to notice that JFK HAD HIS COAT BUTTONED IN THE LIMOUSINE:

So what?

That caused his COAT LAPELS to billow out when he reacted to being shot in the back.

So he got shot in the back and his hands reflexively moved in front of his chin and throat?

You, though, need to fantasize that his left lapel is his TIE,

What was he doing with his extended forefinger and the lapel?

He was shot in the back and his hand moved to his lapel?

to feed your quasi-religious conviction that he was shot in the throat, no matter how many laws of physics prove conclusively that it is IMPOSSIBLE. You may as well claim that he was clutching at a Burning Bush, and his tie turned into a serpent that bit him. It would make as much sense as this drivel about him grabbing at his tie.

Yes, you repeat your conclusion and insult those who don't buy the notion a guy shot in the back reached for his coat lapel.

SS SA Glen Bennett described the back shot occurring after the first shot in his contemporaneous notes.

But he can't be right. Because...

In this image sequence I have ROUGHLY outlined his tie, when visible, in bright green, and his left lapel edge in magenta. It shows with shudderingly conclusive proof that his hands never go ANYWHERE NEAR HIS TIE OR HIS THROAT:

His body is turned slightly to his right when he is shot in the back. His hands go up almost IMMEDIATELY in FRONT OF HIS FACE,

Immediately in front of his chin and neck. At Z258 his left forefinger was right in front of his throat.

Look a the movement of his left index finger under his chin.

How does a guy get shot in the back immediately hold his hands in front of his chin and neck ?

When you bang your knee you reach for your elbow?

and HIS TIE REMAINS ON HIS CHEST AT ALL TIMES, where gravity likes it,

The left index finger was under his chin. Like it or not.

as his torso rotates to a more forward-facing position after he is shot IN THE BACK.

Which caused his hands to reflexively move to a position in front of his chin and throat?

I guess getting shot in the back didn't hurt his back, somehow?...

Now live in whatever fairy-tale fantasy world brings you comfort.

Uh-hunh...

Ashton

[Cliff Varnell]

How did the bullet get through JFK's tie knot? Or do you believe the throat wound was above the collar? Have you even read the medical proof I posted on the back wound thread that shows the throat wound was below the top of the collar?

Would you be thinking of holding your breath if your inability to breathe came as a complete surprise to you?

Have you read Perry's medical report written on the day of the assassination? Or the medical reports of the other doctors? Here is the link:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

...The first physician to see the President was Dr. James Carrico, a Resident in General Surgery.

NO, Carrico was NOT the first physician to see JFK in the trauma room. It was JFK's personal physician, George G. Burkley, while Carrico was still across the hall with Connally. This is proven conclusively in the record.

Why don't you try getting your facts straight, and stop propagating wrong information? Or is that what you intend to do?

Excuse me?

I quoted from the summary.

Why are you taking this so personally?

How could Carrico have seen the throat wound unless it was above the collar?

What a perfectly absurd question. It bespeaks a profound ignorance of the most fundamental relevant facts:

DR. CARRICO: After I had opened his shirt and coat, I proceeded with the examination and the nurses removed his clothing as is the usual procedure.

New to this?

Not new to quoting from a summary which indicates the simultaneous observation of a massive head wound and a throat wound.

Or new to quoting Carrico's WC testimony:

<quote on>

Mr. Specter:

Will you describe, as specifically as you can then, the neck wounds which you heretofore

mentioned briefly?

Dr. CARRICO:

There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below

the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.

Mr. Dulles:

Will you show us about where it was?

Dr. CARRICO:

Just about where your tie would be.

Mr. Dulles:

Where did it enter?

Dr. CARRICO:

It entered?

Mr. Dulles:

Yes.

Dr. CARRICO:

At the time we did not know

Mr. Dulles:

I see.

Dr. CARRICO:

The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.

Mr. Dulles:

I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?

Dr. CARRICO:

Yes, sir; just where the tie--

Mr. Dulles:

A little bit to the left.

Dr. CARRICO:

To the right.

Mr. Dulles:

Yes; to the right.

Dr. CARRICO:

Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth.

<quote off>

Or just very good at seeding the record with disinformation?

I didn't write the summary, only quoting from what Bob linked to.

How could Henchliffe have seen a wound that wasn't above the collar?

What part of Carrico's statement that "the nurses removed his clothing" are you having trouble with?

Henchliffe said she saw the throat wound straight off...Or didn't you read her testimony?

Are there too many big words?

What part of this gives you so much trouble?

<quote on>

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe to be the President's condition when you first saw him?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - I saw him breathe a couple of times and that was all.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see any wound anywhere on his body?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes; he was very bloody, his head was very bloody when I saw him at the time.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you ever see any wound in any other part of his body?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - When I first saw him---except his head.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see any wound on any other part of his body?

Miss HENCHLIFFE - Yes; in the neck.

<quote off>

"[W]hen you first saw him?" -- "when I saw him at the time" -- "When I first saw him--"

The context couldn't be more obvious.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Trejo]

Ashton Gray's spreadsheet is interesting, because it shows he has studied all of the WC testimony of all 28 of the Parkland Hospital witnesses. It's a good start.

The issue I have with Ashton Gray's spreadsheet is that he reduces the testimony to three columns -- Entry, Exit and Undecided.

There's not enough nuance there to cover what really happened in the WC testimony.

Actually, several witnesses -- including Dr. Charles Carrico -- said they initially considered that the JFK neck wound was an entry wound, because it was so small and round, and because an exit wound is almost always the sloppy larger wound, while the entry wound is usually small and round.

HOWEVER - attorney Arlen Specter would browbeat all of the Parkland Hospital witnesses who suggested this, until they changed their story to "Undecided."

It was important to Specter, who was the Great Defender of the Lone Nut theory and its Single Bullet Theory component.

For Specter, JFK's neck wound had to be an exit wound. For Specter, the bullet had to enter JFK's back, exit JFK's throat, enter Governor Connally's back, shattering a rib, exit Connally's chest, enter, shatter and exit Connally's right wrist, and finally graze Connally's left thigh.

And then emerge from all this carnage virtually intact as CE 399.

Specter could not budge from that position without implying a fourth bullet and so a second shooter. He knew this. Everybody knew this. So Specter would browbeat any Parkland Hospital witness -- up to and including Dr. Malcom Perry -- until they admitted that it was at least hypothetically POSSIBLE that one bullet could do all that.

This is a key feature of the Parkland Hospital testimony.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 14, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ashton Gray]

Actually, several witnesses -- including Dr. Charles Carrico -- said they initially considered that the JFK neck wound was an entry wound, because it was so small and round, and because an exit wound is almost always the sloppy larger wound, while the entry wound is usually small and round.

HOWEVER - attorney Arlen Specter would browbeat all of the Parkland Hospital witnesses who suggested this, until they changed their story to "Undecided."

It was important to Specter, who was the Great Defender of the Lone Nut theory and its Single Bullet Theory component.

For Specter, JFK's neck wound had to be an exit wound. For Specter, the bullet had to enter JFK's back, exit JFK's throat, enter Governor Connally's back, shattering a rib, exit Connally's chest, enter, shatter and exit Connally's right wrist, and finally graze Connally's left thigh.

And then emerge from all this carnage virtually intact as CE 399.

Specter could not budge from that position without implying a fourth bullet and so a second shooter. He knew this. Everybody knew this. So Specter would browbeat any Parkland Hospital witness -- up to and including Dr. Malcom Perry -- until they admitted that it was at least hypothetically POSSIBLE that one bullet could do all that.

This is a key feature of the Parkland Hospital testimony.

All perfectly good points, Paul, and thanks for your reasoned analysis. There are several points I'd like to make in response:

1. A larger purpose Specter may have had in relation to the throat wound—and to my mind likely did have—was to prejudice the record with the presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, so therefore had to have been either an entry or exit wound made by a bullet.

2. If one reasonably rejects Specter's moronic "magic bullet" theory to account for the wound in the throat, yet stays with the prejudiced presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, one is left staring at the necessity of an even more magic bullet, because all other evidence makes it categorically impossible for any bullet to have caused the hole in JFK's throat.

3. This trick of prejudicing all investigation and questioning using a false primary premise is the exact modus operandi used by the CIA in pulling off the Watergate hoax, as I have covered exhaustively in my book. Every investigator and trier of fact and writer on that subject began with the false belief that a "first break-in" had occurred at the DNC headquarters, and so none ever was able to make sense out of the endless contradictions. That is the exact same operation in play here: a prior foregone conclusion that a bullet, and only a bullet, could have made the hole in JFK's throat. That set up and has created ALL of the contradictions in evidence and testimony concerning the hole. As I say in my book, confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

4. If the wound had been clearly and unequivocally a bullet wound, and if the wound had not been destroyed (intentionally, I believe) in terms of forensic purposes by the tracheotomy, no amount of browbeating by Specter would have shaken any competent medical personnel off of stating with certainty that it was a bullet wound, and that it was either an entrance or exit wound. All medical personnel waffled. Dr. Malcolm Perry went so far as to say, "...if this occurred as a result of a missile... ."

5. No projectile has ever been in evidence that could have caused that wound.

6. Jean Hugard said sagely: "The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic."

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a masterpiece of misdirection. The unquestioned, uninspected, prejudiced belief that a bullet or projectile made the hole that was first seen upon opening JFK's shirt in the trauma room had been made by a bullet is perhaps the ultimate ever in misdirection, and leads only to endless confusion and contradiction.

Confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

Ashton Gray

Edited September 14, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Paul Trejo]

All perfectly good points, Paul, and thanks for your reasoned analysis. There are several points I'd like to make in response:

1. A larger purpose Specter may have had in relation to the throat wound—and to my mind likely did have—was to prejudice the record with the presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, so therefore had to have been either an entry or exit wound made by a bullet.

2. If one reasonably rejects Specter's moronic "magic bullet" theory to account for the wound in the throat, yet stays with the prejudiced presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, one is left staring at the necessity of an even more magic bullet, because all other evidence makes it categorically impossible for any bullet to have caused the hole in JFK's throat.

3. This trick of prejudicing all investigation and questioning using a false primary premise is the exact modus operandi used by the CIA in pulling off the Watergate hoax, as I have covered exhaustively in my book. Every investigator and trier of fact and writer on that subject began with the false belief that a "first break-in" had occurred at the DNC headquarters, and so none ever was able to make sense out of the endless contradictions. That is the exact same operation in play here: a prior foregone conclusion that a bullet, and only a bullet, could have made the hole in JFK's throat. That set up and has created ALL of the contradictions in evidence and testimony concerning the hole. As I say in my book, confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

4. If the wound had been clearly and unequivocally a bullet wound, and if the wound had not been destroyed (intentionally, I believe) in terms of forensic purposes by the tracheotomy, no amount of browbeating by Specter would have shaken any competent medical personnel off of stating with certainty that it was a bullet wound, and that it was either an entrance or exit wound. All medical personnel waffled. Dr. Malcolm Perry went so far as to say, "...if this occurred as a result of a missile... ."

5. No projectile has ever been in evidence that could have caused that wound.

6. Jean Hugard said sagely: "The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic."

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a masterpiece of misdirection. The unquestioned, uninspected, prejudiced belief that a bullet or projectile made the hole that was first seen upon opening JFK's shirt in the trauma room had been made by a bullet is perhaps the ultimate ever in misdirection, and leads only to endless confusion and contradiction.

Confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

Ashton Gray

Thanks for responding, Ashton, because I was confused about your orientation -- whether you were an LNer or a CTer.

Now I can see you're a fellow CTer, and now I can form a reply.

I do agree with you that we never had any conclusive material evidence of a frontal throat shooting, except the fact that JFK seems to be clutching his throat in the Zapruder film, after JFK's image emerges from behind the road sign there on Elm Street. (Also there was some contradictory Parkland testimony.)

That led Jim Garrison and many others to presume a frontal shot into the throat -- to correspond with the perception of a frontal shot to the right temple, as many claim to perceive in the Zapruder film.

So -- it was a convenience, rather than a perception -- to insist upon a frontal shot into the throat.

Why does JFK apparently clutch his throat? I still need more evidence.

HOWEVER -- you and I agree -- and I think most people here agree -- that the SBT is moronic. (Yet for me, the CIA didn't start that theory, but J. Edgar Hoover himself insisted upon it. The SBT is a component of the larger theory of his Lone Nut theory, and its stupidity proves that the Lone Nut theory was a fiction. Yet the fiction wasn't intended to protect the guilty, but to protect National Security -- to prevent war. This is a separate issue. The Truth has been promised to America in 2017.)

That raises my next questions to you, Ashton. If (and only if) there is no frontal throat projectile -- then how many shots do you perceive in the JFK assassination, according to the Zapruder film? In what sequence? From what directions?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 14, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Cliff Varnell]

<AG quote on>

5. No projectile has ever been in evidence that could have caused that wound.

<quote off>

Bingo! Ding!-ding!-ding!-ding!-ding! give the man a cigar!

A wound of entrance in the back, no exit, no round recovered at the autopsy; a wound of entrance in the throat, no exit, no round recovered at autopsy.

The central question of the JFK murder case is -- what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

3 scenarios are argued from the historical record.

1) The David Lifton Scenario: round/s removed prior to the autopsy.

2) The Mutilation Scenario: Lifton argues the back wound was a post-mortem mutilation; Ashton Gray strongly suspects a high-tech shiv was inserted in the throat at Parkland as a coup de grace.

3) The Prosectors' Scenario: the 3 autopsy doctors asked the FBI men if there existed high-tech weapons which would leave no trace in the body or on x-ray. FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab and was stonewalled.

Sibert was on the trail of MKNAOMI, a high tech death squad funded by the CIA's Technical Services Staff employing supra-institutional actors -- civilian doctors and engineers, military brass, mobbed up drug cops.

They specialized in blood soluble paralytics and toxins.

They barely left a paper trail.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

<AG quote on>

6. Jean Hugard said sagely: "The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic."

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a masterpiece of misdirection. The unquestioned, uninspected, prejudiced belief that a bullet or projectile made the hole that was first seen upon opening JFK's shirt in the trauma room had been made by a bullet is perhaps the ultimate ever in misdirection, and leads only to endless confusion and contradiction.

Confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

<quote off>

In regards to the murder of JFK -- patsies were the CIA's No. 1 product.

Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, chief of the CIA's Technical Services Staff, was a supra-institutional actor who didn't gave a flyin' quad-x about orders from headquarters.

From The Search for the "Manchurian Candidate" by John Marks, pg 79:

<quote on, emphasis added>

In November 1953, Sid Gottlieb decided to test LSD on a group of scientists from the Army Chemical Corps' Special Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. Although the Clandestine Services hierarchy had twice put TSS under strict notice not to use LSD without permission from above, Gottlieb must have felt that trying the drug on SOD men was not so different from giving it to his colleagues at the office. After all, officials at TSS and SOD worked intimately together, and they shared one of the darkest secrets of the Cold War: that the U.S. Government maintained the capability -- which it would use at times -- to kill or incapacitate selected people with biological weapons. Only a handful of the highest CIA officials knew that TSS was paying SOD about $200,000 a year in return for operational systems to infect foes with disease.

<quote off>

Sid Gottlieb did what he pleased, the CIA hierarchy be damned.

Like the Skull & Bones types at the State Department and National Security Council, MKNAOMI operated both inside and outside of institutional hierarchies -- supra-institutional.

"The CIA" had their fingerprints all over Oswald, and if anyone inside gov't was going down for the JFK murder it was gonna be Agency guys.

Isn't the Dulles connection to the Paines a bit...obvious?

Wasn't E. Howard Hunt fit for a patsy jacket?

Edited September 14, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

From Ashton Gray:

"2. If one reasonably rejects Specter's moronic "magic bullet" theory to account for the wound in the throat, yet stays with the prejudiced presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, one is left staring at the necessity of an even more magic bullet, because all other evidence makes it categorically impossible for any bullet to have caused the hole in JFK's throat."

Just for your perusal, Ashton, I give you one "magic" bullet. Look this page over and let me know what you think. I will then present my theory of what I believe were the cause and nature of two of JFK's three wounds.

https://www.corbon.com/glaser-safety-slug.html

[Robert Prudhomme]

After you read about this bullet, here is a video about it.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Chris Newton]

combine that ammo with this and you could do some damage:

[Cliff Varnell]

After you read about this bullet, here is a video about it.

Wouldn't it hurt a bit getting hit with one of those?

Just a little bit?

No?

[Paul Trejo]

From Ashton Gray:

"2. If one reasonably rejects Specter's moronic "magic bullet" theory to account for the wound in the throat, yet stays with the prejudiced presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, one is left staring at the necessity of an even more magic bullet, because all other evidence makes it categorically impossible for any bullet to have caused the hole in JFK's throat."

Just for your perusal, Ashton, I give you one "magic" bullet. Look this page over and let me know what you think. I will then present my theory of what I believe were the cause and nature of two of JFK's three wounds.

https://www.corbon.com/glaser-safety-slug.html

Robert, the WC testimony of Doctors James Hume and Pierre Finck from Bethesda Hospital refers to "dumdum" bullets, which are apparently bullets that explode on contact, so that even a "dumdum" can liquidate a target with any contact of any kind.

They were repeatedly asked to deny that the JFK head wound was caused by a "dumdum" bullet.

I believe these are also called "safety slugs" in some circles.

It seems to me that the single bullet that penetrated Governor Connally, producing five wounds (as widely testified) was not an exploding bullet -- but the bullet which hit JFK in the head was one (and thus is evidence of at least two shooters).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 15, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

<snip>

"The CIA" had their fingerprints all over Oswald, and if anyone inside gov't was going down for the JFK murder it was gonna be Agency guys.

Isn't the Dulles connection to the Paines a bit...obvious?

Wasn't E. Howard Hunt fit for a patsy jacket?

My opinion, Cliff, is that Oswald wanted to be inside the CIA so bad he could taste it. But he never got that interview, because he was so headstrong, as proved by his marriage to Marina, leaving the USSR (his ONI post) and returning to the USA to live a life of dire poverty. Oswald never made his CIA dreams come true.

The NOLA period was a period of Fake CIA people -- all claiming to be bonafide CIA Agents but really weren't (i.e. David Ferrie, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard.) This is likely what attracted LHO to them.

As for the Dulles-Paine connection -- it's utterly bogus to suggest that because Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a childhood friend who later became the mistress of Allen Dulles, that Ruth Paine must be a CIA Agent. It isn't clear thinking.

There were only two actual CIA Agents who confessed to some role in the JFK murder, namely, David Morales and Howard Hunt. Neither was in a top position in the CIA. (Bill Simpich's free, 2014 eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, proves with scientific rigor that the CIA high-command started a top-secret Mole-Hunt in 1963, trying to detect who impersonated LHO over the Cuban Consulate telephone to the USSR Embassy, asking for KGB assassin Valeriy Kostikov. The CIA knew it wasn't LHO, and had to be an insider.)

David Atlee Phillips' manuscript, The AMLASH Legacy (1988) offers his alibi -- he was energetically trying to kill Fidel Castro, and LHO was a part of that plot. Somebody else "hijacked" LHO from that plot. (This could explain why Jim Garrison was so close and yet so far away from the truth. The NOLA operation was 99% about killing Fidel Castro. This could also explain the Mexico City episode).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 15, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Cliff Varnell]

As for the Dulles-Paines connection -- it's utterly bogus to suggest that because Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a childhood friend who later became the mistress of Allen Dulles, that Ruth Paine must be a CIA Agent. It isn't clear thinking.

I put her on the patsy chain.

If Oswald had been gunned down within an hour of JFK and declared a Red Agent, Ruth Paine would have been on the spot, would she not?

If things went awry and the conspiracy unraveled they always had Allen Dulles to blame, eh?