Why was there a back wound?

[Ashton Gray]

despite all the visual evidence that demonstrates beyond any rational doubt that no projectile possibly could have entered the man's throat at the claimed location.

This appears to be true, i.e. the WC lied about a bullet going through the front of JFK's shirt. There is no bullet hole in the front of the shirt, only slits that were caused by a scalpel, not a bullet. So the "claimed location" of the wound is a government lie.

I believe that what will be found to be the case when the wrists tire of the few who are waving hands in everybody's face, the fact that a number of proximate medical personnel saw the wound, and none felt that the tracheotomy butchery was anywhere other than where they had seen a wound, will prevail.

There was a wound. It was a small wound. It was a puncture wound at least consistent with a bullet wound, which led the medical personnel present to assume that it was a bullet wound of some description.

And of course it's absurd that a projectile could have entered where the Perry cover-up was performed without damaging not only the collar, but destroying the knot of the tie as well. It's utterly impossible.

Soon now, when all the manic, strident assertions to the contrary have had their run, I'm going to post an image I've had sitting her for some time that shows exactly where JFK's collar would have had to have been for there to have been any remote possibility that any projectile of any description could have entered the throat at the location shown by the tracheotomy butchery and described by the medical personnel. I'll just say about this image that if I had been one of the people trying to shove such nonsense down people's throats page after page after page after page, I would be so humiliated that I couldn't make another appearance. But then I am capable of shame at trying to deceive people.

Yet there was undeniably a wound in the front of JFK's throat (unless this too was part of the mass hallucination, or mass orchestrated lie, at Parkland and Bethesda that produced a large exit wound in the back of JFK's head).

Yes, inarguably there was a wound in the throat.

Its known period of its existence is from the time the shirt inside Trauma Room One from was opened to the time Malcolm Perry electively sliced straight through it and destroyed all evidence of it. It was a very short period of time. All prior "existence" is completely conjectural.

The sum total of evidence of any existence of any such wound prior to arrival at Parkland Hospital is zero. No matter how loud the Furies scream, no matter how many ASCII tantrums they throw, no matter how many oblique cowardly comments any of them make about my sanity, not one of them can produce a single witness or a scintilla of evidence for there having been any such throat wound prior to arrival at Parkland Hospital. Not a mote.

The inescapable conclusion is that this throat wound was above the collar, hence no hole in the collar or shirt.

That conclusion is not inescapable at all.

I ask you and any reasoning person to pause and consider the real odds of a throat bullet wound (that left no damage to any clothing) just happening to be at the precise location where Malcolm Perry would carve—on the justification that the location was "customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy." I warrant your odds are better at hitting the lottery.

If the wound was created at Parkland Hospital—the only place it ever was seen—with the intention that all evidence of it would be eradicated by a "tracheotomy," then the only place it would have been delivered is precisely where it was, allowing for just such justification as Malcolm Perry supplied.

Ashton

Edited January 11, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

Double post remnant

Edited January 11, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

Ashton,

You have the wrong idea about what is going on here.

I've worked on this evidence for 15 years and I'm presenting it now.

Sorry you overlooked all that I've been posting about.

Sorry you overlooked the title of the thread.

It asks a question. Several folks chimed in with their take on YOUR question.

I am one of those folks. Sorry if we gave our own views precedent

over yours, Ashton, but you don't have a proprietary hold on where

the thread goes in relation to the answers to YOUR question, now, do you?

My answer to YOUR question is this:

The back wound was the result of a blood soluble round fired from

the Dal-Tex at Z227 that helped to paralyze JFK, or perhaps deliver

a fatal toxin. I'll argue that this reasonable conclusion is well supported

in the medical evidence, the witness testimony, and the Dealey Plaza

photo evidence.

Please see my post #33 on this thread for my take on the historical

significance of all three autopsists and the two FBI guys concluding

it highly likely that Kennedy's back wound was created by a weapon

known only to the intelligence community.

Don't ask questions if you can't take the answer, Ashton.

btw, I love the way you fell for the "metallic debris field" hook, line, and

sinker.

I can't wait to see what support for my case you come up with!

Until then...

William Colby, Church Comm. testimony, September 16, 1975:

(quote on, emphasis added)

The specific subject today concerns the CIA's involvement in the

development of bacteriological warfare materials with the Army's

Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick, CIA's retention of an amount

of shellfish toxin, and CIA's use and investigation of various chemicals

and drugs. . . .

A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of

incapacitating guard dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were

developed for the Army, the Agency did request the development of

a small, hand-held dart launcher for its peculiar needs for this purpose.

Work was also done on temporary human incapacitation techniques.

These related to a desire to incapacitate captives before they could

render themselves incapable of talking, or terrorists before they could

take retaliatory action....

Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a

gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person

who had been struck, but also the toxin itself would not appear in the

autopsy?

Colby: Well there was an attempt--

Church: Or the dart?

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

(quote off)

Charles Senseney before the Church Committee, Sept. 18, 1975:

(quote on)

I worked in the Biological Warfare Section of Fort Detrick from 1953. . . .

I was the project engineer of the M-1 dart launcher and following on

microorganism projectiles and so forth.

[Church staffer] Smothers: Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45

caliber pistol with a sight mount at the top?

Senseney: This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-1 projectile to go

into the Army stockpile. It did look like a .45.

Smothers: Did the CIA have, Mr. Senseney, the wherewithal to utilize this

dart launcher against humans?

Senseney: No, they asked for a modification to use against a dog. Now,

these were actually given to them, and they were actually expended, because

we got all of the hardware back. For a dog, the projectile had to be made many

times bigger. It was almost the size of a .22 cartridge, but it carried a

chemical compound known as 46-40....

(quote off)

The following facts are established. The CIA experimented on humans

with a round the size of a .22.

This is a lot larger than the round described in Melton (see my post #33 this thread).

As per Melton, this round WOULD NOT SHOW UP ON X-RAY

Edited January 11, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

I ask you and any reasoning person to pause and consider the real odds of a throat bullet wound (that left no damage to any clothing) just happening to be at the precise location where Malcolm Perry would carve—on the justification that the location was "customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy." I warrant your odds are better at hitting the lottery.

If the wound was created at Parkland Hospital—the only place it ever was seen—with the intention that all evidence of it would be eradicated by a "tracheotomy," then the only place it would have been delivered is precisely where it was, allowing for just such justification as Malcolm Perry supplied.

Maybe I'm dense, but for all the verbiage I'm having a hard time understanding what you're driving at. Is there a theory involved here? Are you implying that someone shot JFK in the throat, or stabbed it with an ice pick or some ER utensil, after he arrived in the hospital, and then Perry covered it up? Tell us what you think may have happened, beginning with the manner in which this wound was inflicted at Parkland. Or have you already done so and I missed it?

[Ashton Gray]

Maybe I'm dense, but for all the verbiage I'm having a hard time understanding what you're driving at. Is there a theory involved here? Are you implying that someone shot JFK in the throat, or stabbed it with an ice pick or some ER utensil, after he arrived in the hospital, and then Perry covered it up? Tell us what you think may have happened, beginning with the manner in which this wound was inflicted at Parkland. Or have you already done so and I missed it?

Hi Ron. I'm quite certain it has notihng to do with you being dense, everything to do with my presentation.

I have not been attempting to be coy or opaque, merely trying to proceed in as orderly a fashion as possible through a swarm of agenda hornets to establish the foundation for what I posed in my first message in this thread. I said there:

• ASHTON: I believe the back shot was to provide a "reasonable explanation" for a small throat wound. (And I didn't say bullet wound.) And that is exactly what it was used for by the Warren Commission.
  

In the Throat Shot thread, I posted this image of one device perfectly capable of very quickly rendering just such a throat wound as has been described in testimony:

While not suggesting that this is the implement that might have been used to create such a wound, I say not only that something like it very easily and quickly could produce such a wound, but that something similar also could provide a delivery system for, e.g., some colorless, odorless substance that provably could kill in short order, one for which, at the time, there was no forensic test, and one which never would be suspected in the slightest even if there had been such a test.

(One symptom of such a toxic substance might be rapid onset of respiratory failure.)

The next time you wear a tie (if you do), simply slip your forefinger under the knot and into the space between the top and second button of your shirt. You'll find you have touched just to the right side of the centerline of your throat below the Adam's Apple, precisely where the wound was seen and where the so-called tracheotomy was inflicted.

The certainties are:

1. Not one eyewitness says they saw any wound to the throat before John F. Kennedy was inside Trauma Room One—the sole exception being nurse Diana Bowron, who years later claimed she had, but who priorly had contradicted herself in sworn testimony on this exact point.
   
2. Not one eyewitness ever saw a bullet hole through the shirt or tie anywhere near the throat.
   
3. Not one investigator or trier of fact ever found a bullet hole through the shirt or tie anywhere near the throat.
   
4. A bullet wound to the throat in the indicated location is impossible without a bullet hole through the shirt and tie.
   Therefore it is impossible that John F. Kennedy was shot in the throat with any projectile of any description in Dealey Plaza.
   

However: the Shamans of the Cult of Impossibilities are in full feathers, paint, and dance, so for the moment now I'm just going to enjoy the floor show.

Ashton

Edited January 11, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Considering the enormous Parkland resources which quickly descended on the body of the President upon arrival, the opportunity to inflict such damage on the throat seems limited. Clint Hill spent the most amount of unsupervised time with JFK's body en route, but I doubt if anyone is suggesting that he created the wound as the limo sped down the freeway.

[Jack White]

Maybe I'm dense, but for all the verbiage I'm having a hard time understanding what you're driving at. Is there a theory involved here? Are you implying that someone shot JFK in the throat, or stabbed it with an ice pick or some ER utensil, after he arrived in the hospital, and then Perry covered it up? Tell us what you think may have happened, beginning with the manner in which this wound was inflicted at Parkland. Or have you already done so and I missed it?

Hi Ron. I'm quite certain it has notihng to do with you being dense, everything to do with my presentation.

I have not been attempting to be coy or opaque, merely trying to proceed in as orderly a fashion as possible through a swarm of agenda hornets to establish the foundation for what I posed in my first message in this thread. I said there:

• ASHTON: I believe the back shot was to provide a "reasonable explanation" for a small throat wound. (And I didn't say bullet wound.) And that is exactly what it was used for by the Warren Commission.
  

In the Throat Shot thread, I posted this image of one device perfectly capable of very quickly rendering just such a throat wound as has been described in testimony:

While not suggesting that this is the implement that might have been used to create such a wound, I say not only that something like it very easily and quickly could produce such a wound, but that something similar also could provide a delivery system for, e.g., some colorless, odorless substance that provably could kill in short order, one for which, at the time, there was no forensic test, and one which never would be suspected in the slightest even if there had been such a test.

(One symptom of such a toxic substance might be rapid onset of respiratory failure.)

The next time you wear a tie (if you do), simply slip your forefinger under the knot and into the space between the top and second button of your shirt. You'll find you have touched just to the right side of the centerline of your throat below the Adam's Apple, precisely where the wound was seen and where the so-called tracheotomy was inflicted.

The certainties are:

1. Not one eyewitness says they saw any wound to the throat before John F. Kennedy was inside Trauma Room One—the sole exception being nurse Diana Bowron, who years later claimed she had, but who priorly had contradicted herself in sworn testimony on this exact point.
   
2. Not one eyewitness ever saw a bullet hole through the shirt or tie anywhere near the throat.
   
3. Not one investigator or trier of fact ever found a bullet hole through the shirt or tie anywhere near the throat.
   
4. A bullet wound to the throat in the indicated location is impossible without a bullet hole through the shirt and tie.
   Therefore it is impossible that John F. Kennedy was shot in the throat with any projectile of any description in Dealey Plaza.
   

However: the Shamans of the Cult of Impossibilities are in full feathers, paint, and dance, so for the moment now I'm just going to enjoy the floor show.

Ashton

Ashton...you are proposing an "answer" to a question I have had for more than thirty years.

One of the everlasting mysteries of the case is HOW the bullet made a throat wound in the

described location WITHOUT PIERCING THE TIE AND COLLAR. For years I made this point

with slides in my slide show. The WC tried to pass off a collar "slit" and a necktie "nick"

from the inside out as a solution...but that dog don't hunt. Every doctor said it was an entry

wound, not an exit wound also. It MUST BE AN EXIT WOUND TO SUPPORT THE SB THEORY.

But like you, I cannot believe it is either entry OR exit because of the lack of BULLET HOLES

in the tie and collar. So I have always considered it an UNSOLVED MYSTERY.

Your theory is interesting, but lacking in credibility for reasons others have cited:

1. Was a wound inflicted after the body was undressed, but before witnesses arrived?

2. By whom?

3. When?

4. Were witnesses lying/mistaken about seeing a throat wound?

5. Why was a wound made which simulates a frontal shot instead of a rear shot?

6. How could any perpetrator be prescient enough to know such a wound was needed?

7. The time frame allowed to inflict such a wound seems impossible.

You have accurately described the problem. Without addition evidence, you are short of

the answer in my opinion. But at least you have addressed the problem.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

Here's Ashton's dressed corpse...

Note that the tie knot rests at the base of the adams apple.

Here's a live JFK with his head in a neutral position:

How much more obvious can it be that JFK didn't wear his tie knot

at the base of his adams apple?

[Cliff Varnell]

I had not previously thought about the back wound as being caused by a paralytic projectile, which would then dissolve, hence no through wound and no bullet. It makes a lot of sense, particularly when taken with the front throat wound, which was also no through wound and with no bullet.

If the conspirators wanted to paralyze JFK first (and the Z film suggests it), why depend on one shot to do it? You would want a crossfire of paralytics just like you would want a crossfire of bullets. The paralytics first, of course, then the bullets.

Based on all the evidence, it's almost like Occam's Razor.

Bingo!

Thank you, Ron. I would expand a little on your last points -- first the diversionary

shots, then the paralytics, then the bullets.

Occam's Razor, indeed. Why assume anything? The evidence is clearly there,

the throat and back wounds are consistent with un-conventional firearms, and

JFK's reaction is utterly consistent with a paralytic strike.

{quote]

Cliff

This as unscientific a post as I have ever read.

There is NOTHING that is indicative of anything other than a throat wound as was reported by the only persons qualified to know.

I agree with you!

Wholeheartedly!

The round Charles Senseney described in his 1975 Senate testimony

was almost the size of a .22.

Are you now qualified as an "expert witness" in the science of paralytic dart reaction ?

I'm just saying that JFK appears to act paralyzed, that Jackie appears to be

pulling on him with no effect, and this observed behavior is consistent with

being paralyzed.

I don't look for conclusions in strands of evidence -- I look for

consistencies that may lead to a reasonable conclusion.

fwiw...

There were also at this time, "death darts". However they were not easily manipulated. That is why Castro remained alive and thought was given to killing him by "exploding conch shell" and other

outer planetary brainstorms.

All I know is what the original sources tell me. That's what I've cited

The affidavits of the 2 FBI guys establishes, as far as I'm concerned, the

serious thought the 3 autopsists and the 2 feds gave to blood soluble

rounds being the cause of JFK's back wound.

Melton's book of CIA gadgets establishes the existence of projectiles that

didn't show up on x-ray.

Senseney and Colby testified that this technology used a round almost

the size of a .22, this was tested on humans, and the round could not

be indentified on x-ray.

All of this can be found in my posts on this thread....Do you read what I write?

It appears to me that forum members go to the opposite extremes of assesing Intellgence Agency capabilities in 1963. One group claims that they cannot make undetectable changes to 8 mm film,

I have never entered this debate, I want nothing to do with this debate, please

do not attempt to ascribe to me anything to do with Zap film alteration.

Please.

while at the same time others are verging on espousing theories on "ray guns".

I have no idea who or what you're talking about.

I wish you would address my actual points and cites if you're going to chide

me...That's not too much to ask, right?

You are following the Pied Pipers on an infintessimal tangent that can lead to nowhere but confusion, and the increase of distance between what appears to be two already distant poles.

What has happened to COMMON SENSE ? Why do all of the emerging modern Sherlock's, suddenly believe that the Parkland Staff was unprofessional, incompetent, and had been infiltrated by a cadre of "murderers with MD degrees".

I have absolutely no idea what you're driving at...Everyday Ashton Gray insinuates

I'm in league with the JFK Cover-Up because I cite the credibility of the Parkland

staff and now you're going to accuse me of the very thing I've pushed back against.

Give me a xxxxing break, okay?

What I expect to follow is a 180 degree turn around, and for some to start praising the merits of the Bethesda Staff, who had it right all along, and that confusion arose only because of that Parkland gang of liars and murderers !

I always stick up for the staffs of BOTH Parkland and Bethesda, so I have no

idea what you're talking about.

Some of you have questioned and critcized the Press for not having "the guts"

to tell the truth rgarding this assassination.

It appears to me at this point, that the educational community shares at least equally with the "free press" in keeping this matter under wraps.

Beam me up Scotty.....my job in Dealey Plaza is finished !

Charlie Black

I'm asking you politely not to attribute to me ideas I find repugnant.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton...you are proposing an "answer" to a question I have had for more than thirty years.

One of the everlasting mysteries of the case is HOW the bullet made a throat wound in the

described location WITHOUT PIERCING THE TIE AND COLLAR. For years I made this point

with slides in my slide show. The WC tried to pass off a collar "slit" and a necktie "nick"

from the inside out as a solution...but that dog don't hunt. Every doctor said it was an entry

wound, not an exit wound also. It MUST BE AN EXIT WOUND TO SUPPORT THE SB THEORY.

But like you, I cannot believe it is either entry OR exit because of the lack of BULLET HOLES

in the tie and collar. So I have always considered it an UNSOLVED MYSTERY.

Your theory is interesting, but lacking in credibility for reasons others have cited:

Rumors of my lack of credibility have been greatly exaggerated.

I'll attempt to answer your questions in good faith to the best of my ability:

1. Was a wound inflicted after the body was undressed, but before witnesses arrived?

I believe it could have been inflicted while the body was still fully dressed, in a manner that anyone can duplicate with the forefinger test I described above. Any man wearing a dress shirt and tie can demonstrate it to his own satisfaction, and any woman can demonstrate it to her satisfaction if she only finds a cooperative man wearing a tie (which shouldn't be too terribly hard to accomplish).

Testimony about who was where when in the first few critical minutes is incomplete and contradictory. No careful timeline of the arrival ever was done (despite utterly false claims made in this forum to the contrary). With the available testimony, a detailed accurate timeline is impossible because of omissions and contradictions. I don't think this is at all by accident.

Some things that can be known: Carrico was across the hall with Connally when Kennedy first was rolled in. Nurse Henchliffe left at some early point to go get blood. Clint Hill left Trauma Room 1 very soon after arrival, and Kellerman followed not long afterward. When Kellerman left, the shirt and tie were still on Kennedy. One or more people there were engaged in trying to convince Jacquie to leave Trauma Room 1, which she did, waiting outside throughout. It was a confused scene, and up until the time Kellerman left, the shirt and tie were still on. Carrico says he removed the tie and opened the shirt. He does not say he did it while Mrs. Kennedy was still in the room or not. The record is silent. When Malcolm Perry arrived, he says, "I think there was another doctor present [other than Carrico], but I don't know who it was, I don't recall." Someone already had set up a tracheotomy tray. Perry further says that just before starting the tracheotomy he "asked that someone call Dr. Kemp Clark, of neurosurgery, Dr. Robert McClelland, Dr. Charles Baxter, assistant professors of surgery, to come and assist." So Clark, McClelland, and Baxter were not yet there when Perry was starting his butchery.

The short answer is that it appears to me that there would have been ample time and confusion for someone practiced to insert a device—not dissimilar to what I showed above—under the tie knot, in the opening of the shirt between the top and second buttons while in the acts of preparation for the doctors.

2. By whom?

Well, of course I couldn't possibly say with certainty. I think it would be a very short list, though.

3. When?

See 1. above.

4. Were witnesses lying/mistaken about seeing a throat wound?

I think the few who actually saw the wound have tried their best to say honestly what they saw, but all had very little time at all to look at it. The one consistent part of their testimony is that it was a small and round wound, with estimates varying between, I think, 4 and 7 mm. (I've posted the actual statements on estimated size recently, I think in the Throat Shot thread.) I've also made a record, though, of at least two proximate personnel who very definitely lied specifically about the throat wound, one of whom also destroyed all evidence of the throat wound. I'll go back and find those earlier posts for you and post the relevant sections again if you need me to.

5. Why was a wound made which simulates a frontal shot instead of a rear shot?

It obviously was a wound that could be endlessly interpreted and argued over either way for maximum possible confusion. That is exactly what has happend for forty+ years. I think it was very effective.

6. How could any perpetrator be prescient enough to know such a wound was needed?

Well, it seems to me that they would have had to been a knowing actor, and also would have to have known in advance that a tracheotomy would be done to destroy the evidence. Recall, if you will, that someone accommodatingly had set up a tracheotomy tray before Perry was about to ask for one (or so he claims). And the wound itself guaranteed a justification for just such a tracheotomy. It was a very complete little package.

7. The time frame allowed to inflict such a wound seems impossible.

See 1. above.

I think it's far more possible than a projectile shot into the throat in Dealey Plaza. Which clearly is impossible.

Ashton

Edited January 12, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

Ashton Gray:

Testimony about who was where when in the first few critical minutes is incomplete and contradictory. No careful timeline of the arrival ever was done (despite utterly false claims made in this forum to the contrary).

And who made this utterly false claim?

I recall saying that it shouldn't be hard to put together such a timeline.

I cited witness testimony describing Jackie, Kellerman and Greer being

with the body from the limo to TR1, at the arrival of Carrico and Henchliffe.

At no time did I say this was definitive.

If you wanted to challenge me on this point, Ashton, why didn't you

at the time?

If you can develop a more accurate time-line concerning those three

individuals being with the body -- or not -- until the arrival of Carrico

and Henchliffe in TR1 I'd be very grateful to see it.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Charles Carrico, WC:

(quote on)

Mr. SPECTER - Who was the first doctor to reach President Kennedy on his arrival

at Parkland Hospital?

Dr. CARRICO - I was.

Mr. SPECTER - And who else was with President Kennedy on his arrival, as best

you can recollect it?

Dr. CARRICO - Mrs. Kennedy was there, and there were some men in the room,

who I assumed were Secret Service men; I don't know.

(quote off)

And what did the Secret Service report?

From his original written report, Roy Kellerman:

(quote on)

When we got to the hospital I called to the agents to get two stretchers. The special

agents of the follow-up car with the police ran into the hospital, obtained two stretchers

on wheels. We placed the Governor on the first one at which time I noticed he was

conscious and I spoke to him saying, "Governor, everything is going to be all right."

His eyes were wide open and he nodded his head in agreement. Just before we

removed the President, SA Hill took off his coat, placed it over the President's head

and chest and we placed him on the stretcher. Both were taken into separate

emergency rooms. The hospital staff appeared quickly and went immediately to

work. I accompanied the President to the emergency room.

(quote off)

From Will Greer's original Secret Service report:

(quote on, emphasis added)

I drove as fast as I could to the hospital and helped to get the President

into the emergency room. I guarded the emergency room door until the

doctors and nurses had completed their duty.

(quote off)

[Ashton Gray]

I guess I'll post this now. I'm posting this anim below regarding the throat wound here in this thread because it has relevance to my original premise in the first post in this thread: that the shot to the back was inflicted in order to provide a "reasonable" or "plausible explanation" for a wound to the throat that would be seen at Parkland Hospital (only), which I have said was not, and could not be, a bullet or projectile wound at all.

The anim starts with a silhouetted (cut out of its original background) left profile image of JFK. It is superimposed over the left profile autopsy of JFK.

A red-orange outline of JFK's left ear appears, then the image switches to the autopsy photo (with the suit coat, shirt and tie left in place) to demonstrate how the images were matched as closely as possible in size and orientation using the left ear and the Adam's Apple as the two primary references.

That switches back and forth to establish the relationship, then an arrow appears showing the location of the tracheotomy opening, which was incised directly through the throat wound. As can immediately be seen, it is impossible beyond any shadow of a doubt for any projectile of any description to have entered John F. Kennedy's throat at the indicated location without piercing the tie and the shirt.

In the next image the suit coat, tie, and shirt are removed to show the exact location of the so-called trachaeotomy opening. The bottom of the autopsy image is the exact place the only available image is cropped and there was nothing I could do about it, but it unquestionably provides the top line of the opening and shows the midline of the opening, where the cut went through the wound.

That switches back and forth with the suit coat, shirt, and tie on and off.

Finally, it switches to an image showing where JFK's shirt collar and tie would have had to be being worn for there to be any chance of a projectile of any description entering the indicated wound location over the top of the collar. If it weren't such a tragedy, it would be downright funny.

But it isn't funny. It's premeditated murder of the President of the United States, with malice aforethought.

And it isn't funny at all how far people have gone to sell you the fraud and the hoax that John F. Kennedy was shot in the throat in Dealey Plaza. It isn't funny at all how many millions upon millions of tax dollars were invested in selling you this hoax and this fraud. It isn't funny at all the millions of dollars of blood money that have been made off of peddling this lie.

And it is a lie. It is a vicious lie. It is a lie designed specifically and solely to protect the perpetrators. It has done so for over 40 years.

If you want to go on listening to and mypically and microscopically studying and believing the lies, and believing in the liars who have lied to you on this, be my guest, and Godspeed to wherever you end up.

I have done all I can to demonstrate the impossibility of this ridiculous, malicious, murderous "throat shot" hoax in an effort only to arrive at the truth. I hope this helps you get there.

Ashton Gray

Edited January 12, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

Double post. A twosie. Must be contagious.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

If you want to go on listening to and mypically and microscopically studying and believing the lies, and believing in the liars who have lied to you on this, be my guest, and Godspeed to wherever you end up.

One finger points, three fingers point back.