Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Purloined Projectile


Recommended Posts

1. ONLY a "General" Courts Martial can sentence one to prison, as a prison sentence represents conviction for a felony event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-martial

Three levels of courts-martial can be convened depending on the severity of the offense(s), summary (minor infractions), special (more important infractions) and general ( felonies).

Unlike federal courts established under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a court-martial is established under Article I and does not exist until its creation is ordered by a commanding officer specifically authorized to do so by law. Such officers are called court-martial convening authorities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is referred to as a "General Courts Martial as it must be called by the orders of a General/Admiral grade officer.

2. Disobeying a direct order by a ranking officer to not discuss or speak of a subject can ONLY constitute a General Grade Courts Martial if some great declared secret which involves National Security is involved; in special wartime events; when disobeying the order causes injury or death to another person; or in extremely special curcumstances.

3. In event Custer was under the impression that even an Admiral in the Navy could just send him (Custer) to prison, just because he said so, then Custer was even dumber than most enlisted personnel.

4. Which appears to be obvious. Otherwise, he would have known that virtually every "Admiral's" Office that exists was guarded either by a couple of USMC Guards or USN Provost Marshall type personnel.

In fact, even as an Officer in the U.S. Army, if I went to visit the Admiral, I was not allowed into his area until such time as being escorted there by the same type security.

This is/was pretty well standard throughout the US Navy.

Of course, in the US Navy, any grade of Admiral (1-star or above), ranked above GOD!

Even God would have had to have an appointment to see and Admiral, and he too would have been escorted, and probably would have had to wait for an appointment.

Therefore, one can pretty well assume that Custer almost peed his pants when called before an ADMIRAL, as he would have had no experience here, and with the rank-consiousness of the US Navy, Custer could have easily believed that he could just be sent to prison just because the Admiral said so.

All that one has to do is "read between the lines" of Custer's AARB testimony to see that he did not like the "peon" roll that he played in the JFK affair, as well as his own disdain for those Dr.'s/Naval Officers whom he had to deal with, and who directed him.

Had he, as indicated, opened his inexperienced mouth and began to inform those MD Naval Officers as to what they "should" be doing, then he would have been immediately escorted to some side room and informed to sit down, shut up, and stay there.

Now, it would appear that one would be lead to believe that had they (the autopsy personnel/Dr.s) all just paid attention to him, the autopsy would have been done correctly and everything would have been known and understood.

It would appear that David Lifton or someone convinced Custer that he possessed great insight and input into the autopsy of JFK, and thereafter he should come forward and "reveal the truth" according to Custer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, Ashton, the men in attendance at the autopsy were ordered not to talk about it. Yes, there was a lot of bs involved in the medical evidence from day one. But... you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Sibert and O'Neill were a knowing part of the cover-up, and that Custer's ARRB testimony is the proof. Specter avoided Sibert and O'Neill like the plague, and failed to call them before the Warren Commission. Because they knew then and know now that the SBT is bs. While O'Neill, as Connally, refused to believe in the single-bullet theory, but still figured Oswald somehow managed to fire all the shots, Sibert eventually became a conspiracy theorist. Read William Law's In The Eye of History for the details. Law also interviewed Custer, but found his bullet rolling out of the back story unconvincing. as it was unsupported by all the other eyewitnesses to the autopsy, most of whom had become conspiracy theorists and had no interest in protecting an official fiction.

While some might conclude that Custer was a big fat xxxx, I think he was merely mistaken. After announcing that the x-rays in the HSCA report were fakes in the eighties and nineties, he changed his mind after being shown the originals by the ARRB. He noticed his personal marker on the jaw. I think this change of opinion proves he was trying to be truthful. It's just that remembering events accurately after 30 plus years is easier said than done.

Pat: I beg to differ. When someone has been THREATENED I believe it has a tendency to stick in one's mind. This is hardly the first time we have heard of important witnesses being threatened in this case. And how many have died?

If the man says this is what he saw and was told to shut up or else face many years in jail I really do not believe this is something he was likely to simply "forget". Obviously he tried to, and then when witnesses started having heart attacks, karate chops, single car crashes and the like, I will bet that Custer's fear grew worse.

Time does not dull memory where threats are involved.

Dawn

What seems to be missed entirely is that Speer has now admitted that he knew about the threats and gag order when he posted earlier: "Custer had been interviewed by the HSCA, Lifton, etc, for years before this and hadn't talked about any bullet falling out before."

By their fruits...

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Tom

I share with you the same sentiments regarding my recollections during this period. What I remember is factual, tho my time frame is sometimes off. What I could have sworn to that occurred on a Christmas Day, was recently corrected by several who also shared the experience, that it was in fact Thanksgiving. I had believed it was Christmas for probably 30 years. My facts were dead center, but the date was incorrect.

Charlie Black

Oh. I see the relevance: then it must have been a turkey bone and not a Christmas ornament that fell onto the autopsy table and was carried away by Finck's festive forceps.

Then again, the sworn testimony of a man who was there and took and developed 14 x-rays of the recently murdered President of the United States says that it was a bullet that hit the autopsy table.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were it that the researcher who has given this fairy tale [That would be moi —Ashton] actually knew where the back/upper neck entrance wound of JFK actually was, then perhaps "MORE" may believe this.

Nevertheless, there are of course those who are so naieve of the facts, that they will still most likely swallow up this garbage as well.

Any competent researcher [Appparently, that would exclude moi —Ashton] would know, from ALL of the testimony, that the back/upper neck wound found in JFK was not found until well into the autopsy.

In fact, it had been totally missed by all, and was not found until AFTER Pierre Finck had arrived.

Wull, gawrsh, Private Purv, I shore appreciate you bringing this poor ol' dimwit up to speed.

Mebbe using your superior knowledge of "ALL of the testimony" you can explain to me and other dimwits who might stumble along this way how the back wound was "not found until well into the autopsy...until AFTER Pierre Finck had arrived," when Sibert and O'Neill claimed in their 302 that the photos and x-rays were taken before the autopsy started, with everyone except the relevant medical personnel having been asked to leave the room.

Could you help a poor ol' slow-boy out there? Because there's a photo of the back wound. Or hadn't you noticed? You aren't sayin' that the nice, honest, trustworthy FBI <SPIT!> agents lied, now, are you?

And how 'bout old Ebersole, the Top Dawg radiologist at the autopsy. 'Splain me what I ought to make of this from his sworn testimony on this very point:

  • EBERSOLE: As we turned the body on the autopsy table there was a textbook classical wound of entrance upper right back to the right of the midline... . I would like to emphasize this was a textbook wound—round, smooth, purple-ish, no raised margins. ...At that point we had a wound of entrance, i.e., the back wound, and no known wound of exit. So prior to starting the autopsy we were asked to X-ray the body to determine the presence of a bullet. ...I would like to emphasize one thing. These films, these X-rays, were taken solely for the purpose of finding what at that time was thought to be a bullet that had entered the body and not exited.
    QUESTIONER: ...You took the X-rays initially, before any incision was made in the body?
    EBERSOLE: That is right.
    QUESTIONER: ...I see. When Colonel Finck came in these had already been taken?
    EBERSOLE: Yes, and repeated once.
    QUESTIONER: ...Now, you repeated the X-ray specifically because what you were after was to find a bullet?
    EBERSOLE: A bullet.
    QUESTIONER: Because there was an entrance in the back and no exit?
    EBERSOLE: And— At least no exit we could identify.
    QUESTIONER: ...I am not clear on the chronology. When you first started talking you gave the impression that everybody had the impression that there was a bullet hole in the back... . You gave me the impression that they rolled the body over almost immediately. Is that a correct impression?
    EBERSOLE: I don't know whether we looked at the anterior [front] or posterior [back] aspect first. I suspect it was the posterior.
    QUESTIONER: You looked at the posterior first? ...They saw the wound on the back of the neck almost immediately?
    EBERSOLE: Yes. At least immediately, yes. ...When both aspects of the body had been viewed, and I do not know in what order they were reviewed, we were faced with the problem of a wound of entrance and not a known wound of exit. ...We had certainly not to my knowledge planned to take any X-rays at this autopsy but when it became apparent we had a wound of entrance and no known wound of exit, this is when I was brought into the action. ...Does it seem reasonable that a pathologist would carry out an autopsy of this nature without looking at the front and back of the body? My remembrance is that we were aware of the wound of entrance [back wound]. ...I certainly feel we were aware of the background [sic: back wound] very early in the autopsy.
    QUESTIONER (to other panel members): That is what he said when he first started. The first thing he did is look at the back. When he first started today he said that.

Now, 'course, if I was smart like you, and knew "ALL the testimony," I'm pretty darn sure I could blow hard like you have above. But being Information Challenged like I am, you're gonna' just have to show a little mercy, PFC Purv, and explain to me who the skunk-ass liars are in all this.

Too bad that Mr. Custer (assuming that he actually said such things) happens to be contradicted by EVERY other person who was attending and/or present during the autopsy of JFK.
:rolleyes: Well, now, Corporal Purv, you—being an expert, and being up on "ALL the testimony"—surely musta' already known that Mr. Custer actually had said just such things. And, you—being an expert, and being up on "ALL the testimony"—surely musta' known about Ebersole's tale above. Right?

So now you're gettin' me all turned around here. Can you help a hayseed out?

One may want to read the later testimony of considerably more reliable witnesses, such as the FBI Agents who actually took possession of ALL bullet fragments removed.

But then again, that would constitute actual "research".

Hmm. I think I'm startin' to get this a little bit now, Seargant Purv, and you tell me if I'm catching on: if we dimwits just listen only to the lilly white FBI agents <SPIT!> (Pardon me! Frog in my throat...), who could not tell a lie, we'll get our mulish minds right and won't be swayed by skunk-ass liars like Ebersole and Custer. Hell, I guess then we won't even have to bother with "ALL the testimony" at all, since experts like you have already put "ALL the testimony" through a sieve and thrashed out all that we dimwits need to know.

And all we need to know is that nobody in that autopsy room saw a single blessed thing on the back of that dead body until "well into the autopsy," and not even until after Pepe La Finck come strolling in and picked up his clacking forceps.

Whew! I tell you, Warrant Officer Purv, all this education has plumb wore me out. I think I'm gonna' have to take a little break and cogitate and cipher on this a while. I sure appreciate you being so patient with such an idiot as me, though.

And please do stick around. I plan to be back so we can have another little lesson real soon. I think so highly of experts like you, it's good for me to have one to jaw with every now and then.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sibert and O'Neill in the 302 report on the autopsy are bare-faced liars.

Sibert and O'Neill are responsible for more false information and impressions about the autopsy than any other single source.

Sibert and O'Neill mailicously planted the utterly false belief that the x-rays and photographs were made before the first incision, which is false on its face, and is proven beyond any doubt to be false by the record.

Sibert at all relevant times has played both sides of the game.

This thread promises yet another thorough and embarrassing exposure of who uniformly attempts in this forum to float and pump up the perverse fictions and falsehoods, and to lionize and validate the biggest liars in the record as having been the most pure and trustworthy sources.

Don't touch that dial.

Ashton Gray

Many is the time I have been verbally battered and browbeaten for having repeated that the FBI agents signed a receipt

for A MISSILE.

Once I present the opinion that an FBI Agent, a highly trained specialist, signs a document which contains specific language,

such as the singular MISSILE present in that receipt, you can bet there was only ONE MISSILE when the object had been

signed for, I am told that it was the fault of the (unnamed) navy corpsman who typed up the receipt.

It's as if I am expected to just nod my head and say...yes, the FBI agents had no other option but to sign a form which they

knew to be inaccurate simply because the form was one provided to them. Would it would have been so difficult for them to

have created their own receipt? I think the answer is plain as day and to argue the point is to waste ones time.

This receipt, after all, was part of their investigation into THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. To

believe that they would then, under the watchful eye of J. E. Hoover, submit anything less than their very best work is

ridiculous.

One question I hope you might answer for me? If that document were presented into a court of law, as evidence, how would

it's language be interpreted?

I am very glad that someone who has the intelligence as well as the common sense that you exhibit has taken an interest in

this case.

Edited by Chuck Robbins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we all lived confusedly ever after.

Ashton Gray

I would hope that the "we" constitutes you and the mouse which you may have in your pocket.

As most who have paid attention on this forum are aware, to include all who have actually done any research into the subject matter,

When the autopsy ended, the conclusion was that the projectile which entered the back/upper neck of JFK had only penetrated a short distance before stopping.

There was ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to this projectile having exited the anterior throat in the vicinity of the tracheotomy incision.

The conclusion was:

1. Tracheotomy incision of the anterior throat.

2. Bullet into back which only entered a short distance and thereafter apparantly came out of the back due to external cardiac massage; etc; administered at Parkland Hospital, where the bullet was found.

Therefore, your lack of factual reporting is exceeded only by your lack of research into the facts of the case.

Had you reviewed the FBI Report of Siebert & O'Neil, then you would have had some inkling as to this autopsy fact.

AFTER the autopsy was completed, the body was gone, and Finck & Boswell were also gone, Dr. Humes spoke with Parkland and first learned of the anterior throat wound (which the autopsy surgeons had completely missed and originally reported as being ONLY a tracheotomy incision).

I have never believed for a minute that there had been no communication between the autopsy room and at least one of

the Dallas doctors before the autopsy was over.

When Humes said he didn't speak to a Dallas Dr. until 11/23/63, he could have been telling the truth, and also not telling the

truth, as it could have been after midnight in Dallas when the information was exchanged.

Thereafter, Dr. Humes more or less "recalled" Dr. Finck and Dr. Boswell to discuss this new knowledge and information.

The FBI (& everyone else at the autopsy) had gone home secure in the fact that the bullet which entered the back only penetrated a short distance and then stopped.

However, faced with the fact that they had completely missed a wound of the anterior neck during the autopsy, the autopsy surgeons were faced with the complexity as to how this wound may have occurred.

Thus, the originally destroyed autopsy notes, which would have stated that the back wound was created by the bullet/missile/projectile which went in only a short distance.

There was no body on which to now attempt to go back and re-evaluate the angle of penetration, and since there was in fact no complete penetration found during the course of the autopsy, Dr. Humes as well as the other two autopsy surgeons presumed that they had in fact missed the exit path of the bullet and that it must have exited out the anterior throat of JFK, as there was no other projectile present and no other plausible explanation at the time as to how this throat wound could have occurred.

Are you kidding? No body? It was still available and would not be buried for another 48 hours or so.

So, the "fairy tale" scenario which you have painted in your mind, may represent factual information in your fairytale world.

It however lacks considerable information and research in coming even close to the events as they transpired in regards to how the back wound which was initially reported as a non-through & through wound, became the entry for the supposed bullet which exited the anterior neck.

Your fairytale also lacks considerable cohesive conspiracy in that you make it seem as if Parkland Dr's intentionally destroyed the anterior neck wound in order to confuse the autopsy surgeons into believeing that it was merely a tracheotomy incision, in order that they could make an initial error in their autopsy report in order that they could thereafter go back and change this original findings to an exit wound of the anterior neck, which was all apparantly done merely to confuse you.

Yep! You are most assuredly confused!

I get confused myself when I try to understand why the doctors were actually poking around and searching for a bullet in the

body, when they had to know, by simply reading the x-rays, which, by the way, they said they took 2 complete sets of, that

there was no bullet to be found in this body.

I may be wrong, but, didn't the trach wound at autopsy look different than the trach wound as described by Dallas witnesses?

It would be nice if we could all give our opinions and theories here without having to endure scathing criticism from other members.

As if Ashton's version of events is any more a fairy tale than the WC's "report to the person who profited most from the

murder of JFK".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were it that the researcher who has given this fairy tale [That would be moi —Ashton] actually knew where the back/upper neck entrance wound of JFK actually was, then perhaps "MORE" may believe this.

Nevertheless, there are of course those who are so naieve of the facts, that they will still most likely swallow up this garbage as well.

Any competent researcher [Appparently, that would exclude moi —Ashton] would know, from ALL of the testimony, that the back/upper neck wound found in JFK was not found until well into the autopsy.

In fact, it had been totally missed by all, and was not found until AFTER Pierre Finck had arrived.

Wull, gawrsh, Private Purv, I shore appreciate you bringing this poor ol' dimwit up to speed.

Mebbe using your superior knowledge of "ALL of the testimony" you can explain to me and other dimwits who might stumble along this way how the back wound was "not found until well into the autopsy...until AFTER Pierre Finck had arrived," when Sibert and O'Neill claimed in their 302 that the photos and x-rays were taken before the autopsy started, with everyone except the relevant medical personnel having been asked to leave the room.

Could you help a poor ol' slow-boy out there? Because there's a photo of the back wound. Or hadn't you noticed? You aren't sayin' that the nice, honest, trustworthy FBI <SPIT!> agents lied, now, are you?

And how 'bout old Ebersole, the Top Dawg radiologist at the autopsy. 'Splain me what I ought to make of this from his sworn testimony on this very point:

  • EBERSOLE: As we turned the body on the autopsy table there was a textbook classical wound of entrance upper right back to the right of the midline... . I would like to emphasize this was a textbook wound—round, smooth, purple-ish, no raised margins. ...At that point we had a wound of entrance, i.e., the back wound, and no known wound of exit. So prior to starting the autopsy we were asked to X-ray the body to determine the presence of a bullet. ...I would like to emphasize one thing. These films, these X-rays, were taken solely for the purpose of finding what at that time was thought to be a bullet that had entered the body and not exited.
    QUESTIONER: ...You took the X-rays initially, before any incision was made in the body?
    EBERSOLE: That is right.
    QUESTIONER: ...I see. When Colonel Finck came in these had already been taken?
    EBERSOLE: Yes, and repeated once.
    QUESTIONER: ...Now, you repeated the X-ray specifically because what you were after was to find a bullet?
    EBERSOLE: A bullet.
    QUESTIONER: Because there was an entrance in the back and no exit?
    EBERSOLE: And— At least no exit we could identify.
    QUESTIONER: ...I am not clear on the chronology. When you first started talking you gave the impression that everybody had the impression that there was a bullet hole in the back... . You gave me the impression that they rolled the body over almost immediately. Is that a correct impression?
    EBERSOLE: I don't know whether we looked at the anterior [front] or posterior [back] aspect first. I suspect it was the posterior.
    QUESTIONER: You looked at the posterior first? ...They saw the wound on the back of the neck almost immediately?
    EBERSOLE: Yes. At least immediately, yes. ...When both aspects of the body had been viewed, and I do not know in what order they were reviewed, we were faced with the problem of a wound of entrance and not a known wound of exit. ...We had certainly not to my knowledge planned to take any X-rays at this autopsy but when it became apparent we had a wound of entrance and no known wound of exit, this is when I was brought into the action. ...Does it seem reasonable that a pathologist would carry out an autopsy of this nature without looking at the front and back of the body? My remembrance is that we were aware of the wound of entrance [back wound]. ...I certainly feel we were aware of the background [sic: back wound] very early in the autopsy.
    QUESTIONER (to other panel members): That is what he said when he first started. The first thing he did is look at the back. When he first started today he said that.

Now, 'course, if I was smart like you, and knew "ALL the testimony," I'm pretty darn sure I could blow hard like you have above. But being Information Challenged like I am, you're gonna' just have to show a little mercy, PFC Purv, and explain to me who the skunk-ass liars are in all this.

Too bad that Mr. Custer (assuming that he actually said such things) happens to be contradicted by EVERY other person who was attending and/or present during the autopsy of JFK.
:( Well, now, Corporal Purv, you—being an expert, and being up on "ALL the testimony"—surely musta' already known that Mr. Custer actually had said just such things. And, you—being an expert, and being up on "ALL the testimony"—surely musta' known about Ebersole's tale above. Right?

So now you're gettin' me all turned around here. Can you help a hayseed out?

One may want to read the later testimony of considerably more reliable witnesses, such as the FBI Agents who actually took possession of ALL bullet fragments removed.

But then again, that would constitute actual "research".

Hmm. I think I'm startin' to get this a little bit now, Seargant Purv, and you tell me if I'm catching on: if we dimwits just listen only to the lilly white FBI agents <SPIT!> (Pardon me! Frog in my throat...), who could not tell a lie, we'll get our mulish minds right and won't be swayed by skunk-ass liars like Ebersole and Custer. Hell, I guess then we won't even have to bother with "ALL the testimony" at all, since experts like you have already put "ALL the testimony" through a sieve and thrashed out all that we dimwits need to know.

And all we need to know is that nobody in that autopsy room saw a single blessed thing on the back of that dead body until "well into the autopsy," and not even until after Pepe La Finck come strolling in and picked up his clacking forceps.

Whew! I tell you, Warrant Officer Purv, all this education has plumb wore me out. I think I'm gonna' have to take a little break and cogitate and cipher on this a while. I sure appreciate you being so patient all this education has plumb wore me out

And please do stick around. I plan to be back so we can have another little lesson real soon. I think so highly of experts like you, it's good for me to have one to jaw with every now and then.

Ashton Gray

I shore appreciate you bringing this poor ol' dimwit up to speed.

Unfortunately, one can only gain so much speed when the vehicles tires are completely deflated.

Highly unlikely that you will receive any speeding tickets.

if we dimwits

Which would include yourself, the mouse in your pocket, and about anyone else who jumps onto your wagon without first researching ALL of the pertinent facts and information.

all this education has plumb wore me out

Yep! It does that to those who are encumbered with ADD and other forms of learning disorders which affect the capability for deductive reasoning and factual research ability.

Perhaps the "Education Forum" can begin something for the "slow learners" like yourself.

Too bad such programs were not around back when you were attemping to learn.

I sure appreciate you being so patient all this education has plumb wore me out.

Don't feel too badly, the facts have confused many others as well!

I think so highly of experts like you, it's good for me to have one to jaw with every now and then.

Nope! In event that you were much into "experts", then you would take the garbage which you post to a few and let them review it.

Unfortunately, you quite obviously do not like to be laughed at, and have a complete reluctance for such examinations by those who possess the actual expertise.

Lastly, you can continue to open the doors to the labyrinth of rabbit holes for others all that you like.

And, just like Charles Manson; Jim Jones; "Body Snatcher"/David Lifton; Ervil LeBaron; etc; etc; etc;, I personally have absolutely no doubt that you can find a following who will jump right into the hole yelling "me to"!

So goes the sad state of the human species.

Personally, the only interest which your garbage postings have to me, are the potential reasons as to the WHY? you would want to continue to attempt to confuse what are simple and easily verifiable facts.

Motive for obfuscation is an essential element in understanding of the JFK assassination evidence.

And, when someone such as John Dolva clearly demonstrates you complete lack of thorough evaluation of the existing factual evidence, you run for cover and start some other subject.

So!

Writing your own book and want others to do your research for you????

Intentionally, for some unrevealed reason, a part of the continued obfuscation of the factual evidence???

Or lastly, just that you truly lack the ability to conduct factual research????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sibert and O'Neill in the 302 report on the autopsy are bare-faced liars.

Sibert and O'Neill are responsible for more false information and impressions about the autopsy than any other single source.

Sibert and O'Neill mailicously planted the utterly false belief that the x-rays and photographs were made before the first incision, which is false on its face, and is proven beyond any doubt to be false by the record.

Sibert at all relevant times has played both sides of the game.

This thread promises yet another thorough and embarrassing exposure of who uniformly attempts in this forum to float and pump up the perverse fictions and falsehoods, and to lionize and validate the biggest liars in the record as having been the most pure and trustworthy sources.

Don't touch that dial.

Ashton Gray

Many is the time I have been verbally battered and browbeaten for having repeated that the FBI agents signed a receipt for A MISSILE.

Yes: fiction doesn't leave a paper trail, but this missing bullet did.

And of course there had to have been just such a bullet as Custer reported and the receipt recorded. All substantive evidence in the case demands that another bullet had to have existed, and that it had to have been in John F. Kennedy's back. It's inarguable that a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's back and there was no exit wound. And of course it's inarguable that a bullet that went into John F. Kennedy's back did not end up on John Connally's stretcher at Parkland hospital. That's every bit as absurd as people have understood it to be.

It's actually too simple.

And of course the bullet found during the autopsy had to be made to disappear so there then could be an "explanation" for the throat wound, because the throat wound had not been caused by a bullet, dart, projectile, or "missile," but had been administered at Parkland Hospital.

So you're absolutely right.

I wouldn't worry too much about the verbal abuse; it's the last refuge for the hopelessly lost. Most of them aren't really bad, just confused. (A few, though...)

Once I present the opinion that an FBI Agent, a highly trained specialist, signs a document which contains specific language, such as the singular MISSILE present in that receipt, you can bet there was only ONE MISSILE when the object had been signed for, I am told that it was the fault of the (unnamed) navy corpsman who typed up the receipt.
Heh. Yeah, the kid slipped up and wrote the truth. He was in bad company to be doing that. The problem Sibert and O'Neill had is they couldn't insist that he rewrite it as simply "fragments," so had to sign it and then lie their asses off in the 302.
One question I hope you might answer for me? If that document were presented into a court of law, as evidence, how would it's language be interpreted?

In the first place it would depend on whether it was an actual court of law or a rigged "court of law." We have both kind, you know: there's just no easy way to tell them apart. The rigged ones can and will interpret black for white any hour of the day without blinking.

In a real court of law, I don't know. "Missile" in that sense isn't defined in the edition of Black's Law Dictionary that I have, so I don't know where a court could turn for interpretation except to a standard dictionary definition, which is: "an object or weapon for throwing, hurling, or shooting, as a stone, bullet, or arrow." Hardly an attribution for the dinky little slivers Sibert and O'Neill purportedly had.

Maybe one of the resident lawyers here can answer you better.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Nothing of consequence>

Thomas, I notice that in your contemptuous rant, you evaded every material fact of evidence and testimony in my post.

When the bellowing fades away, the facts remain.

More to come.

Ashton Gray

Thomas, I notice that in your contemptuous rant, you evaded every material fact of evidence and testimony in my post..

I must have dozed off, as I completely missed anything which resembled " material fact of evidence".

Plus the FACT that John McAdams long ago claimed title as "Primary De-Bunker"!

When the bellowing fades away, the facts remain.

At least it would appear that some "common ground" has been found.

However, I can also state that it is most unlikely that I will stay awake in anticipation of any such event as "facts" from your end of the spectrum.

Why not suprise and bedazzle us with some more of the "pin the shirt on Barbie" level of your research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get confused myself when I try to understand why the doctors were actually poking around and searching for a bullet in the body, when they had to know, by simply reading the x-rays, which, by the way, they said they took 2 complete sets of, that there was no bullet to be found in this body.

I believe that has a simple explanation, too, in the missing x-rays—two, I believe, but will get the actual cite for you—of the chest area.

The missing x-rays found the bullet. The bullet came out and was turned over by Finck to Sibert and O'Neill, who disposed of it.

I may be wrong, but, didn't the trach wound at autopsy look different than the trach wound as described by Dallas witnesses?

It was Ebersole who claimed in testimony that the tracheotomy wound was sutured when the body was taken out of the coffin at the autopsy. In a later phone interview, Ebersole said the tracheotomy wound had been open when the body arrived. Ebersole lied in testimony on that point.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton Gray

I am forced to disagree with "one" portion of Chuck's post. He referred to you as "intelligent"!

Regardless of what your educational credentials may or may not be, I feel you to be "THE" most ignorant individual on this forum. You camouflage your total ignorance and inability to absorb the actual facts in this case, with a much undeserved arrogance.

I sincerely believe that your motivation for participating on this forum is solely to mislead, and to direct practical research away from factual matters, and toward ridiculous and time consuming tangents such as, "THE PARKLAND TRAUMA AND ASSASSINATION TEAM OF LIARS INCOMPETENTS AND MURDERERS".

I personally believe, although I claim to have no proof, that your participation here, and your practice of misguiding discussions toward infintessimal tangents, is planned and has nefarious intent. I see you constantly attempting to enter contrary doctrine, some of it having no factual reference, into those FEW AREAS in which the majority of forum members are in general agreement. Yes! I feel that this is done purposely for the sole purpose of stymying progress.

I also today found a tremendous amount of fault in your attempt to belittle and degrade Tom Purvis.

I have no idea of what Tom's military rank was, but your referral to him as "PFC" Purvis should have been very obvious to all that it was "meant" to degrade...although I find nothing degrading or dishonorable among hundreds of PFC's with whom I have had personal contact.

Who the hell are you? Major General Ashton Gray ?

What has "YOUR" role been in the defence of your country ? I have found your comments to be as despicable as I find your general attitude toward nearly everything which you approach.

What little you know of this case was apparently quickly learned, as you have none of the deeper insight of those who have studied this case in earnest. I am calling you a fraud. I am also calling you a coward as a result of maliciously attacking "individuals" as you are protected by the space which a forum allows you.

I find you with no redeeming characteristics !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton Gray

I am forced to disagree with "one" portion of Chuck's post. He referred to you as "intelligent"!

Regardless of what your educational credentials may or may not be, I feel you to be "THE" most ignorant individual on this forum. You camouflage your total ignorance and inability to absorb the actual facts in this case, with a much undeserved arrogance.

I sincerely believe that your motivation for participating on this forum is solely to mislead, and to direct practical research away from factual matters, and toward ridiculous and time consuming tangents such as, "THE PARKLAND TRAUMA AND ASSASSINATION TEAM OF LIARS INCOMPETENTS AND MURDERERS".

I personally believe, although I claim to have no proof, that your participation here, and your practice of misguiding discussions toward infintessimal tangents, is planned and has nefarious intent. I see you constantly attempting to enter contrary doctrine, some of it having no factual reference, into those FEW AREAS in which the majority of forum members are in general agreement. Yes! I feel that this is done purposely for the sole purpose of stymying progress.

I also today found a tremendous amount of fault in your attempt to belittle and degrade Tom Purvis.

I have no idea of what Tom's military rank was, but your referral to him as "PFC" Purvis should have been very obvious to all that it was "meant" to degrade...although I find nothing degrading or dishonorable among hundreds of PFC's with whom I have had personal contact.

Who the hell are you? Major General Ashton Gray ?

What has "YOUR" role been in the defence of your country ? I have found your comments to be as despicable as I find your general attitude toward nearly everything which you approach.

What little you know of this case was apparently quickly learned, as you have none of the deeper insight of those who have studied this case in earnest. I am calling you a fraud. I am also calling you a coward as a result of maliciously attacking "individuals" as you are protected by the space which a forum allows you.

I find you with no redeeming characteristics !

Charlie Black

Charles:

Although I certainly appreciate the support, you will merely discredit yourself (among some) for defending my rank and/or military service.

And, at risk of "contamination" of the other information which you have posted, I too must question the quite obvious attempt at continuation to lead towards the confusion on the subject matter.

Especially in a manner which would or could effectively "close the door" to any researcher to the few remaining living witnesses such as those of Parkland Hospital or elsewhere for that matter.

This same tactic is primarily to blame for Dr. Humes not being willing to discuss further, with anyone, his knowledge.--------Door Closed!

And now, unless one has a crystal ball, ouiji board, or someone who speaks with the deceased, it is unlikely that we will ever unlock exactly what other EEI (essential elements of information) that Dr. Humes carried with him to the grave.

Tom Purvis

PFC-----Mississippi National Guard.

PFC-----Regained (reduction in rank taken to go active duty US Army) Active Duty, US Army Mechanized Infantry Unit.

Captain----Upon separation (had my fill) from US Army to accept position on the Trans-Alaskan Oil Pipeline Project.

Back to PFC:----Which we (those of us who understand) means PUBLIC F***ing CIVILIAN.

Lastly, in regards to any potential recalls: (not mentioned)

"I know three who are not going back! Me and the two that they send after me".

Tom Purvis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Tom

I suppose that it should be pretty evident to forum members that I say what I truly believe and I am not lobbying for support from any of them.

My support of you and your military service was something that is within me and just came out.

As much as I am in disfavor of our President and current administration, I will defend to my dying breath the honor of those who have and do currently serve !

Keep up your fight TOM. I respect it tho I disagree with some of your points.

Charlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The autopsy was an out-take from a Fellini film.

It made the "tracheotomy" butchery look like ballet.

The participants certainly weren't in the pursuit of useful forensic evidence, producing a set of "evidence" and "testimony" that was "Larry, Moe, and Curly Do the Morgue."

So what were they looking for? Why all the lies about when the x-rays were made versus the removal of lungs and other organs? Why did the FBI's version of Tweedledee and Tweedledum—Sibert and O'Neill—cook up all the lousy spy-fi about the back wound projectile? Why did news of the serendipitous "finding" of CE399 (a.k.a. "The Stretcher Bullet," a.k.a. "The Magic Bullet") just happen to come through one of these lying FBI goons (but I repeat myself) at the very moment he went to make the spy-fi phone call, suddenly "explaining" why no back wound bullet had been found in the body during the autopsy?

What were they really trying to accomplish there in the bowels of Bethesda?

Simple enough: they had to locate the real back wound bullet and take it forever out of evidence and existence.

And they did.

Here is an excerpt from the testimony of Jerrol Francis Custer, the radiologist who actually set up and operated the portable x-ray machine for all the x-rays taken that night. It's probably the only true testimony that ever came out of that macabre room:

  • JERROL CUSTER: When I lifted the body up to take films of the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis, this is when a king-size fragment—I’d say, estimate, around three, four centimeters—fell from the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took— That’s the last time I ever saw it. Now, it was big enough. That’s about, I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger; my small finger. First joints. ...
    MR. GUNN: Did you ever see a wound on the back of President Kennedy?
    JERROL CUSTER: That’s when I picked him up, and the bullet dropped out of there.

Along came the forceps, Simple Sibert made the spy-fi phone call, and just like that <SNAP!> the "throat wound" had an "explanation": CE399, found on the (wrong) stretcher at Parkland. Of course nobody has ever been able to make a particle of sense out of this "explanation," and of course it is utterly impossible that the "throat wound" was the result of any projectile going in any direction. But as soon as The Fink made off with the real back wound bullet, the world was handed the "Magic Bullet: happy solution for all your assassination needs."

The real bullet that was in the back never got to have a cute little "CE" number.

It's gone.

And we all lived confusedly ever after.

Ashton Gray

And we all lived confusedly ever after.

Ashton Gray

Is there an echo in here, or is it just me?

Oh: it's you, Lieutenant Purv. Hey there. Well, I'm back for the second lesson. I wanna' say again how kind you are to devote so much of your time and tooth-grinding energies attempting to rectify the deficiencies in somebody as Information Challenged as me. I think I'm going to have to submit your name for inclusion in the hallowed ranks of the Patient Rectifiers of Information Challenged Knuckleheads. It's a fine, fine organization for you to be in, I think.

Now, you have been busy, busy, busy trying to set my mind right (between bouts of you and that other Patient Rectifier of Information Challenged Knuckleheads, Mr. Black, stroking each other and frothing at the mouth about me), and because I am so grateful for all the attention you have devoted to me, I am going to devote my undivided attention in return to what you are trying to l'arn this ol' boy—me. So what was it you were trying to get me to comprehend, Cap'n Purv?

As most who have paid attention on this forum are aware, to include all who have actually done any research into the subject matter,

When the autopsy ended, the conclusion was that the projectile which entered the back/upper neck of JFK had only penetrated a short distance before stopping.


You don't say! Really! So, lemme get this now: experienced pathologists determined that the bullet had stopped inside John F. Kennedy's body. That's what I have understood you to say.

Well, I'll be darned. So there should have been a bullet all up in there in Kennedy's back, then, right?

There was ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to this projectile having exited the anterior throat in the vicinity of the tracheotomy incision.

Whoa! None at all, huh? Now, I have to tell you, Major Tom, that's a head-scratcher right there. But don't let me stop you—I'll tell you why it's a head-scratcher in a minute. For now, you go on and explain it to me, and I won't interrupt. (And you do go on; I'll give you that):

The conclusion was:

1. Tracheotomy incision of the anterior throat. 2. Bullet into back which only entered a short distance and thereafter apparantly came out of the back due to external cardiac massage; etc; administered at Parkland Hospital, where the bullet was found.

Therefore, your lack of factual reporting is exceeded only by your lack of research into the facts of the case.

Had you reviewed the FBI Report of Siebert & O'Neil, then you would have had some inkling as to this autopsy fact.

AFTER the autopsy was completed, the body was gone, and Finck & Boswell were also gone, Dr. Humes spoke with Parkland and first learned of the anterior throat wound (which the autopsy surgeons had completely missed and originally reported as being ONLY a tracheotomy incision).

Thereafter, Dr. Humes more or less "recalled" Dr. Finck and Dr. Boswell to discuss this new knowledge and information.

Golly.

That's pretty darn amazing, Lieutenant Colonel Purv. So you mean to tell me that not a single soul in that whole autopsy, from the starting bell till lights out, not a-one of 'em knew diddly squat about there having been a round puncture wound in poor ol' JFK's throat where that tracheotomy butchery was?

Man! That's just—

Well, that's— Well, see, that's the head scratcher right there. And lemme tell you why it is, and solicit your superior wisdom on it—you being an expert and all.

See, it's this way: back at Parkland Hospital, Trauma Room 1—where JFK was treated till he died—was just a tiny little thing. I mean, I've been in bathrooms that was bigger, if you get my drift. You couldn't swing a cat in there without hitting everybody in the room.

So there he was: President of the United States, laid out on a stretcher mortally wounded in this little ol' cracker box of a trauma room. Now, you being an expert and all, I imagine that you'd be quick to tell me that Dr. Carrico was the first sawbones on the scene in Trauma Room 1, wouldn't you?

But here's a little wrinkle in that, Colonel Purv: he wasn't.

That's right. Carrico wasn't the first doctor in that little room. He was across the hall in Trauma Room 2, with John Connally, when JFK was wheeled into Trauma Room 1, and came over to Trauma Room 1 within a few minutes—but I'm sure you already know that, being an expert on "ALL the testimony" the way you are.

But ol' Doc Carrico himself said this about who was in Trauma Room 1 with JFK as soon as JFK got to the hospital:

  • SPECTER: You have described a number of doctors in the course of your testimony up to this point. Would you state what other doctors were present during the time the President was treated, to the best of your recollection?
    DR. CARRICO: ...Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he got to the hospital.

O! Let me hear a diminished chord on the organ!

Damn! Just gives you goose bumps, doesn't it? Does me.

I know, I know: and what the heck, you're asking your patient self, does this have to do with the autopsy?

Well, remember, now, Brigadier General Purv, I'm a little slow. But you are such a grand Patient Rectifier of Information Challenged Knuckleheads, I know you'll bear with me while I get there.

So there comes Dr. Carrico, then, as Dr. Burkley is already present there in that little bitty ol' trauma room with the President. Now, if you'll recollect from your masterful knowledge of "ALL the testimony," one of the doctors who arrived soon after to squeeze his way into Trauma Room 1 was Malcolm Perry, who was about to slice open the throat of JFK.

But do you recall the details of how that happened, Major General Purv? Well, of course you do! Silly me for asking! But bear with me while I just recap that moment. So there they are snugged up in that little room: President Kennedy's own physician—Admiral Burkley—and Dr. Carrico, and Malcolm Perry. And here's what ol' Malcolm says happened:

  • MALCOLM PERRY: In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly. ...I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound...

So are you beginning to see my problem, Lieutenant General Purv?

Are you starting to see how this ties in with the claims you made so bombastically about the autopsy?

See, Admiral George Gregory Burkley (from Pennsylvania, for those keeping score) was standing right there in that little trauma room, pretty much close enough to reach out and goose, when Dr. Carrico and Malcolm Perry had their exchange about the throat wound that Perry was about to start hacking on.

Is it creeping up on you like a h'aint in a dark house now? Is "ALL the testimony" coming back to you sufficiently that you can see why the various claims in the record that "nobody at the autopsy knew about that throat wound" is nothing but a poke sack of damned lies?

If it hasn't hit you yet, let's go back to Bethesda now and hear what wisdom that ol' boy Jerrol Custer has on it:

  • JERROL CUSTER: ...There was a four-star general in there. Plus, there was a civilian gentleman, which I took to be Kennedy’s personal physician because of the way he talked, particularly pertaining to the myelogram dye in the back. He knew exactly what it was. And the only person that would know situations like that would be the personal physician.
    QUESTION: And were this general and the person in civilian clothing giving directions to Dr. Ebersole?
    JERROL CUSTER: Correct. Absolutely.
    QUESTION: ...Was it your impression that Dr. Finck was taking instructions from one or more persons in the gallery, or he was—
    JERROL CUSTER: Absolutely.
    QUESTION: And from whom was he taking instructions?
    JERROL CUSTER: From the same two gentlemen that had kept controlling the situation all that night.
    QUESTION: You’ve previously referred to that person being a four-star general.
    JERROL CUSTER: ...There were two men that constantly stood up and directed which way things would go.
    QUESTION: That’s the general that you referred to and the other person—the civilian?
    JERROL CUSTER: The general and the plain clothes. Which, by deduction, I assumed that was Kennedy’s personal physician.
    QUESTION: Admiral Burkley?
    JERROL CUSTER: Admiral Burkley.

Did you get that, General Purv? Is it starting to dawn on you with a flesh-crawling realization of exactly what is going on here? Is it finally starting to eat its way into your brain?

Are you reaching for your keyboard even at this moment to lauch another wailing denial, another completely toothless, inept attack on me and my character, with some delusional hope that it's going to change the facts?

You're shooting blanks, Boy Scout; this is end game. Here's an excerpt from Burkley's own affidavit:

  • AFFIDAVIT
    I, VICE ADMIRAL GEORGE G. BURKLEY (M.C.) (Ret.) living in Los Angeles, California, being duly sworn make oath as follows:
    ...I supervised the autopsy.

And Burkley knew all about the throat wound at Parkland Hospital while he stood there running the autopsy at Bethesda.

And Burkley knew all about the bullet found in the back at the autopsy.

And Burkley never was called to testify anywhere, was he?

So why don't you go start your 399th thread about CE399, and fill the forum up with 399 more pages of the same old yellowed, dog-eared pages of meaningless minutiae.

It's end game.

And you don't know who the four-star was with Burkley barking orders at the autopsy, do you, Admiral Expert?

Go run to page 2 of your cherished FBI 302 report from the cherished lying dirtbags, Sibert and O'Neill. I'm sure they'll solve it for you. They listed everybody who was at the autopsy, dontcha' know. Just ask 'em.

Oh, by the way: don't look for Custer's name there. They made sure they misspelled it.

HTH. HAND.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...