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

Were it that the researcher who has given this fairy tale 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 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.

Additionally, although this "fairy tale" writing may make good reading for those who have no interest in the facts, the continuation of posting of such as this, continues to take on the appearance to further "muddy" the absolute facts.


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.

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".

Reading such postings is about as "Educational" as watching the Saturday morning cartoons!

Much more and the name of this forum just may have to be changed.

P.S.


The true "Magic Bullet"/aka shot#3/aka the bullet which disappeared/aka the bullet which never got a CE number, was the one which was later removed from the left lower leg of JBC.

And, for those who have never seen it, it was considerably flattened on it's nose, as well as having the nose actually "bent" upwards considerably, most likely as a result of the glancing impact with the right 5th rib of JBC.


Too bad the WC did not help us out by admitting into evidence those last X-rays which were taken of JBC's leg when the Parkland Dr.s were attempting to locate the bullet in the thigh which had escaped the boundaries of those initial/first X-rays.


P.P.S.

The scar on the left lower leg of JBC was in fact a "surgical scar". NOT the result of an encounter with a barbed wire fence in his youth.


I do believe that the old saying is: "The cat's out of the bag"!

Ashton

I find your explanation of the back wound quite credible, I cannot however dismiss that CE 399 could have been reported in the mass confusion as a fragment. However my real opinion, is and always has been, that CE 399 was a very stupid and ill conceived "plant", and that Custers testimony is absolutely correct.

I was almost thrilled that I was "nearly" able to agree with an entire post of yours !

ALAS

Your statement of "...it is nearly impossible that the throat wound was the result of any projectile going in any direction........................." IS SUPPORTED BY NOTHING CREDIBLE ! I feel that this incident was one of the very few "credible" points in the ridiculous Zapruder film.

I think that it is time to move on from the "Silenced Parkland Trauma Team ASSASSINS" !

Although I agree that at times it is a very difficult task, we must actually "Believe" that a "few" of the things which we see pictured are exactly what they seem to be...ie JFK being struck in the anterior throat with "some kind" of projectile. And the report of the Parkland Staff (on the afternoon of 11/22/63) that the President suffered an entrance wound in the mid region of the anterior thoat.

Even in as ridiculous a conspiracy as this, a few things "are" exactly as they appear !

Charlie Black

Charlie, the quote used by Ashton to push his ridiculous theory was from Custer's ARRB testimony. Custer had been interviewed by the HSCA, Lifton, etc, for years before this and hadn't talked about any bullet falling out before. It's clear he had mixed up the theory that a bullet had fallen out with his actually having witnessed the bullet falling out. This kind of thing happens after 30 years. The solution to this case, IMO, will not come from grabbing isolated pieces of idiosyncratic testimony and holding it up as the truth but by latching onto the consistent testimony of the Dealey Plaza witnesses and those in attendance at the autopsy. It is incredibly significant for example that the two FBI agents at the autopsy have from day one held that the back wound was too low on the back to have represented an entrance to a bullet that exited the neck. To decide that they are both liars propping up some official fiction is ludicrous when they are in fact gigantic flies in Specter's ointment.

You know, there was an article in a newspaper years ago, which stated that the newspaper got a
bullet from a Dr. who had taken it from JFK's autopsy.

This paper made a huge squak about this piece of evidence, promised all sorts of testing would be
done, etc., and in the end..the story just kind of went away.

Maybe the Fink had a conscience after all? Too bad the newspaper learned the truth about "The Truth"
in America...

Paraphrasing Mr. Hunt...You don't have a right to know the truth..... I bet they were forced to drop everything.

I'd be very interested in anything else that can be turned up about it.

I find it so consistent with everything I know about these weasels that the story they flogged about the back wound bullet coming out on a stretcher in Dallas due to manipulations of the body was actually their brand of "truth"—just moved from D.C. to Dallas and from an autopsy table to a stretcher. In other words, they absolutely love to take a truth and twist it and pervert it so it becomes a trap like flypaper for anybody who touches it. It's the truth in it that is the attraction, and it's the lies in it that are gooier than any tar.

It's a sick, diseased sort of brilliance.

Ashton

Hello Pat

I wondered why I couldn't recall any testimony of this "large missile fragment"....I thought that "senility" had finally taken up residence with me.

In that it is Review Board testimony, that would explain it, as I have always placed highest credence on testimony given during the nearest time frame to 12:30 CST on 11/22/63.

As a matter of fact, I feel that in all instances in which I have referred to Parkland testimony and that at Bethesda, I have referenced that I am speaking only of that testimony given on 11/22. There was too much coercion and pressure placed on both staffs at later dates. I extend much credit to those however who did not waiver.

Charlie Black

Despite the whirling dervish efforts of the resident forum spin doctor to keep the fictions alive and tubulent and confused, and to keep the rather simple truth suppressed, there isn't the slightest mystery over why Jerrol Custer kept his mouth shut for decades about what actually happened that night in the Bethesda military morgue. It's right in his AARB testimony:

MR GUNN: Was there ever a time at which you were asked or requested not to speak about the autopsy of President Kennedy?
JERROL CUSTER: Well, there was two different situations. The next day, when Dr. Ebersole came back to Bethesda with the bone fragments and the bullet fragments that time; and the time in the morgue—there's three, actually—and in Galloway's office.
MR GUNN: Maybe if we could go through those three events in order. The first time that you were asked not to discuss the autopsy was which time?
JERROL CUSTER: In the morgue.
MR GUNN: Okay, in the morgue. And that was when in the morgue? On the night of November 22nd or 23rd—
JERROL CUSTER: On that night.
MR GUNN: Okay. And who was it who asked you not to speak of—
JERROL CUSTER: Dr. Ebersole. He made it perfectly clear that I was not to speak about this.
MR GUNN: If you could convey the sense of the words that he gave to you as best you can, what—
JERROL CUSTER: "Keep your mouth shut."
MR GUNN: Okay. That's perfectly blunt.
JERROL CUSTER: Plain and simple.
MR GUNN: Okay. And the second time that you were asked, or requested, or instructed not to talk about the autopsy was when?
JERROL CUSTER: That was the next day, after he had come back from the White House from being debriefed.
MR GUNN: And that was, again, Dr. Ebersole who—
JERROL CUSTER: Dr. Ebersole.
MR GUNN: —who had said it to you. Then the third time was—
JERROL CUSTER: Let's back up one thing.
MR GUNN: Sure.
JERROL CUSTER: At that time, he made it quite clear: this came from high level that I was not to say anything. And he reiterated "anything." If I did, I would be quite sorry.
MR GUNN: Did he tell you whom he— You mentioned a moment ago that he had been to the White House.
JERROL CUSTER: Right.
MR GUNN: Did he tell you whom he had spoken with at the White House?
JERROL CUSTER: Yes, he did.
MR GUNN: Whom did he say he spoke with?
JERROL CUSTER: The head of the Secret Service.
MR GUNN: When he said that high-level people—
JERROL CUSTER: Right.
MR GUNN: —did not want anything to be discussed, did he tell you who those high-level people were?
JERROL CUSTER: No. He just said high-level people.
MR GUNN: ...You're acquainted with the name Edward Reed?
JERROL CUSTER: Yes.
MR GUNN: He was the one who's— The student whom you identified in the photograph.
JERROL CUSTER: Correct.
MR GUNN: Was Mr. Reed with you, either during the first time that you received the instructions from Dr. Ebersole or the second time?
JERROL CUSTER: No. He was with me on the third time, when we were both in Dr.— Well, actually, Vice Admiral Galloway's office.
MR GUNN: Okay. Could you tell me about the third time that you received instructions not to speak about the—
JERROL CUSTER: Well, that was the most traumatic. After I signed the gag order, I was told if anything—no matter what—got out, it would be the sorriest day of my life. I'd spend most of my time behind prison walls.
MR GUNN: And did that sound—that threat—sound credible to you?
JERROL CUSTER: Very credible.
MR GUNN: Let me show you a document that is marked Exhibit No. 195, and ask you whether you have previously seen that before?
JERROL CUSTER: Yep, this is it.
MR GUNN: Now, I note that that document does not appear to have a signature on that. Do you see any signature on it?
JERROL CUSTER: No, I don't.
MR GUNN: Is that the document—obviously, without the signature—that—
JERROL CUSTER: Correct.
MR GUNN: —that you ended up signing?
JERROL CUSTER: Correct. I would not get out of that office unless I signed that signature, because there were armed guards. They were right behind me. And I know for a fact, if I did not sign that, I would have been gone. It was made quite clear.
MR GUNN: Who else was— Who else received instructions about not speaking about the autopsy at the same time that you did?
JERROL CUSTER: The only two people that were there was myself and Mr. Reed.
MR GUNN: So, Dr. Ebersole was not there at that time?
JERROL CUSTER: No, he wasn't.
MR GUNN: Did you see Mr. Reed sign a statement similar to the one I just handed you?
JERROL CUSTER: Yes, I did. He's another one that wouldn't have got out of the office, unless—
MR GUNN: Okay.
JERROL CUSTER: They don't have armed MPs standing there for nothing.
MR GUNN: Is it your understanding now that the order of secrecy has been lifted?
JERROL CUSTER: Yes, it is.
MR GUNN: Do you have any hesitancy now about talking candidly about what you witnessed?
JERROL CUSTER: Absolutely not.

"The land of the free."

Ashton Gray

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 liar, 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;

Your assessment is that of one who understands things.

May as well forget preaching to those who do not.

For repetition:

A considerable number of years back, I repeated "war stories" as regards events that happened in the jungles of South Vietnam.
Through time, the events had become "one", and in memory, I was absolutely correct in the actual events having occurred.

However, memory had "compressed" these events into singular happenings.

Were it not for the fact that I actually kept a daily diary which listed the date and the events, them my memory, would have been the "facts & truths" to me.

And, until such time as in old age, for specific reasons, I went back and looked at some of the daily events, I was absolutely certain that the memories were correct.

The events were in fact correct. However, they had not happened at the same time and in the same occurances with other events.

And, even faced with the "written record" of these events, written by myself on the exact day/date they occurred, my memories had said otherwise as to exactly when they had occurred, and it was a strange feeling to set and read the factual "truths" when in fact old memories had established contradictory "truths".

I might add that those such as Specter & Company are fully aware of such failings, and the prolonged pro-crastination of release of information and witness recollections is merely another of the manners in which the factual evidence of these events has been forced into a history of confusion and lack of immediate revelation of factual information.

Critical witnesses such as Mr. Robert West; FBI Agent Henry Heiberger; etc; etc; etc; are being lost in history due to their deaths and the complete failings of the adequate research into the critical information which these persons possessed.

All I might add, a part of the long term plan to keep the true facts lost and confused.

Tom

P.S. Mr. Custer reveals himself in many ways. And, unless one is familiar with the US Navy, then it too is not that obvious.

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

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).

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.

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!

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

QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Jan 24 2007, 01:22 PM)

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 liar, 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

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.

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

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

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.

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?



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

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.

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????

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

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...)

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.



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

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.

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.



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

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

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

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?

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?



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):



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

I might be way out of line here but,I`m going to roll the dice & hope that it don`t come up snake eyes....

I could have sworn that Doug Horne came to this forum and said that he had recently discovered 2 new documents.

1 document that he produced was highlighted & said that Russian intelligence/KGB had information that LBJ was behind or had something to do with the death of president Kennedy.

Here is number 2 in which I`m trying to make my point.

I could have sworn that Mr.Horne also produced a second document that had a highlighted area indicating that a "bullet" was found during the autopsy behind the ear of president Kennedy.

Could this be the "missile" that Sibert & O`Neil signed the receipt for?

It was an FBI memo on the night of the autopsy repeating what someone had heard. It is most probably a reference to the bullet fragment found behind Kennedy's right eye. There are so many mistakes like this in the early reports it's ridiculous. Let's remember that Hoover told Bobby Oswald had been in a shootout with two cops and LBJ that a bullet had rolled out of Kennedy's head. He said the sniper's nest was on the fifth floor over and over again. These men were just winging it, repeating hearsay and garbling it up even worse.

And Ash, the order of silence was removed for the HSCA, and Custer was free to talk from thereon until the cows came home. And he talked plenty. As far as Burkley at Parkland..you misinterpreted your cited statement. Burkley was in a press bus and was taken directly to the Trade Mart. By the time he got to Parkland Carrico had already administered the steroids for Kennedy's adrenal deficiency. At Bethesda, he spent most of his time upstairs. There was no one looking over Humes' shoulder telling him what to do. He was asked to avoid mention of the adrenals. He was told to find the bullet(s) and was given the impression that exploring the neck would be unneccessary. The back wound was so much lower than the tracheotomy it never occurred to him that the bullet exited from the throat. You've latched onto this "they're all liars and everything's a lie" mentality which makes little sense, IMO. As stated, Sibert and O'Neill have impressed everyone who's met them as being totally forthcoming. Sibert is a CT, O'Neill is not.

P.S. it's standard autopsy protocol to take x-rays first and then embark on a series of establishing shots of the whole body before progressing to the individual wounds. This was done. Humes and Boswell then inspected the head wound, removed the brain, performed the Y incision, and took a picture of the bruised lung in situ. At this time, Finck arrived, ordered a series of photos of the head wound on the skull and then RE-xrayed the neck and chest area in order to help find the missing bullet. They were stumped. The FBI then told them about the stretcher bullet and there you go... You keep saying that the x-rays were taken mid-autopsy and the back wound was inspected mid-autopsy as if this proves some great conspiracy. X-rays and photos were also taken at the beginning. So...

*******************

Hi Michael:

You may be interested in the following for your own information.....


A thread where Doug posted his latest work....

Cover-Up of the Medical Evidence

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ug+Horne+report

And the...


HSCA Report, Volume V! ..Recovered Bullet During JFK Autopsy......on the Sibert and O'Neil Report

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=308


B..

And now we have Ashton Gray, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who in his second career became the worlds foremost authority on the tracheotonomy procedure, now attempting, no doubt with trusty tape measure in hand, to explain to us the square footage of Trauma Room 1. That infamous "LITTLE CLOSET" in which the Parkland Trauma and "Murder" Specialists" did their "dastardly deed". The diminutive size of Trauma Room One and the number of staff and personnel present, can best be compared to the contents of a sardine can. It was in this madhouse "little closet" that the "Parkland Trauma and Murder Team" were able to puncture the President's throat unnoticed. A miniature scalpel was used since the confines of the space did not allow for the use of full sized medical implements.

What most surprises me however, is how the Warren Comission failed to include as an advisor, Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Ashton Gray, "M.D." !

They truly deprived themselves a source of deep insight and understanding of all "worldly matters" and possibly an understanding of the world beyond!

I suppose the Comission later realized that they had realy "blown it" ! Perhaps it is only hindsight that allows us to realize how well that he would have fit in with their type of investigation.

Charlie Black

And now we have Ashton Gray, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who in his second career became the worlds foremost authority on the tracheotonomy procedure, now attempting, no doubt with trusty tape measure in hand, to explain to us the square footage of Trauma Room 1. That infamous "LITTLE CLOSET" in which the Parkland Trauma and "Murder" Specialists" did their "dastardly deed". The diminutive size of Trauma Room One and the number of staff and personnel present, can best be compared to the contents of a sardine can. It was in this madhouse "little closet" that the "Parkland Trauma and Murder Team" were able to puncture the President's throat unnoticed. A miniature scalpel was used since the confines of the space did not allow for the use of full sized medical implements.

What most surprises me however, is how the Warren Comission failed to include as an advisor, Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Ashton Gray, "M.D." !

They truly deprived themselves a source of deep insight and understanding of all "worldly matters" and possibly an understanding of the world beyond!

I suppose the Comission later realized that they had realy "blown it" ! Perhaps it is only hindsight that allows us to realize how well that he would have fit in with their type of investigation.

Charlie Black

CE 399 was not a bullet fired on 11/22/1963.

It was shot with a Mannlicher Carcano into soft material like water or cotton wadding before 11/22/1963

These bullets were meant to reload in higher caliber cartridges to be fired from higher powered rifles.

Some of these bullets were used that day, but not this one.

When found they would trace back to a Mannlicher Carcano.

John Masen knows all about this. Someone, maybe Jack Ruby placed one of those surplus bullets on the stretcher of Kennedy (not Connally), which is logical, because at that time no one had herad of the "single bullet" that ended up in Connally.

Wim

Logical????????????????

Define the logic as to exactly why pieces of the bullet which struck JFK in the head with such force that it tore the bullet into multiple fragments, was also ballistically matched EXACTLY to the rifle found in the sixth floor window, which was ballistically matched to have been fired from the same weapon that fired CE399.


It was shot with a Mannlicher Carcano into soft material like water or cotton wadding before 11/22/1963


http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/index.html


Personally, I would go fire a WCC 6.5mm Carcano round into cotton wadding and a drum of water and then compare it with CE399 before I went out on this limb.
But then again, I would assume that you still believe that CE399 is "Pristine"

Also, in event that you think that cotton will create the circular scratches into the copper of the bullet nose, then perhaps you should corner the market on this grade of cotton and utilize it in bullet proof vests.


These bullets were meant to reload in higher caliber cartridges to be fired from higher powered rifles.


What you are referring to is called a "Framing Round", and since you obviously know so little of this, to include it's name,it is not too likely that you know anything about it as well.

Plus the fact that it is quite doubtful that anyone needed several million "framing rounds".


John Masen knows all about this. [b]Someone, maybe Jack Ruby placed one of those surplus bullets on the stretcher of Kennedy (not Connally), which is logical, because at that time no one had herad of the "single bullet" that ended up in Connally. [/b]



Probably "Someone" from one of those space alien aircrafts no doubt.


Lastly, had you done your homework, had any such event as planted bullets been a part of the overall "giant" plan, then most probably it would have been planted by the Otis Elevator Repair Man.


Lastly, the nice thing about factual research is that it will withstand the test and scrutiny of any number of qualified persons who review it.


One can sit back in their chair and expouse completely hypothetical thoughts all day long.
And, there has most certainly been more than sufficient of this.

I do believe those who have chased the "planted bullet" theme have been doing so for a considerable number of years.
With I might add, ZERO results.

So, anyone who believes this "planted" bullet theory, with the "Pristine" condition of CE399, has taken little time in evaluation of the facts which surround this bullelt.

Evaluation of the bullet will tell you how it came to exist. ALL other opinions are merely that!

Likely that you will accept or believe this????-----------About like the snowball in hades.

However, I do recognize that a few persons on this forum (or at least a few who read it), have the capabilities for separate and independent thought as well as the means for conducting scientific and empirical research.

So, this is merely to continue to point to the CORRECT pathway for them in order that the evidence in the JFK assassination can be better understood by these persons.

While the resident spin doctor spins like a dreydl dipped in sewage, spattering malicious filthy fictions on everything in its path, while the howler monkeys swing and chatter and fling their dung, adding nothing relevant or factual to the discussion, here are some incontrovertible facts that are going to be methodically, mercilessly, and inarguably documented in this thread:

1. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was not at any relevant time on any bus—as you have been maliciously misled to believe, right here in this thread—but was in what was called "the VIP car" in the motorcade.
2. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was at Parkland Hospital, by his own admission, within as little as three minutes of the arrival of JFK at Parkland hospital.
3. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was indeed in the small Trauma Room 1 on Dr. Carrico's arrival in the room, just as Dr. Carrico has testified, and Jacqueline Kennedy was seated outside Trauma Room 1 on a folding metal chair during those early crucial minutes.
4. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY personally supplied John F. Kennedy's blood type, which happened very early on, before Nurse Henchliffe left Trauma Room 1 to go get the necessary blood, which she says was within about two minutes of JFK's actual arrival inside Trauma Room 1.
5. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY then was in Trauma Room 1 with Nurse Diana Bowron, who is documented as having lied about the throat wound.
6. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1 with Nurse Diana Bowron when Kennedy's clothing was partially removed, including his tie and the opening of his shirt.
7. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1 and personally "checked the President's physical condition," "viewed the President" at the "head of the table," and "saw President Kennedy's wounds at Parkland Hospital."
8. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1 when the cutdowns were done to start administering fluids to JFK. Jaqueline Kennedy was still outside Trauma Room 1 on a folding metal chair. Some hospital personnel felt she even was being neglected and arranged for some water for her, and asked if she would like to remove her bloodstained gloves, which she would not do.
9. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY was in Trauma Room 1, within arms' reach, when Malcom Perry came in and had the conversation with Dr. Carrico about the throat wound, then started the tracheotomy.
10. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY not only was already in Trauma Room 1 when steroids were administered to John F. Kennedy, but in fact ordered the administration of the steroids himself, and in fact supplied the steroids to be used: SolU Cortef (spelled in evidence as Sol U Cortef). The assertion that Carrico administered steroids on his own is yet another willful and malicious falsehood designed to deceive. The source in testimony of that falsehood is Malcolm Perry himself—entered into the record under the guiding questioning of John J. McCloy himself—and the motive for the lie was to cover up the presence and activities of George Gregory Burkley inside Trauma Room 1. That's the same motive behind someone in this very thread propagating that exact McCoy-Perry supplied lie for no other purpose but maliciously to confuse and deceive you.
11. ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY personally went into the corridor and brought Jacqueline Kennedy into Trauma Room 1 only after the tracheotomy incision had been made—when he was damned good and ready for her to be there.

These facts are proven beyond any reasonable doubt as will be documented in this thread point-by-point, despite any and all efforts by the disinformation mechanics trying to keep the fictions alive and keep you confused.

These are the facts.

I pointed out some time ago that one of the most glaring omissions in all the so-called "investigations" of the Kennedy murder was the omission of a careful timeline of the events at Parkland Hospital. One of the Timeline Elves, I'm happy to report, has concentrated on constructing just such a timeline of those few hours, particularly the first crucial half hour, from every scrap of testimony and written reports and documentation that could be scraped up from anywhere.

As a result, the lies are being stripped off like bargain-basement shingles in a category five hurricane. What suddenly was found to be standing there starkly included the above incontrovertible facts about a man whose presence and activities inside Trauma Room 1 have been lied about, covered up, smoke-screened, hidden, obfuscated, and grossly omitted (where facts and testimony about his presence should have been) in extraordinary ways.

But from careful, meticulous timelining of miniscule facts scattered all over the case, it is proven now beyond even the slightest doubt that George Gregory Burkley was present inside Trauma Room 1 at all relevant times, and knew, at all relevant times, about the throat wound. It would have been utterly impossible for him not to have known about the throat wound. So George Gregory Burkley actively suppressed that knowledge throughout the Bethesda autopsy that night—which autopsy he supervised, according to his own sworn affidavit.

Other curious facts have emerged from the timeline:

• ADMIRAL GEORGE GREGORY BURKLEY became John F. Kennedy's personal physician in July 1963.
• DIANA BOWRON arrived from England at Parkland hospital on 4 August 1963—less than a month after Burkley had been announced as Kennedy's personal physician.
• MALCOLM PERRY arrived back at Parkland Hospital, after a year away in San Francisco, on or around 1 September 1963—about a month after Bowron's arrival at Parkland.

There are no "theories" in this message. None. There are only incontrovertible, documented facts. Any "theories" you are viewing are inside your skull, and are yours—not mine.

Ashton Gray

Ashton

I am not going to waste much time with your ridiculous posts....I will be spared your "merciless" proof.

I am going to refer back to your "Parkland Trauma Room Staff and Murder Team" !

You stated that "Burkely was present in Trauma Room 1 at all relevant times" and "....had the conversation with Dr. Carrico about the throat wound" prior to the trach. incision.

Was Burkely standing there with closed eyes when the murderous throat puncture wound was inflicted ?

As you noted, the Trauma Room was crowded. Am I then to assume, that all present within that room, simultaneously closed their eyes, in order for the throat puncturing assassin to do his dirty deed ?

You also stated that Admiral Burkely "actively supressed that knowledge" of the throat wound from the Bethesda Autopsists in order to aid the conspiracy.

Has it ever occurred to you that DR. Admiral Burkely, may have thought that the autopsists at the Naval Medical Training Facility at Bethesda, were perhaps competent enough professionals, to see for themselves, that the the trach incision had been made thru an already existing bullet entrance wound, that had been pronounced as such by the "expert testimony" of the Parkland medical staff ?

Get your "facts" straight before you engage in, above your capacity debate, with knowledgeable forum members. For your future info., Burkely was not in the autopsy room during the entire procedure.

Ashton....I feel that you are nothing more than a waste of forum time !

The only reason that I bother to respond is that newcomers might otherwise think that you know what you are talking about ! ! !

Charlie Black

Some interesting bits from Burkley's testimony:


"We might mention something about the assassination here which will clear the record I think, to a great degree. When we were in Forth Worth, Mrs. Lincoln and I were in the second car in the motorcade. When we arrived in Dallas the President got off one end of the plane. Mrs. Lincoln and I got off the other end of the plane, and when we got to the bottom of the stairs, the motorcade was already in motion and I complained to the Secret Service that I should be either in the followup car or the lead car."

Question: "Who did you speak to at that time?"

"Members of the Secret Service. And they said it couldn't be arranged, that the politicians had gotten in that group of cars, that everyone wanted to be in those cars, and also the motorcade was in action. We, therefore, were put in a so-called VIP vehicle. When the assassination occurred, I got to the scene by securing a car through one of the Secret Service, Andy Berger, and an escort of a policeman. I was there probably within three to five minutes of the time the President arrived. I went immediately to see the President, and went to the table on which he was being treated, and immediately saw for all intents and purposes life did not exist, or could not be sustained.

I talked to the doctors who were busily engaged in doing what was indicated and would have been indicated had there been any hope of salvation of the President. I gave them some hydrocortisone, to put in the intravenous which was being given, and also told them his blood type. There was no need for anything in my estimation, but they were correct in doing all possible procedures. I then contacted Mrs. Kennedy, who was sitting outside, and that is of record, and from then on it was my interest."

"I supervised the autopsy and kept in constant contact with Mrs. Kennedy and the members of her party who were on the seventeenth floor in the suite at that level. I made trips back and forth. I delivered to her personally the ring from the President's finger, and talked to her on a number of occasions."

"It took practically the entire night, and the embalming was done very carefully, and the reconstruction of the area which had been involved in the gunshot wound in the head had to be cared for in a very professional manner."

Question: "Do your conclusions differ at all with the Warren report of the circumstances or cause of death?"

"My conclusion in regard to the cause of death was the bullet wound which involved the skull. The discussion as to whether a previous bullet also enters into it, but as far as the cause of death the immediate cause was unquestionably the bullet which shattered the brain and the calvarium."

Question: "Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President's body?"

"I would not care to be quoted on that."

"Most of the time, however, I was within one or two cars of the President. This was one fo the few times that this did not occur."

[size="4"][/size]

delete

Thanks, Mark, for posting this. It appears Burkley's statements to the JFK Library--this wasn't actual testimony that you posted--are the source of parts of Mr. Gray's theory. I think Burkley exaggerates his role somewhat. When shown these statements by the ARRB Humes was outraged, as I recall. In Humes' mind, he was running the show, after agreeing with Burkley on how to treat the adrenal question.

That said, Burkley's words deflate Ashton's "Burkley and Perry did it" scenario. Burkley's strange statement about there possibly having been two headshots--I quote him in my presentation--and his later unexplored offering to the HSCA that he had reason to suspect a conspiracy--make his role in the actual killing extremely doubtful.

As far as his being in a "VIP" car, I could have sworn it was the staff bus towards the end of the motorcade. My bad. He was most definitely not in any of the early VIP cars and was most definitely not in Dealey Plaza at the moment of the first shot. The only thing we have as far as his being there within three minutes is his say-so. Well, this is an obvious guess on his part. He had no idea how long the limo sat outside while people tried to co-erce Mrs. Kennedy to let them take a look at her husband. This supposedly took some time. While he says he provided the doctors with hydrocortisone, it is my recollection that it had already been administered. I believe Carrico discusses this in his testimony, as well as Perry. It is the testimony of several, as I remember, that Kellerman provided the Parkland doctors with Kennedy's blood type upon arrival. Just because Burkley provided the Parkland doctors with hydrocortisone and information does not mean they hadn't already applied hydrocortisone and learned his blood-type. To my understanding, he arrived late-on-the-scene, barked out some orders, saw people responding to what he said, and mistakenly assumed that he was the first one to say these things.

If I remember where I read that he was initially taken to the Trade Mart, or why I thought such a thing, I'll post that information.

In the meantime, it appears Ashton is on another one of his "There were no Diem cables" type distractions. I share Charlie's concern about his motivations. It seems to me that "Mr. Gray" delights in finding pieces of accepted information that are extremely damaging to certain parties, e.g. that everyone around Nixon believed that Hunt had created the cables to implicate the Kennedy Administration in a murder or that everyone at Parkland knew Kennedy had suffered a throat wound but that the Bethesda doctors and everyone around them were so half-assed they failed to figure this out, and twist them into some completely bizarre conspiracy that makes almost everyone out to be a liar, and everyone who disagrees with him a CIA apologist or disinformationist. I fail to understand what his role is here. At first I thought he was defending Nixon. Then I thought he was pushing Scientology and Remote Viewing. Now I tend to believe he's just a troll, more concerned with rattling cages than getting anywhere near a truth, and more concerned with impressing people with his high-voltage verbiage than making a clear argument to support his "theories". To me, his little tag-line about Watergate, in which he deliberately misrepresents my views as a way of goading me for disagreeing with his almighty greatness, is indicative of his utter contempt for anyone who takes this forum seriously and uses this forum for anything but verbal jousting. In my opinion, whether he means to or not, his behavior is likely to drive anyone away who has any inside knowledge on anything, as, with one look at the forum, they'd see the inevitability of his illogical attacks. And this upsets me greatly, as I've been here a long time and am well aware of John's attempts to use this forum for revelatory discussion among noted experts and participants in events of historical importance. But that's just me, the "disinformationist."

Sometimes the volleys on the Forum can sting but in the end, I think everything moves toward the same goal. I occasionally joust with people whose motives I suspect, or whose theories I find faulty, but I believe in the fresh-air approach - let it all be stated in broad daylight, and the correct answer will emerge. Probably best not to descend into fisticuffs....but I don't always follow my own advice.

I just wanted to take this time and thank Bernice & everyone else for sharing.

Yes, that is what I said. And that is what I am going to back up very thoroughly with documentation. Sorry you're going to miss it. Not sorry enough to lose sleep, though.

<BZZZZZZZZT!> No, that is not what I said at all. But thanks for playing.



Of course I couldn't answer any such smarmy rhetorical question with any certainty, since I wasn't there. But I'm happy to give you my opinion: no, I don't think he closed his eyes. The wound, after all, was precisely placed where a tracheotomy incision soon would be made.

When?



Yes, that's what I said. I said that's what he did because that's exactly what he did.



For all its many virtues and poetic prowess, the woeful inadequacies of the English language are refreshed to my attention at times like these when I search for a way to express how little I care.

But tomorrow's another day, and the sun soon will be over the yardarm again—somewhere. So: cheers, pal.

Ashton Gray

In reference to the nasty, ungentlemanly and obviously ridiculous posts of Ashton.

I have seen and heard many persons say that they were misquoted. Some were correct.

However it shows great direspect to the intelligence of all forum members, to suggest that we cannot read the words that Ashton wrote.

I wonder how he has so far escaped those gentlemen in "white coats".

In the words of a million now dead Native Americans, "This White Man speaks with "FORKED FINGERS" !

In my not so humble but honest opinion; debating Ashton is as intelligent as debating an inmate in an asylum. I am embarrased that I allowed myself to be "baited" into doing so. The proper word should be de-BAIT rather than debate.

Charlie Black

QUOTE (Charles Black @ Jan 27 2007, 01:40 PM)

In reference to the nasty, ungentlemanly and obviously ridiculous posts of Ashton.

I have seen and heard many persons say that they were misquoted. Some were correct.

However it shows great direspect to the intelligence of all forum members, to suggest that we cannot read the words that Ashton wrote.

I wonder how he has so far escaped those gentlemen in "white coats".

In the words of a million now dead Native Americans, "This White Man speaks with "FORKED FINGERS" !

In my not so humble but honest opinion; debating Ashton is as intelligent as debating an inmate in an asylum. I am embarrased that I allowed myself to be "baited" into doing so. The proper word should be de-BAIT rather than debate.

Charlie Black

Charlie,

For the last several days your posts in this thread are all to attack the forum member you claim is baiting you.
So you disagree with Ashton Gray. You have made this more than abundantly clear. I fail to see how he is baiting you. This name calling is really demeaning. You have questioned his intelligenece, his sanity, and his motives. Yet you claim that he is baiting YOU. The way I see it you are baiting yourself. Please disagree where you feel you have a valid issue then move on. Talk of "white coats" has no place in this discussion. These personal attacks are really degrading to all forum members and readers alike. Thank you.

Dawn

Hello Dawn & general membership

I wish to apologize if I have stated something about Mr. Gray that might be demeaning to the forum, although I shall not apologize to Mr. Gray.

However, regarding what Dawn posted in her immediately prior entry, I feel that it is quite uncalled for. Ashton Gray is not innocent in this matter regardless of how much that you may personally respect him.

I would like to refer you to Ashton's post # 38 which I feel is as despicable a post as I have ever read on this or any forum.

I quote Ashton Gray from his post #38

"While the resident spin doctor spins like a dreydl DIPPED IN SEWAGE, spattering malicious filthy fictions in its path, while the howler monkeys chatter and FLING THEIR DUNG...."

Do you still feel that my questioning of his sanity and forum conduct to "not be in order".

Yes Dawn ! I consider his post "QUITE BAITING".

I feel that I have every right to have said "much more", and "in a much more degrading manner". I am sorry but I do not accept your appraisal and condemnation of me, and I am quite offended by it.

I don't feel that I am a bully who makes a practice of attacking helpless "innocents".

I personally do continue to feel that he posts questions meant to deceive and are based on "very small amounts of fact". I think his intent is purposeful and nefarious....and are in general designed to MISLEAD newcomers to this research.

I feel that I have every right in the world to state this belief, as I have seen this type of action undertaken on several forums, which has had the result of stimulating "personal argument" and dissension as he has obviously just done.

I feel that I was attacked in a manner that any human being, having even an ounce of self respect, would have responded to. You may refer to it in any manner that you wish.....I call it BAITING and very cowardly.

I stand firmly behind EVERY WORD which I have directed toward Ashton Gray.

I feel that is I to whom an apology is owed !

Charlie Black

Hey Charlie,
Seeing as how I was one of your targets a few weeks ago, and since you adressed your post to all of us, I thought it would be germaine to post your greatest hits from the month of January alone.


You no doubt are illiterate, a fool, or an exhibitionist that doesn't mind showing your ass to the entire world

With what type of person do you usually correspond that would find your "non-reponse" of any significance ?

This as unscientific a post as I have ever read.

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"

This thread has followed the ridiculous circular path as has the JFK assassination in general.

Didn't intend to be offensive. However there might be a reason that my lovely bride is always reminding me that "TACT is not something nailed into a wall"

Cliff, I would venture a guess that you are not a very efficient "duck hunter" !

I (me personally), feel that you are a "hack" journalist who craves attention to such an extreme,

It is YOUR posts that I frequently refer to as "tabloid quality" and very disingenuous.

I feel that there are those forum participants who are so "combative", that they would rather participate in an attack and feeding frenzy, than to pursue what I long conceived to be the purpose of this forum.

The real impression should be that I don't really care what you might think of "that particular theory".....but it is quite disappointing to me that you almost never introduce anything new.

These discussions are no doubt so far above my personal intellectual level, that I probably do not really qualify as a member of this forum.

Perhaps I am crazier than I accuse some others of being !

Mr Gray has been doing some very questionable things in my opinion.

I was originally going to offer apologies to the shoes that I would no doubt step on........I have decided otherwise.

This in my not so humble opinion, is as obvious a "Grasp at Straws" as I have EVER seen. It is not a grasp, but a giant leap into space ! I find it unbelievable that members of this particular forum, are so easily swayed.

I offer no apologies when I absolutely state that I feel this thread has gone Looney Tunes.....and there are no doubt a number of members whom it well satisfies !

Have you completely lost it...or have I ?

Ashton..I am beginning to seriously worry about you as you are getting not only "curiouser and curiouser".....but maybe "paranoider and paranoider".

Yet those who most avidly argue my position, bring forth mental giants such as Zavada and Groden

"You should seriously seek help"!......as you certainly seem certifiable.

Hey Mark,

Show Charlie how it's really done:




And just in case the inattentive reader thought the above was a one-off, here's our real pro a few exchanges later in the same thread:



What an impressive rhetorical amalgam: pomposity, puerility, and predictability.

Face it, Charlie, you're a mere amateur when it comes to childish insults.