Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Ashton Gray

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

Recommended Posts

JFK+TIE+BULHOLE.jpg

If this was the tail of the tie, which all of the evidence clearly points to it being, it would have been the piece that passed through the knot, and would not have been part of the "wrapping" of the knot.

Well hold on there cowboy. I can't think of any evidence pointing to that being part of the tail. What evidence is there?

I know you've wondered if this was part of the tail, but I don't remember any evidence.

024f974c6d4c428bbe038cfd3afc23b1.jpg

The tie is 3 icons wide where it goes around the neck. Maybe 3 1/2 where it comes out the bottom of the tie. Not five.

Actually, if you zoom in you can see the part that got scrunched up by the knot. It's on the short piece of the tie, the top one in the photo. It's not much more than 3 icons across.

Therefore the section with the nick did not come from the tail of the tie. Unless Robert can prove otherwise.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff, we know that the near-EOP wound is real because:

  • Humes reported it.
  • It wasn't necessary for the Lone Nut scenario, and in fact detrimental. So there was no incentive for Humes to make it up. (The HSCA later moved it up to the cowlick area, against Humes's wishes.)
  • Lt. Lipsey corroborated its existence, or rather that the autopsists talked about it.

BTW, according to Lipsey, the exit for that near-EOP wound was the throat wound. He said the autopsists were sure about that.

There is no doubt that Lipsey observed the autopsy. He had orders to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interview with Paul O'Connor with William Law "In the Eye of History,"

2005. From Doug Horne's AARB report Volume IV, page 1018.

<quote on, emphasis added>

Law asked O'Connor specifically which high-ranking personages were present at the autopsy.

O'Connor: I remember there was Admiral Burkley, the President's personal physician. He came in and was very agitated --giving

orders to everybody, including higher ranking officers.

Law: What kind of orders?

O: Be prepared to do what I tell you to do, when I tell you to do it.

L: So he, in effect, assumed command?

O: He was entirely in command over admirals, over generals. I remember one general who was sitting in the gallery. It was a teaching morgue and

we had a big gallery. I remember Curtis LeMay sitting there with a big cigar in his hand.

L: How did you know it was Curtis LeMay?

O: I knew Curtis LeMay by seeing him before and by the big cigar he smoked all the time.

L: What was his manner when you saw him?

O: Nonchalant. Kind of , "well, let's get this show on the road."

<quote off>

Wow!

Hey, who was it the other day saying that Burkley played a role in the assassination. Ashton, right? At Parkland?

Maybe he's got something there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

024f974c6d4c428bbe038cfd3afc23b1.jpg

Has this tie been completely laid flat and ironed out, or is this a photo of it as it was removed from JFK's neck?

Is that the nick, about 3 inches up from where the tie was severed? Does the tie only appear to be 3-3.5 icons wide at this point, simply because the tail was not flattened out? Can you see the nick anywhere else in this photo, or any other photo of the tie where the tie has been opened up and laid flat, outside of this closeup photo?

JFK+TIE+BULHOLE.jpg

Isn't it a bit odd that the tie was never laid out flat, and the specific spot on the tie with the nick pointed out?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFK+TIE+BULHOLE.jpg

If this was the tail of the tie, which all of the evidence clearly points to it being, it would have been the piece that passed through the knot, and would not have been part of the "wrapping" of the knot.

Well hold on there cowboy. I can't think of any evidence pointing to that being part of the tail. What evidence is there?

None, and it is utterly impossible that it was the "tail of the tie"—the narrow part of the tie coming out at the bottom of the knot and hanging down behind the presentation part of the tie. The briefest glance at the image above proves that conclusively. The direction of the nick is 90 degrees in the wrong direction for any such interpretation.

Euclid and Sir Isaac Newton agree wholeheartedly that the nick had to be in some part of the knot. It is extremely unlikely that it was in the "back" of the knot, because on both sides of the back of a four-in-hand knot, the fabric is at a significantly greater angle than the front wrap-around presentation side of the knot.

All the twisting and turning and stretching going on is being done by people whose religious faith in a front throat shot will not allow them to simply look at the simple facts and admit the most simple truth: There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat.

Ashton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

024f974c6d4c428bbe038cfd3afc23b1.jpg

I have a tie pretty much like this. Not real wide, not real skinny. Just a traditional, classy tie, 100% silk. It is a Bullock & Jones made in 1983 or so. The only significant difference is that the tail on mine doesn't go wide like this one does.

I tied it as best I could for someone JFK's size. (I have a thicker neck, 6 ft 2 in tall.)

I marked on it where the tie exits the bottom of the knot. Also where the nick is, according to Ashton's GIF. And where the nick "really was", according to my theory (on the back of the knot).

Then I untied the knot and placed it as shown in the photo. It's subjective to some extent because the fold isn't shown in the photo. But comparing the photo to what I have here, it seems that there isn't much cropped off where the tie is folded over.

I will record here where my three marks are: (NOTE: I conclude below that these aren't the best measurements. See the better ones below.)

Tie Exits from Knot Bottom: Middle row in photo, 1 inch to left of cut.

Nick on Knot Front: Bottom row, about where the photo is cropped.

Nick on Knot Back: Middle row, about where the photo is cropped.

The way I have my tie laid out, the nurses would have had to pull the tail out (i.e. loosen the tie) by at least 3 inches before they could cut the tail where shown in the photo.

With Cinch Marks Aligned

A fundamental difference between my tie -- the way I have it laid out -- and JFK's tie -- the way it is laid out -- is that the middle of the cinch mark on mine is on Row 2, about 2 1/2 inches left of the cut, whereas the middle of the cinch mark on JFK's is on Row 1, about 1 inch right of the cut,

I am going to adjust the way my tie is laid out so that the location of the cinch mark matches the location of the cinch mark on Kennedy's tie in the photo. (What I believe to be the cinch mark.) I won't move any of my markers.

I will again record where my three marks are:

Tie Exits from Knot Bottom: Top row in photo, 2 inches to right of cut.

Nick on Knot Front: Middle row, about where the photo is cropped.

Nick on Knot Back: Middle row, about 1 1/4 inches right of where the photo is cropped.

The way I have my tie laid out, the nurses would have had to pull the tail out (i.e. loosen the tie) by very little before they could cut the tail where shown in the photo.

Remarks

I remember seeing a photo showing that the nurses cut right close up to the knot. It seems to me that they therefore had not loosened the tie (much) before cutting it. Because had they loosened the tie first, there would be no need to cut so close to the knot. If I am right, then what I believe to be the cinch mark in the photo probably is the cinch mark.

Because of that, I believe my second set of recordings above are better that the first set. On the other hand, my measurements could easily be off by an inch either way.

Conclusions

If the nick is in the knot area, my measurements indicate that they very well could be in the cropped-off area on the right, even though not much is cropped.

If the nick is where the tie exits the bottom of the knot, then that segment of the tie should have close to 3 1/2 icons across it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

024f974c6d4c428bbe038cfd3afc23b1.jpg

Has this tie been completely laid flat and ironed out, or is this a photo of it as it was removed from JFK's neck?

Is that the nick, about 3 inches up from where the tie was severed? Does the tie only appear to be 3-3.5 icons wide at this point, simply because the tail was not flattened out? Can you see the nick anywhere else in this photo, or any other photo of the tie where the tie has been opened up and laid flat, outside of this closeup photo?

JFK+TIE+BULHOLE.jpg

Isn't it a bit odd that the tie was never laid out flat, and the specific spot on the tie with the nick pointed out?

Robert, it looks to me like the tie has not been ironed. It's still a bit scrunched up where I believe the tail was within the knot. Ironing the tie would not add the 1 1/2 extra icons needed for the tail, where it exits from the bottom of the knot, to have the 5-icon rows we see in the nick area.

You ask: "Is that the nick, about 3 inches up from where the tie was severed?"

There is no reason to believe it is, and there are reasons to believe it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFK+TIE+BULHOLE.jpg

If this was the tail of the tie, which all of the evidence clearly points to it being, it would have been the piece that passed through the knot, and would not have been part of the "wrapping" of the knot.

Well hold on there cowboy. I can't think of any evidence pointing to that being part of the tail. What evidence is there?

None, and it is utterly impossible that it was the "tail of the tie"—the narrow part of the tie coming out at the bottom of the knot and hanging down behind the presentation part of the tie. The briefest glance at the image above proves that conclusively. The direction of the nick is 90 degrees in the wrong direction for any such interpretation.

Euclid and Sir Isaac Newton agree wholeheartedly that the nick had to be in some part of the knot. It is extremely unlikely that it was in the "back" of the knot, because on both sides of the back of a four-in-hand knot, the fabric is at a significantly greater angle than the front wrap-around presentation side of the knot.

All the twisting and turning and stretching going on is being done by people whose religious faith in a front throat shot will not allow them to simply look at the simple facts and admit the most simple truth: There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat.

Ashton

Ashton,

Why do you believe the nick in the tie has to have a certain orientation? Lengthwise across the knot (left-right), I take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy, I thought I had seen where you asked if anyone had a full, un-cropped version of the entire tie that is marked as Commission Exhibit 394, FBI Exhibit C31, but now I can't find where you asked. In any event, if there has not been a concerted, focused effort to wipe any such evidence effectively off of the internet, then it's the damnedest disappearing act I've ever encountered, because the ONLY un-cropped image of it I can find has been almost completely destroyed for the purposes of counting icons; almost all the contrast and details have been drained out of it, and the color has been changed. I can't imagine that was accidental, but given that it's the only copy I can find anywhere, I have COMBINED it in Photoshop with the cropped version you have posted, taking great pains to size them so they match up. This at least puts the ruler back into the image. Here is the result and it's the best I can do:

JFK-TIE-COMPLETE-COMBINED-WITH-SCALE-CRO

By the way: It has struck me (no pun is intended) that there is NO MEASURING SCALE in any photo I can find of the tie exhibit showing the nick. I have gone to yet more pains to find a way to incorporate one of the NARA measuring scales into it, but I am not posting that right now for technical and time reasons. Probably later tonight I will post it in a way that shows the process of matching measuring scales up to it, but for now I thought I would mention that according to the results I got, the width of the tie at the nick is 1 3/8 inches.

Ashton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, according to Lipsey, the exit for that near-EOP wound was the throat wound. He said the autopsists were sure about that.


How could the autopsists be sure about a wound they didn't know existed?

And I'm still waiting for a cogent explanation for JFK reflexively drawing his hands in front of his throat -- other than the obvious explanation that he didn't want to get shot in the throat again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFK+TIE+BULHOLE.jpg

If this was the tail of the tie, which all of the evidence clearly points to it being, it would have been the piece that passed through the knot, and would not have been part of the "wrapping" of the knot.

Well hold on there cowboy. I can't think of any evidence pointing to that being part of the tail. What evidence is there?

None, and it is utterly impossible that it was the "tail of the tie"—the narrow part of the tie coming out at the bottom of the knot and hanging down behind the presentation part of the tie. The briefest glance at the image above proves that conclusively. The direction of the nick is 90 degrees in the wrong direction for any such interpretation.

Euclid and Sir Isaac Newton agree wholeheartedly that the nick had to be in some part of the knot. It is extremely unlikely that it was in the "back" of the knot, because on both sides of the back of a four-in-hand knot, the fabric is at a significantly greater angle than the front wrap-around presentation side of the knot.

All the twisting and turning and stretching going on is being done by people whose religious faith in a front throat shot will not allow them to simply look at the simple facts and admit the most simple truth: There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat.

Ashton

Tell me how you know the projectile (bullet, fragment, marble, etc.) was travelling the direction you believe it was. If the photo above shows the tail of the tie, why could it not have been folded over (a vertical fold as we are looking at this photo) into a crease at the site of the nick, as it entered the bottom of the tie knot, and the projectile have passed (from our perspective of the photo) horizontally across the tail, with the full diameter of the projectile equalling the height of the nick in the photo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

024f974c6d4c428bbe038cfd3afc23b1.jpg

Has this tie been completely laid flat and ironed out, or is this a photo of it as it was removed from JFK's neck?

Is that the nick, about 3 inches up from where the tie was severed? Does the tie only appear to be 3-3.5 icons wide at this point, simply because the tail was not flattened out? Can you see the nick anywhere else in this photo, or any other photo of the tie where the tie has been opened up and laid flat, outside of this closeup photo?

JFK+TIE+BULHOLE.jpg

Isn't it a bit odd that the tie was never laid out flat, and the specific spot on the tie with the nick pointed out?

Robert, it looks to me like the tie has not been ironed. It's still a bit scrunched up where I believe the tail was within the knot. Ironing the tie would not add the 1 1/2 extra icons needed for the tail, where it exits from the bottom of the knot, to have the 5-icon rows we see in the nick area.

You ask: "Is that the nick, about 3 inches up from where the tie was severed?"

There is no reason to believe it is, and there are reasons to believe it's not.

Okay, show me a photo, then, of the tie laid out and indicating where the nick is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, according to Lipsey, the exit for that near-EOP wound was the throat wound. He said the autopsists were sure about that.

How could the autopsists be sure about a wound they didn't know existed?

The autopsist DID know the throat wound existed, according to multiple witnesses. I had a thread on that topic a couple months back. They lied and said they didn't know about the wound.

And I'm still waiting for a cogent explanation for JFK reflexively drawing his hands in front of his throat -- other than the obvious explanation that he didn't want to get shot in the throat again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

024f974c6d4c428bbe038cfd3afc23b1.jpg

Has this tie been completely laid flat and ironed out, or is this a photo of it as it was removed from JFK's neck?

Is that the nick, about 3 inches up from where the tie was severed? Does the tie only appear to be 3-3.5 icons wide at this point, simply because the tail was not flattened out? Can you see the nick anywhere else in this photo, or any other photo of the tie where the tie has been opened up and laid flat, outside of this closeup photo?

JFK+TIE+BULHOLE.jpg

Isn't it a bit odd that the tie was never laid out flat, and the specific spot on the tie with the nick pointed out?

Robert, it looks to me like the tie has not been ironed. It's still a bit scrunched up where I believe the tail was within the knot. Ironing the tie would not add the 1 1/2 extra icons needed for the tail, where it exits from the bottom of the knot, to have the 5-icon rows we see in the nick area.

You ask: "Is that the nick, about 3 inches up from where the tie was severed?"

There is no reason to believe it is, and there are reasons to believe it's not.

Okay, show me a photo, then, of the tie laid out and indicating where the nick is.

As I concluded in Post 951, the part of the tie where the nick supposedly was, on the knot, is no longer in the photo. It has been cropped off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, according to Lipsey, the exit for that near-EOP wound was the throat wound. He said the autopsists were sure about that.

How could the autopsists be sure about a wound they didn't know existed?

The autopsist DID know the throat wound existed, according to multiple witnesses. I had a thread on that topic a couple months back. They lied and said they didn't know about the wound.

And they stated this knowledge during the autopsy?

What is your proof of that?

Lipsey is the ONLY person who claimed the back wound as actually at the base of the neck.

The ONLY one.

And I'm still waiting for a cogent explanation for JFK reflexively drawing his hands in front of his throat -- other than the obvious explanation that he didn't want to get shot in the throat again.

Wanna try again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×