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

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

Thanks for doing that, Ashton. It will certainly come in handy. I will probably do my mock-up and measurements again now that the cropped area is restored and there is now a measuring reference.

You are right... earlier I couldn't find the photo I was thinking of (this one sans what you've added) and I asked if anybody knew where I could find it. But then I found the photo and so I deleted my request.

I browsed 40 pages on this thread and couldn't find two photos of the tie I've recently seen. I guess they're on another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Richard Lipsey} does not seem to have ever put a lot of deep thought into the assassination and what he learned at the autopsy. This is why I find him so believable.

Out of 16 back wound witnesses only one(1) put the back wound at the base of the neck.

Richard Lipsey.

Please provide proof this prevaricating s.o.s. was even at the autopsy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only photo I have been able to find of the nick in the tie, with the tie laid out flat, has the NARA measuring scale cropped out of it. (You can decide for yourself why anyone would crop that away.)

As I promised earlier, below is an animation showing how I devised a way to determine that the tie is very close to 1 3/8 inches wide at the nick.

  1. I loaded into Photoshop the existing nick-in-tie photo, which has the NARA logo and color swatches, but no measuring scale next to them.
  2. I loaded into Photoshop the photo of JFK's shirt, which has an identical NARA tag in the photo, including the logo and color swatches, but ALSO including a 1-inch measuring scale.
  3. I meticulously resized the shirt photo so that the NARA logo and color swatches exactly matched and aligned with the logo and color swatches in the tie photo, as closely as I possibly could get them.
  4. I copied and made a new layer of the measuring scale, rotated it 90 degrees, then made another copy of it to extend it longer than 1 inch.
  5. I placed this new measuring scale directly over the tie just above the location of the nick, and added a red line to show where the right-hand edge of the tie intersects the scale.

Assuming that this provides an accurate way of determining the width, this shows that the tie is 1 3/8 inches at the location of the nick:

jfk-tie-nick-with-shirt-scale.gif

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Lipsey: "I definitely remember the doctors commenting they were convinced that the shots came from the same direction and from the same type of weapon -- and it was three shots."

That's a flat out prevarication.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCAt:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

Lipsey is a serial prevaricator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only photo I have been able to find of the nick in the tie, with the tie laid out flat, has the NARA measuring scale cropped out of it. (You can decide for yourself why anyone would crop that away.)"

Ashton

Would you please post that photo for us, and indicate to us where on the tie the nick is?

Also, is this where you see the nick to be, or is there evidence cited by the FBI or the WC stating this is where the nick is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Lipsey: "I definitely remember the doctors commenting they were convinced that the shots came from the same direction and from the same type of weapon -- and it was three shots."

That's a flat out prevarication.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCAt:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

Lipsey is a serial prevaricator.

So, the FBI enquired about a bullet that would dissolve or completely "fragmentize". While they were on the phone, did they mention the fact this high speed rifle bullet magically penetrated JFK's back less than an inch, and did all of its dissolving or "fragmentizing" within an inch of the surface?

Isn't it funny neither Sibert or O'Neill say a single word about how deep the back wound bullet penetrated?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't anyone recognize a coverup in progress when they see one, and that the FBI were just helping things along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Lipsey: "I definitely remember the doctors commenting they were convinced that the shots came from the same direction and from the same type of weapon -- and it was three shots."

That's a flat out prevarication.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCAt:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

Lipsey is a serial prevaricator.

So, the FBI enquired about a bullet that would dissolve or completely "fragmentize". While they were on the phone, did they mention the fact this high speed rifle bullet magically penetrated JFK's back less than an inch, and did all of its dissolving or "fragmentizing" within an inch of the surface?

"High speed rifle bullet"?

The blood soluble dart weapons were a different animal.

Isn't it funny neither Sibert or O'Neill say a single word about how deep the back wound bullet penetrated?

Excuse me?

From their Report.

<quote on>

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.

<quote off>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't anyone recognize a coverup in progress when they see one, and that the FBI were just helping things along?

The medical witness cover-up didn't begin until Sibert's call to the FBI Lab introduced everyone to the Magic Bullet.

Everything the doctors said before that moment was gold -- everything they said after was garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Lipsey: "I definitely remember the doctors commenting they were convinced that the shots came from the same direction and from the same type of weapon -- and it was three shots."

That's a flat out prevarication.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCAt:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

Lipsey is a serial prevaricator.

So, the FBI enquired about a bullet that would dissolve or completely "fragmentize". While they were on the phone, did they mention the fact this high speed rifle bullet magically penetrated JFK's back less than an inch, and did all of its dissolving or "fragmentizing" within an inch of the surface?

"High speed rifle bullet"?

The blood soluble dart weapons were a different animal.

Isn't it funny neither Sibert or O'Neill say a single word about how deep the back wound bullet penetrated?

Excuse me?

From their Report.

<quote on>

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.

<quote off>

Why don't you take your blood soluble darts and stick them where the sun don't shine?

Do you really think anyone in their right mind (except for you) is going to bring a dart gun to an assassination, and shoot darts in JFK's neck and back, and wait patiently for paralysis to set in before shooting a real rifle at him?

Here is a REALLY good question for you, Einstein.

What if the darts paralyzed him and he fell over on his side? Wouldn't he have made a better target when he was sitting up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Lipsey: "I definitely remember the doctors commenting they were convinced that the shots came from the same direction and from the same type of weapon -- and it was three shots."

That's a flat out prevarication.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCAt:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

Lipsey is a serial prevaricator.

So, the FBI enquired about a bullet that would dissolve or completely "fragmentize". While they were on the phone, did they mention the fact this high speed rifle bullet magically penetrated JFK's back less than an inch, and did all of its dissolving or "fragmentizing" within an inch of the surface?

"High speed rifle bullet"?

The blood soluble dart weapons were a different animal.

Isn't it funny neither Sibert or O'Neill say a single word about how deep the back wound bullet penetrated?

Excuse me?

From their Report.

<quote on>

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.

<quote off>

Why don't you take your blood soluble darts and stick them where the sun don't shine?

Not mine. That scenario belongs to the three doctors and the two FBI men.

You can't tell the difference between evidence and the ether of your own imaginings.

Do you really think anyone in their right mind (except for you) is going to bring a dart gun to an assassination, and shoot darts in JFK's neck and back, and wait patiently for paralysis to set in before shooting a real rifle at him?

Only if they didn't want him to duck down in case the first volley missed.

Here is a REALLY good question for you, Einstein.

What if the darts paralyzed him and he fell over on his side? Wouldn't he have made a better target when he was sitting up?

"Paralyzed" and "fell over on his side" are mutually exclusive events.

What if a first volley missed and he ducked down out of range?

First-shot/kill-shot was not 100% guaranteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, I wish this forum had an Ignore button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Lipsey: "I definitely remember the doctors commenting they were convinced that the shots came from the same direction and from the same type of weapon -- and it was three shots."

That's a flat out prevarication.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCAt:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

Lipsey is a serial prevaricator.

So, the FBI enquired about a bullet that would dissolve or completely "fragmentize". While they were on the phone, did they mention the fact this high speed rifle bullet magically penetrated JFK's back less than an inch, and did all of its dissolving or "fragmentizing" within an inch of the surface?

"High speed rifle bullet"?

The blood soluble dart weapons were a different animal.

Isn't it funny neither Sibert or O'Neill say a single word about how deep the back wound bullet penetrated?

Excuse me?

From their Report.

<quote on>

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.

<quote off>

Why don't you take your blood soluble darts and stick them where the sun don't shine?

Not mine. That scenario belongs to the three doctors and the two FBI men.

You can't tell the difference between evidence and the ether of your own imaginings.

Do you really think anyone in their right mind (except for you) is going to bring a dart gun to an assassination, and shoot darts in JFK's neck and back, and wait patiently for paralysis to set in before shooting a real rifle at him?

Only if they didn't want him to duck down in case the first volley missed.

Here is a REALLY good question for you, Einstein.

What if the darts paralyzed him and he fell over on his side? Wouldn't he have made a better target when he was sitting up?

"Paralyzed" and "fell over on his side" are mutually exclusive events.

What if a first volley missed and he ducked down out of range?

First-shot/kill-shot was not 100% guaranteed.

What if the darts missed and he ducked down? Are you actually going to try to tell me a dart fired from an umbrella is more accurate than a high powered rifle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RP: What if the darts missed and he ducked down?

How would he know a dart missed him?

RP:Are you actually going to try to tell me a dart fired from an umbrella is more accurate than a high powered rifle?

Umbrella? Who said anything about an umbrella? Not me! Free Louie Witt!

One of these perhaps:

22shanexlarge1cia_zps07fec4d6.jpg

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, I wish this forum had an Ignore button.

It does.

I advise you to use it.

Better than having your Pet Theories gored...

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

×