Robert Prudhomme

After you read about this bullet, here is a video about it.

Wouldn't it hurt a bit getting hit with one of those?

Just a little bit?

No?

Oh yes.

In order to involve LHO with his 6.5mm Carcano rifle in the Walker shooting, there is one small hurdle that must be overcome.

In the police report of the Walker shooting, investigating officers reported that the bullet recovered from the Walker residence was "steel jacketed". As you may, or may not, know, the Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm Carcano bullets allegedly used by LHO were lead bullets jacketed in a copper alloy that contained no steel, and did not even resemble steel.

To make matters worse, the bullet recovered from the Walker residence, CE 573, is most definitely jacketed in a copper alloy that bears no resemblance at all to a steel jacketed bullet.

...

Robert, I appreciate your posts -- yet I disagree here with your "small hurdle."

IMHO, since LHO was involved in the Walker shooting as part of a Conspiracy -- involving other people, involving automobiles and involving other weapons -- there is no need to insist upon a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm bullet.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Fair enough. So many others have insisted the 6.5mm Carcano was involved, I just thought I would portray the difficulties involved with doing so.

After you read about this bullet, here is a video about it.

From Ashton Gray:

"2. If one reasonably rejects Specter's moronic "magic bullet" theory to account for the wound in the throat, yet stays with the prejudiced presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, one is left staring at the necessity of an even more magic bullet, because all other evidence makes it categorically impossible for any bullet to have caused the hole in JFK's throat."

Just for your perusal, Ashton, I give you one "magic" bullet. Look this page over and let me know what you think. I will then present my theory of what I believe were the cause and nature of two of JFK's three wounds.

https://www.corbon.com/glaser-safety-slug.html

I'm sorry, Cliff, but neither the good doctor nor the nurse specifically state whether they observed the throat wound before or after JFK's shirt and tie were removed.

I do find this excerpt from Nurse Hinchcliffe's testimony rather interesting, though:

"Mr. SPECTER - Did you ever see any wound in any other part of his body?
Miss HENCHLIFFE - When I first saw him---except his head."

I wonder if we are getting her full testimony here? Do the three dashed lines indicate a certain amount of paraphrasing of her response? As it stands, her response does not make a great deal of sense. Is she saying when she first saw him she could only see the head wound?

Once again, Cliff, have you read my medical argument regarding the location of the throat wound? You seem to be avoiding this topic.

How did the bullet get through JFK's tie knot? Or do you believe the throat wound was above the collar? Have you even read the medical proof I posted on the back wound thread that shows the throat wound was below the top of the collar?

Would you be thinking of holding your breath if your inability to breathe came as a complete surprise to you?

Have you read Perry's medical report written on the day of the assassination? Or the medical reports of the other doctors? Here is the link:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

It could also be an instinctive response to a sudden inability to breathe. We may never know.

I do know that the medical evidence clearly demonstrates the throat wound was well below the top of the collar and, unless the shooter was crouched on the floor of the limo, the lack of a hole through the tie knot precludes a frontal shot to the throat from anywhere in Dealey Plaza.

In order to involve LHO with his 6.5mm Carcano rifle in the Walker shooting, there is one small hurdle that must be overcome.

In the police report of the Walker shooting, investigating officers reported that the bullet recovered from the Walker residence was "steel jacketed". As you may, or may not, know, the Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm Carcano bullets allegedly used by LHO were lead bullets jacketed in a copper alloy that contained no steel, and did not even resemble steel.

To make matters worse, the bullet recovered from the Walker residence, CE 573, is most definitely jacketed in a copper alloy that bears no resemblance at all to a steel jacketed bullet.

Now, just to keep the conspiracy mill going, I will share some info about Carcano and other types of bullets that I am sure will spark your imaginations.

While WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo was only jacketed in copper alloy, Italian military issue ammo was jacketed in a wide variety of materials, including a copper alloy quite similar to the WCC bullets.

Including the copper alloy, referred to as "gilding metal", Italian military bullets were jacketed in copper-nickel alloy, copper-nickel plated steel and gilding metal plated steel.

WCC 6.5mm Carcano "gilding metal" jacketed round on extreme right; second from right is Italian military issue 6.5mm Carcano "cupro-nickel" jacketed

The issue is further confused by the fact the cupro-nickel jacket, with its silvery appearance, could be confused for a steel jacket.

There is no way of telling if a gilding metal or cupro-nickel plated steel jacketed bullet is steel jacketed without using a magnet, unless one scrapes off the plating material.

As the gilding metal or cupro-nickel plating on the steel jacketed bullets is very thin, the trauma CE 573 went through would have easily exposed the steel jacket; had CE 573 been a Carcano steel jacketed bullet.

However, let us not limit ourselves to Carcano bullets. The 30-06 calibre ammo manufactured for the American M1 Garand was jacketed in a triple layer of metal comprised of an inner and outer layer of gilding metal sandwiched onto a layer of steel; all bonded together in a rather bizarre process that defies an easy description.

As with the Carcano plated steel bullets, the mangling the Walker bullet received would have easily exposed this steel jacket material, and I strongly feel the detectives who examined the Walker bullet were either WW II or Korean veterans who were quite familiar with 30-06 military ammo, and who would have recognized the exposed steel jacket.

At no time did JFK "grab" or "clutch" his throat. This has been proven over and over, and to try to claim his hands were doing so is a non-starter.

Yes, Ashton, we do not have absolute guaranteed 100% proof the wound in his throat was from a projectile such as a bullet or fragment of a bullet, but I'm afraid it is the most likely candidate at the moment. I base this solely on the observations of the first doctors to deal with JFK in Trauma Room One who, as far as can be determined, were completely honest in all of their observations, and had absolutely no role in the conspiracy.

I am a part time paramedic on the ambulance in our town, and this allows me frequent contact with doctors and nurses at our hospital. I have broached the topic to them of administering a poison from a syringe to JFK's throat, via a 1/4" hollow needle, and the universal response seems to be that a much tinier needle would be more than sufficient for such a task, and the thought of using such a large needle is a bit ridiculous. Also, according to them, a hypodermic needle would make an extremely clean entry, as opposed to a bullet which would also bruise surrounding tissue with its shock wave, and it would be virtually impossible to masquerade a wound from a needle as a bullet wound.

Another part of your theory which reveals your lack of medical knowledge is your belief that Dr. Perry was able to "obliterate" a 3-8 mm throat wound, plus an equally large and longer tracheal tear, with a scalpel that had a cutting edge that was likely, at most, less than .4 mm in thickness. Do you honestly expect us to believe the throat and tracheal wound wound disappear, merely because Perry made an incision through them?

About the only thing we seem to agree on is that a frontal entrance wound from a bullet in JFK's throat was an impossibility.

Thomas

I've looked as hard as I can at that photo, and I cannot see anything resembling a side mounted sling mount. Not only that, I find it very odd that Oswald's "sling" (looks more like a piece of rope) would not hang straight down from the side of the rifle, if that is where it is attached. Instead, it appears to be hanging down from where a bottom mounted sling mount would be attached.

I'm posting these images again to make a statement that is pursuant to and consistent with my original posts in this thread, and with my title for this thread:

If you accept that an injury to JFK's trachea existed which ran from ANY tracheal ring to ANY OTHER tracheal ring, in ANY DIRECTION, up or down, then you have absolutely negated and nullified ANY POSSIBILITY of it having been caused by ANY frontal shot, of ANY description, to the throat. The angles make it categorically impossible.

Of course that is entirely and perfectly consistent with the clothing evidence, which alone proves conclusively that no projectile OF ANY DESCRIPTION possibly could have entered JFK's throat at the point where the tracheostomy was done without PENETRATING THE KNOT IN THE TIE, and it is beyond any faintest shade of doubt that NO PROJECTILE PENETRATED THE TIE.

Every last scrap of testimony and evidence militates toward only one possible rational conclusion, which is the title I gave to this thread: THERE WAS NO BULLET WOUND IN JOHN F. KENNEDY'S THROAT.

Ashton

Ashton

It may surprise you to learn that I agree with everything you say in the first two paragraphs. Unless there was a gunman lying on the floor of the limo, behind Connally, the downward trajectory of the projectile, as evidenced by the tracheal wound, precludes the possibility of a frontal shot to JFK's throat.

I do, however, take issue with the rather grandiose manner in which you announce, in the third paragraph, that all of the testimony and evidence points toward there not being a throat wound on JFK's neck. I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this matter and wonder, perhaps, if you have taken the time to read all of the testimony, and looked at all of the evidence.

Cliff

Yes, there was room for a bullet to strike his throat beneath the Adam's apple. However, if you have carefully read my thread about the "shallow" back wound, you will see the undeniable medical evidence that clearly demonstrates the tracheal wound was too far below the laryngeal prominence (Adam's apple) for it to be even close to being above the top of the shirt collar. The location of the tracheal wound is based on Dr. Malcolm Perry's observations. He placed this wound between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring. If you prefer, we could go with Commander Humes' observations, which placed the tracheal wound between the 3rd and 4th tracheal ring.

Isn't it tough dismissing Humes' "shallow wound" comment while 100% buying his throat wound comment?

Did Perry have time to make an accurate diagnosis?

Isn't it "possible" they were mistaken -- off by an inch?

I seriously doubt Perry would have been "off" in his estimation of the location of the tracheal wound. He made the tracheostomy in exactly the location of the tracheal wound, and with the tracheal rings beginning below the cricoid cartilage and being such distinctive and obvious landmarks, he would have no trouble recalling he made the incision between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings.

No one is buying Humes' comment about the tracheal wound. Humes observed the wound to be between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings, while Perry et al observed the wound to be between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings. Who do you think was telling the truth?

Perry was a professional. He made the tracheotomy incision exceptionally large for two reasons.

1. He stated that he wanted to explore the tissue below the throat wound to determine the extent of the damage, in particular as it related to the diminished breath sounds observed by Carrico when auscultating JFK's chest.

2. JFK's trachea was deviated somewhat to the left, as a result of a growing tension pneumothorax and collapsed right lung in his right pleural cavity. It was necessary to extend the incision far enough to the left to expose the trachea and the strap muscles concealing it.

I believe he had ample time to assess the damage to the trachea plus the developing pneumothorax in the right pleural cavity; hence his request for a right chest tube to be inserted and connected to sealed underwater drainage.

The more I look at this photo now, the more I realize that not only have we been had, we have been had by people who are really really REALLY good at what they were doing. I just can't figure out what the purpose was of altering the perspective this way. Why not just cut out a picture of a man standing normally on flat ground, sans lean?

I wonder if it's a case of making due with what you have.

Since they didn't simply take a guy there, have him pose in different ways, and take the shots, my guess is that they couldn't. Maybe because Marina was always home. Or maybe the neighbors might see them and report the suspicious activity to the Oswalds.

It would have certainly seemed a lot less suspicious had someone walked back there, took a few shots, and left. Without any posing. If word of this got back to the Oswald's, they'd just wonder what was going on. We rent a house and I've seen people come over and take pictures and measurements. I thought the landlord was selling his house, but it turns out he was getting quotes from painters.

Or was Oswald being monitored from a house nearby, and those doing the monitoring took a photo of the back yard of Oswald's house from a second storey window?

Is the photo on the right the original? It has the crazy gate lean. If the gate was the centre of the photo, should it not be plumb? Or was the stair post the centre of the original photo, before the photo was trimmed?

JFK's posture compared to more typical posture.

While it can be seen that the trachea resides on a forward angle when the neck is erect, the above diagram is not completely fair when referring to JFK. As can be seen in the side view photo, JFK's head had a tendency to jut forward, almost making him appear to be slouching. This "slouch" was greatly exaggerated in the cartoon produced by Dale Myers, to the point JFK appeared to have a deformed neck.

Of course, the effect of such a forward leaning neck would be to place the trachea on an even steeper forward lean. Compare the trachea in the diagram to the front of JFK's neck in this photo, and note the difference in angle.

When you were a child, did the other children bully you frequently? You seem very angry, and it is difficult to communicate with an angry person.

I don't believe you actually knew the tracheal wound was on a downward angle from back to front, just as I have noticed you seem to be unaware of many other medical facts of this case.

One very very VERY glaring defect in your 1/4" hollow needle theory is that the needle is hollow, and a 6.5mm bullet (equating to just a shade over 1/4") is not hollow but, rather, solid.

If a solid projectile passes through tissue, it displaces tissue equal to its diameter. However, a 1/4" needle would be so large, wouldn't it tend to leave a solid core of tissue in the wound, unless an opening was made for it surgically, before the needle was inserted?

And seriously, why would anyone use such a gigantic hypodermic needle to inject poison into JFK, when a much tinier hypodermic needle would be more than adequate for the job, and not leave a ridiculous looking 1/4" hole in JFK's throat that could be confused with a bullet hole?

Surely to God you don't believe someone wanted it to look like a bullet hole? What if the wound track had actually been inspected, and found not only to go only as deep as the rear of the trachea, but also to be lacking in the damage to surrounding tissue typical of bullets passing through flesh?

I am afraid there are some very large holes in your theory.

I'll give you another clue. The angle of the tracheal wound downward was much steeper than the angle from the 6th floor to the limo.

LOL Well, that sure stopped everyone in their tracks.

“Confidence is the prize given to the mediocre”

—Robert Hughes

Sadly, Robert, the only person you stopped in his tracks is you. Your sly, if insipid, intimation that the nick possibly was otherwise than in the knot of the tie not only argues in a lonely weak voice against the windstorm of evidence in the record, but—more sadly still—argues against your own claims of the nick being in the knot of the tie. Would you like me to trot each one out for you here? I don't wish to embarrass you, but if you insist, I will oblige.

Perhaps the saddest of all is that you think nobody here has anything better to do but to monitor and respond within minutes to your latest flip-flop.

You've stopped nothing but yourself. But very well done, indeed, on that.

Ashton

You can trot out all of the old posts and threads of mine you like, little man. I'll be the first to admit I've made mistakes before and, once someone comes up with an explanation that makes more sense than mine, I will drop a theory like a bad habit. I will also constantly put my own theories to the "Crest test" and, if they fail, I will drop them. I believe they call this "learning".

This requires an open mind, Ashton; something I believe you are sadly lacking.

Here is something to think about. The wound in JFK's throat was described as an almost perfectly round wound of 3-8 mm in diameter. Yet, Perry described the tear in the trachea as not being straight across the trachea. The wound he described was a downward ranging wound that began at the 2nd tracheal ring and left the trachea at the 3rd tracheal ring.

How could a bullet on an obvious downward trajectory make a nice round exit wound?

Skull and cervical vertebrae showing trachea with rings. Rings are counted down from the top.

What, no one has an answer to this question?

I see you're having discussions with yourself again, Robert.

A very plausible answer was given to this on the first page of this thread. Here it is again, done for you graphically this time as a learning aid:

Elementary, my dear Notson.

Ashton

Nice try. However, the slope was the opposite of what you are portraying. The tracheal wound sloped downward from back to front; from the 2nd tracheal ring to the 3rd tracheal ring, according to Dr. Malcolm Perry.

P.S.

The tear was also in the right side of the trachea. There was not a through and through wound of the trachea, as you have shown.

P.P.S.

Wouldn't your needle, entering the trachea on an angle, tend to make an oval throat wound, instead of a round wound?

The more I look at this photo now, the more I realize that not only have we been had, we have been had by people who are really really REALLY good at what they were doing. I just can't figure out what the purpose was of altering the perspective this way. Why not just cut out a picture of a man standing normally on flat ground, sans lean?

1. Effect of Perspective on Vertical Line Slope

• Vertical Line at the Center: It will be straight.

• Vertical Line to the Left: It will slope clockwise above the lens centerline, and counterclockwise below.

• Vertical Line to the Right: It will slope counterclockwise above the lens centerline, and clockwise below.

In summary, for two parallel lines centered about the lens, the lines will appear diamond shape.

2. Effect of Moving a Line Further to the Left or Right

Vertical lines located further horizontally from the lens centerline will be progressively closer together.

3. Effect of Moving a Line Further Away from the Camera

The further the vertical line is back away from the camera, the less the slope will be. But it will never slope the opposite direction.

Let's see if perspectives in the original photo meets these rules.

First, let's assume that the photo does indeed follow the rules of perspective. And that nothing sneaky has been done in making the photo. We need to do this in order to to detect if the photo has been rotated or not. Any rotation needs to be corrected first. (Even if the rotation is due to the camera being tilted during exposure.)

Rule #3 tells us that the object with the greatest slope will be one nearest the camera. Therefore the stairway post next to the man should exhibit more slope from vertical than any other object. My protractor tells me that, in fact, the stairway post is the straightest vertical line of them all! So the photo needs to be rotated.

According to Rule #1, the post should have a clockwise angle. So we need to rotate the photo clockwise.

Problem is, if we rotate the photo clockwise then the left edge of the tall fence on the right will become even more clockwise rotated than it already is. The angle of that edge, above the camera's line of sight, is already violating Rule #1. It should be angled counterclockwise. And rotating the photo clockwise will only make it a worse violator.

Already we have impossible perspective problems. Let's ignore the stairway post and try again.

According to Rule #1, the vertical lines above the camera should be rotated clockwise on the left and counterclockwise on the right. (Rule #3 tells us it doesn't matter how far the vertical line is away from the camera for this to be the case.) The edge of the window on the left is sloping the wrong way. And the edge of the tall fence on the right is also sloping the wrong way. There is no way of rotating the photo to fix this.

We have yet more impossible perspective problems.

This photo is full of perspective problems... if we a assume that the photo was taken the normal way.

As I've said earlier, taking the picture from atop a tall ladder, and then cropping out the trees and sky could explain what we see. Perhaps taking the shot with the camera tilted high up, and then cropping the sky out could explain it. But my guess is that this was done in a photo lab by taking a picture of a tilted picture.

Hi Sandy

Wow, you have certainly done your homework here. This is the kind of intense scientific research I like to see.

I looked at the BYP again and I see you are quite correct about something I overlooked. I was simply looking at the posts on the right, and assuming the photo was merely rotated to the right. However, as you pointed out, the main stairway post is almost plumb, and the window and window casing on the house lean to the left; the opposite direction from the posts I was studying.

Your explanation of perspective rules is quite understandable, and this photo certainly seems to be breaking the rules. As you say, just HOW they broke the rules (and why) is another question.

One thing bothers me. I keep a small herd of horses, and pride myself on my homemade wooden gates, and the methods I use to keep them hanging straight and level. The gate in this photo appears to be hanging down quite badly on the latch end, and I refuse to believe any self respecting Texan would allow that. Is it an optical illusion or is the gate crooked?

Edit: I may have made a mistake about which is the latch end of the gate, and which is the hinge end. It is difficult to tell from this photo.

Mr. Von Pein, have you ever read Dr Finck's HSCA testimony about the back wound? Finck, as you well know, was chief of wound ballistics pathology for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

Finck claimed that he attempted to use a metal probe in the back wound, but was unable to find the bullet track. He then testified that he ordered x-rays of the chest cavity in order to try to determine where the bullet went.

Yet the x-ray technician who took those x-rays testified that, when he took the x-rays of the chest, they showed an empty cavity because the lungs and other internal organs had already been removed. Now, it would appear to a logical person that if there had been a bullet track within the internal organs, removing the organs would also remove the evidence of a bullet track.

Now...are you also familiar with the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Marion Jenkins? Dr. Jenkins testified that, because of "the obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax," doctors in Trauma Room 1 "put in a closed chest drainage tube."

Do you even know what a pneumothorax is? [THIS is where the copy of Gray's Anatomy would most likely be more beneficial than anything Mr. Bugliosi ever wrote.]

I would suggest you STOP right here and right now, and look up the definition of the term and then look up the primary causes of a pneumothorax. [Hint: Bullets passing between strap muscles in the neck are not listed as a cause for a pneumothorax.]

THIS is why I recommend educating yourself on exactly what the doctors were saying.

Since the most likely cause of a pneumothorax in a gunshot victim would be a bullet or bone fragment puncturing a lung, it would have been nice for the bullet wound pathologist, Dr. Finck, to have had the lungs still in the chest cavity to examine. This might have helped him determine with a better degree of certainty the path of the bullet.

But according to the x-ray technician who took the chest x-rays when Dr. Finck ordered them--and the reason he ordered them, according to Finck's HSCA testimony, was to try to locate a bullet in the chest cavity, if it was still there--the lungs had already been removed at the time of the x-rays.

And there is NO testimony on file that I can find that states that the lungs were thoroughly examined...at least to the degree that a bullet wound pathologist would have examined them. In his testimony before the AARB, Dr. Finck stated that "(t)he brain, the heart, and the lungs had been removed before my arrival."

Notice that in Dr. Finck's testimony, he insists on referring to the wound as one in the upper back, and not a neck wound.

Notice that--if you did your homework and learned what a pneumothorax is--somehow, the right lung had apparently been breached in some way.

Yet there is no mention of an examination of the lungs, or even a mention of when the lungs were removed...except that their removal occurred prior to the arrival of the wound ballistic pathologist [Dr. Finck].

The Warren Commission Report will NOT explain the significance of a pneumothorax to you. Nothing that Bugliosi wrote will explain that to you. But a textbook of anatomy and physiology, in tandem with a good medical dictionary, WILL give you that information. And they are unbiased. They give information, and have no agendas.

Which is why I recommended you consult an unbiased source upon occasion. NO film clip from a fake trial of Oswald will tell you how a pneumothorax occurs...or none that I'm aware of.

Mr. Knight has well expressed the true nature of JFK's back wound, and the ensuing respiratory condition and medical emergency referred to as a "tension pneumothorax".

While somewhat difficult for the layman to understand, a tension pneumothorax is actually quite simple to explain.

In JFK's case, a fragmenting or a frangible bullet would have entered his back at about the level of the thoracic vertebra T3. Entering at this point, it would have gone directly into the top of his right lung, come apart and stopped midway through his right lung.

When JFK was laid on his back in Trauma Room One, it is likely the wound made by the bullet into the back of his chest cavity would have been sealed by his flesh pressing against the table.

JFK was intubated by Dr. Carrico, who inserted an endotracheal tube down JFK's trachea to a point where the tip of this tube would have been well above the two bronchi leading to the lungs.

Dr. Carrico inflated the cuff of the endotracheal tube in order to seal the tube against the inside of the trachea. Carrico misjudged the insertion, despite using a laryngoscope to guide him during intubation, and the inflatable cuff was placed slightly above the tracheal wound, and a perfect seal was not made against the inside of the trachea.

Following intubation, JFK was connected to a respirator, and positive pressure ventilation was occurring in his lungs. It was this higher than atmospheric pressure ventilation that brought about the tension pneumothorax.

With the tearing of lung tissue, the right lung would have lost its airtight qualities and would have collapsed. With each inspiration from the respirator, higher pressure air would attempt to inflate the right lung, and air would escape from the lung into the right pleural cavity. On exhalation, the lung would collapse again, preventing air in the pleural cavity from escaping. Within the space of a minute, enough air would build in the right pleural cavity to prevent any air from entering the right lung at all. The left lung, being in its own pleural cavity, would still inflate but, eventually, enough pressure would build on the right side to impair the left lung, as it exerted pressure laterally to the left, and JFK would asphyxiate.

Following intubation and connection to a respirator, Dr. Carrico listened to JFK's chest for breath sounds. He found the breath sounds to be diminished, due to some respirator air escaping through the tracheal wound, but he also observed the breath sounds in the right lung to be greatly diminished, in comparison to breath sounds in the left lung.

Dr. Carrico's observation of reduced breath sounds in the right lung would be universally interpreted in the medical world as being caused by one thing, and one thing only; a tension pneumothorax building air pressure in the right pleural cavity preventing additional air from entering either the right lung or the right pleural cavity.

There are other signs, observed by Drs. Perry and Carrico, that are unmistakeable signs of a tension pneumothorax, but I will save them until DVP has had a good chance to rant at my post first.

I know y'all are out there; I can hear you breathing.

Sandy Larsen said:

"To me it looks like the sling is pulled through the bottom sling mount (a hoop), and then (presumably) attached to the side mount. There ARE Carcano mounts that include both the bottom and side hoops."

Precisely, Sandy. I was waiting to see if anyone pointed this out. When they were putting military surplus Carcanos together for sale on the open market, it was often necessary to salvage parts, such as sling mounts, off unusable rifles in order to make whole rifles out of the usable ones.

The 3rd row of icons below the tie knot is 6 icons wide. Are you able to see this, Sandy? The two rows between this row and the knot show less than 6 icons because the front of the tie is squished in from the sides as it passes through the tie knot.

If the blade (front or widest part) of the tie is 6 icons wide going into the bottom of the tie knot, isn't it likely it is still 6 icons wide going across the front of the tie knot?

"I think it's even more unlikely that a commercially available tie would be made where the tie gets narrower and narrower as you move along it, then widens enough to accommodate an extra icon, and then return to the width it is supposed to be."

What on earth are you talking about, Sandy?

Click the following photo to enlarge it and count the number of icons across the width of the tie where it is hanging down.

Robert,

On the ninth row down from the knot, there are a complete set of 6 icons. Moving up row-by-row, the number gradually diminishes.

(The top row in this table represents the top row of icons in the tie.)

Row 1: 5.0 icons (extrapolation)

Row 2: 5.1 icons

Row 3: 5.2 icons

Row 4: 5.4 icons

Row 5: 5.5 icons

Row 6: 5.7 icons

Row 7: 5.9 icons

Row 8: 6.0 icons

Row 9: 6.0 icons

So where the tie goes into the knot at its bottom, the number of icons per row is 5.

Furthermore, the tie has to continue decreasing in width so that it fits under the collar going around the neck. I believe that another photo shows that it reduces down to 3 icons wide for the neck.

And yet you want us to believe that the number of icons actually increases to 6 per row where the tie wraps across the front of the knot. So from 9 icons at the widest end of the tie, gradually down to 5, then back up to 6, then gradually down to 3 where it goes around the neck. The "back up to 6" part to accommodate your theory makes no sense. And it is what I was talking about when I said:

"I think it's even more unlikely that a commercially available tie would be made where the tie gets narrower and narrower as you move along it, then widens enough to accommodate an extra icon, and then return to the width it is supposed to be."

I see what you are saying, Sandy. However, there is another way to interpret what we are seeing.

If I am correct about the tie knot, and the section of tie going across the front of the tie knot is 6 icons wide, there is a similarity between it and the blade of the tie hanging below the knot.

While you see the blade of the tie tapering, and thus presenting a diminishing number of icons (5.0 icons to 6.0 icons in the space of 9 rows), I see a uniform 6 icons per row right up to the tie knot, despite the fact there is a taper. Of course, the first two rows below the tie knot show only 3 and 4 icons, as the blade is severely squeezed as it goes into the tie knot. I believe this "squeezing" effect, to a lesser degree, continues down the blade of the tie for several rows from the knot, giving the impression the blade is only 5 rows wide at this point.

Another interesting phenomenon that can be seen is that, in a row of 6 icons, the icons do not appear to be centred perfectly in the middle of the blade of the tie. There appears to be a wider space between the last icon on his right and the anatomical right of JFK's tie than their is between the last icon on his left and the anatomical left of JFK's tie. If you look at the front of the tie knot, and assume for one second the knot is 6 icons wide, you can see there is no space at all between the top of the row of icons and the top of the knot, while there is a space between the bottom icon and the bottom edge of the knot. It is not as large a space as seen on a row of 6 icons hanging below the tie knot but, after all, the tie is tapering.

The real question is, if the middle of the tie is narrower than the blade or the end of the tail, what is the smallest number of icons in a width of the tie? Does the tie taper uniformly to this narrowest section, or does the taper slow down at a certain point?