Robert Prudhomme

I thought you would show up eventually, Ashton.

You can keep the snide remarks about "altering facts" to yourself, if you don't mind. This is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Anywhere you look on JFK's tie, you will see the icons are rectangular or ovoid, and the icons are all longer lengthwise than they are crosswise.

"I think the fabric wasn't stretched uniformly during the printing process. And that that resulted in the icon elongation you noted and the non-uniformity of icon size and location I noted."

Okay, Sandy, then find me a section of the tie where a row of 5 icons lengthwise isn't considerably longer than 5 icons crosswise.

Hint: I've already tried this, and it can't be found.

I am posting again the reconstruction of Prayer Man' s figure which also appeared in Prayer Man thread. The man's posture fits well with Prayer Man' in Darnell; I would like to show this part of work when complete, which entails realistic clothing and face, and fitting all the doorway occupants there.

I'm getting seasick studying the BYP tilted so far to the right. What's you flavour-of-the-week explanation today for everything tilting to the right, Andrej? C'mon, dazzle me with some scientific jargon.

Sandy, I get tired of repeating the same childish concepts over and over on this forum, and some days I truly wonder why some posters on this forum have difficulty "grasping" things.

"In addition, I can see the edge of the knot at its top (a horizontal line), separating it from the area above it that carries the 6th row of icons. Everything seems to fit what one would expect, other than the fact that the 6th row of icons line up with the other 5. What I believe to be a coincidence."

Coincidence my butt. The icons are 33% further apart one direction than they are the other. You're going to have to prove those six icons could magically line up perfectly in a vertical line, rather than just trying to pass it off as "coincidence".

Coincidence? Is that what you are calling your brand of research now Sandy?

Watch closely, one more time, and I will show you where you are wrong. Dead wrong.

First, JFK wearing the tie, pre-assassination. Left clicking on this photo makes it much larger.

The row you selected, below the knot, has 5 1/2 icons across it. The one below it is 6 icons wide, and the one above it is 4 icons wide.

Gee, Sandy, could that be because the tie is squished together as it enters the bottom of the knot, or is that just a coincidence? Or would the tie be 6 icons wide if flattened out, and continue to be 6 icons wide right through the front of the knot?

Second, the section of tie with the nick in it:

Take careful note that the "square" icons are not really square but, rather, are rectangular, with their longest axis running lengthwise on the tie. And the same is true with the "round" icons, which are not really round but ovoid on the long axis of the tie.

Next, take a ruler and measure, on your screen, across the tie from the outside of the first icon to the outside of the far icon. Then, do the same for 5 icons lengthwise on the tie. I came up with these measurements:

Across = 77 mm

Lengthwise = 117 mm

A difference of 40 mm or 33%

Therefore, the section of tie showing a single pair of icons, at the top of the knot, should be a vertically aligned section of the tie, and the two icons seen should be 40 mm or 33% closer together than the next pair of icons below them. However, they are in almost perfect alignment with the two rows of icons below them and, if anything, are a millimeter or two further apart.

Do you not agree that these two icons cannot be on a vertically aligned section of tie, or is this just another coincidence?

The front of a four-in-hand tie knot may or may not, as you claim, fall down more easily than the front of a Windsor tie knot but that is not what has happened in this case, as the photos clearly demonstrate.

Sorry, Thomas, just cain't help myself sometimes.

It's only fair, isn't it?

Shouldn't there be a gender neutral choice as well?

"How again did they know to put Det Brown into the 133-C position on Nov 29th when that image was unknown until 1977?"

Now THAT is a REALLY good question, Dave. How come you have to do all of the thinking around here?

Look! They fixed the gate after the assassination, and now it hangs straight!

"Oswald's" lean is even more pronounced when the perspective is corrected.

Precisely, Ray, although I don't think Andrej could ever be convinced. Some people just seem to have their minds "made up" if you know what I mean.

"In the full sequence of photos (see the above link, as well as https://jfk007.com/1056-2/ and http://www.jfklancer.com/byphotos.html), the "lean" (or lack thereof) of the structures and LHO himself appears to vary widely. In most reproductions of the photo being discussed here, CE-133A, the post looks pretty much perpendicular while LHO himself appears to be leaning at an odd Tower of Pisa angle."

Perpendicular? Good thing you can make a living as a lawyer; you'd starve as a carpenter.

Well, here goes.

Posted below is a section of JFK's tie with a nick in it. As reported by the FBI, the nick only removed the outer coloured fabric of the tie, exposing white material inside the tie. Also visible next to the nick is what appears to be a small bloodstain.

Ashton Gray posted the pre-assassination photo of JFK wearing this tie as seen below, and overlaid the section of tie with the nick over the tie knot; implying this was where this section of tie was when JFK was shot.

Here is another version of this photo, sans overlay.

The red arrow is pointing at what Mr. Gray would have us believe is the top of the tie knot, and that the top of the knot has slipped down, exposing the inner part of the tie knot beneath it.

What Mr. Gray is asking you to believe is impossible. Look at this example of a Windsor tie knot, and I will tell you why.

In fact, I recommend that all of you try to get hold of a tied tie so that you might examine it more closely. I never wear ties, and had to get someone to tie one for me.

If you look closely at the piece of the tie going across the front of the knot, you will see that it goes right around the section that protrudes out the top corner of the knot and then it goes down inside the tie. There is no way the section going across the front of the tie can slip down without dragging the entire tie down with it.

But, there is further proof Mr. Gray is mistaken. If we go back to the first photo, showing the short section of tie with a nick in it, we can see the pattern on the tie is five icons wide at this point. As the tie widens, the number of icons increases, and I have been able to count up to eight icons wide on the lower part of the tie. As can also be seen in this photo, the icons are longer lengthwise on the tie than they are crosswise. Plus, the icons take up much more space on the tie lengthwise than they do crosswise. On my screen, I found that the five icon row crosswise was 78 mm long, while five icons measured lengthwise on the tie measured 117 mm; 33% longer.

The above information may not seem important, until you look again at the two vertical rows of five icons each in the tie knot, and see there is a sixth icon sitting above each vertical row that is supposedly part of the tie that is running in a direction 90° away from the section of tie in the front of the knot.

Given that there is a 33% difference in the spacing of icons from vertical to horizontal, and that the sixth icons are on a section of tie running in a direction 90° away from the section on the front of the tie, how is it these sixth icons line up perfectly with the icons beneath them?

The answer is, someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The section of tie that makes the front of the tie knot has six icons on it, and if the nick really is on a section of tie with five icons wide, the nick is much closer to the tail of the tie, and definitely not on the front or side of the tie knot

More to come......

Cheap tricks.

"Vichy CT"

Good one, Cliff. Kind of says it all, doesn't it.

The gate is in the centre of the photo, and leans severely to the right; just like every other vertical surface in this photo. It has nothing to do with the Imperial Reflex being a "cheap" camera, and everything to do with the people faking this photo turning it to the right so Oswald doesn't look like he's going to fall on his butt.

As I said, cheap tricks.

Your analysis of Oswald's posture might work for you but, what happens to your work if Oswald is rotated to the left a few degrees?

I don't know what is more amazing, the cheap tricks used in the coverup or the public's unceasing ability to keep swallowing them.

Andrej

How many degrees would you say the gate and gate posts are leaning to the right in this photo? Why not try rotating the photo to the left until all the posts are plumb, and then we'll see how much of a list to starboard Mr. Oswald really has? Or does gravity in Dallas work at an angle?

Ramon

You act like you invented JFK assassination research. Do you honestly think I have never heard of this forum before? Or that I was not once a member of this forum?

It makes one wonder how they can afford the advanced graphics and 3D displays, and the people to draw these things up for them.

Where have all the researchers gone? This forum was really something once.

Hi Chris

Due to certain rules being enforced, I do not feel it is a good idea for me to present any arguments or evidence on this thread.

I will be posting arguments and evidence on the thread "There was no Bullet Hole in John F. Kennedy's Throat". As the majority of material I will be posting is related to the throat wound, the nick in the tie and the "slits" below the collar button of JFK's shirt, I believe this to be a more appropriate place to post this material.

Be there, or be square!

I was informed by James Gordon this morning, after I started a new thread regarding the tie nick and the slits in the shirt, that my new thread had been hidden; as there was already a thread regarding these topics, and they didn't want more than one thread on a topic.

I asked James what the title of this thread was but, I received no answer. After much searching, I was able to find only this thread by Ashton Grey, and I assumed it was the one he was referring to.

I realize the title of this thread is the opposite of what I intend to be arguing, but presenting countering arguments to a theory presented in a thread seems to be an accepted practice on this forum. Besides, I believe Ashton Grey's theories are quite without supporting evidence, and I plan to present evidence that will show where he is mistaken as well.

I have no choice in this matter, Sandy, as I have been informed my posting privileges will be suspended if I attempt to start any new threads related to the tie nick or the shirt slits.

The rifle in the Archives is an M91/38 6.5x52mm short rifle.

Neither the M91/38 or the M38 short rifle had a bottom mounted sling mount on the forestock. However, there is a Carcano registry, in which Carcano owners can register their Carcano as part of a database, and every once in a while one can find an M91/38 short rifle with bottom sling mounts, or combination side/bottom sling mounts, on the forestock.

There are a couple of possible reasons for this.

1. Toward the end of Italy's involvement in the Second World War, it may have become difficult to procure all of the various parts that go into making a new rifle. It may have been necessary to salvage bottom sling mounts off of older worn out or broken Carcanos just to be able to mount a sling mount on a short rifle and, as the majority of Carcanos had bottom sling mounts, some of these would inevitably find their way onto a short rifle.

2. When the Italian government sold the majority of the Carcano rifles as surplus, many were in disrepair and missing parts. As above, it would have been necessary to salvage parts off of the worst rifles to make whole rifles out of the better ones, and bottom sling mounts would have been more common than slide sling mounts, as they were more prevalent on older models of Carcanos.

Tom Purvis was completely wrong on this, as he was completely wrong on a great number of other things involving the Carcano. I know it is not fair to criticize a dead man who is unable to respond but, that's just the way I see it.

It is either an M91/38 6.5x52mm short rifle or an M38 7.35x51mm short rifle. The two are indistinguishable.

Interesting in that I've never seen photos of Dougherty before.

Uh, not really, Thomas. The side mounted sling mount on the M91/38 Carcano in the backyard photos could be mounted on the left or right side of the rifle, but not on the bottom of the rifle.