Tom Neal

Why would two obvious scalpel slits in a shirt collar be tested for the presence of metal from a bullet jacket?

Robert,

From the above it appears that you believe there were definite holes through the shirt halves in addition to the 'slits' - is this correct?

+the one Ashton specifically objected to, which is this:

"Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying No. I asked if he recalled Dulless question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report."

I don't know how this quote relates to the ones in Tom's post. It wasn't I who first posted it. I thought Tom did and I was keeping it on my list because of that. If it was Tom who posted it, I will do with it (delete or keep it) as he wishes. If it wasn't Tom, then I will delete the quote unless anyone objects.

Tom, do you want me to keep or delete this Weisberg quote?

Sandy Larsen said: "I thought Tom did and I was keeping it on my list because of that."

Your own statements reveal that you do NOT know who posted it. I have already objected more than once to you misquoting and/or attributing a quote or a theory that is not mine. I am NOT the only person to voice this complaint. You also denied my statement that you are "still" doing this, yet here you go again...

You only "thought" I posted the quote, yet despite my multiple objections you once again attached my name to something when you have NO evidence at all that it was my statement. It was not necessary to attach my name to this - you could have simply stated that you don't know WHO posted it!

Rather than post "I thought..." why didn't you find the source of this post? Don't you strive for accuracy?

Sandy Larsen said: "It wasn't I who first posted it."

According to the search function the first time this parsed quote appears on this forum is in YOUR post #541...so unless you can come up with the original post, it is clear that you don't even know what YOU yourself post. But don't let this stop you from denying your own objectionable post...or attempting to foist it off on me.

Well, you got me there, Tom. I guess I'm just a scatterbrain.

So what do you want me to do about it? See a shrink? Get a lobotomy?

As I said before, if I make a mistake all you have to do is ask me to correct it.

And BTW, since when is it wrong to say "I think" something? (I did think you posted the quote.) I've seen you do very much the same thing yourself many times, for example when you say "IIRC" ("if I recall correctly").

That's right, every careless mistake you make is MY fault.

+the one Ashton specifically objected to, which is this:

"Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying No. I asked if he recalled Dulless question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report."

I don't know how this quote relates to the ones in Tom's post. It wasn't I who first posted it. I thought Tom did and I was keeping it on my list because of that. If it was Tom who posted it, I will do with it (delete or keep it) as he wishes. If it wasn't Tom, then I will delete the quote unless anyone objects.

Tom, do you want me to keep or delete this Weisberg quote?

Sandy Larsen said: "I thought Tom did and I was keeping it on my list because of that."

Your own statements reveal that you do NOT know who posted it. I have already objected more than once to you misquoting and/or attributing a quote or a theory that is not mine. I am NOT the only person to voice this complaint. You also denied my statement that you are "still" doing this, yet here you go again...

You only "thought" I posted the quote, yet despite my multiple objections you once again attached my name to something when you have NO evidence at all that it was my statement. It was not necessary to attach my name to this - you could have simply stated that you don't know WHO posted it!

Rather than post "I thought..." why didn't you find the source of this post? Don't you strive for accuracy?

Sandy Larsen said: "It wasn't I who first posted it."

According to the search function the first time this parsed quote appears on this forum is in YOUR post #541...so unless you can come up with the original post, it is clear that you don't even know what YOU yourself post. But don't let this stop you from denying your own objectionable post...or attempting to foist it off on me.

Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376)

Why do you keep propagating this hearsay? Where's this alleged "interview"? Where is a record of it? Who witnessed it?

Hello Ashton,

From an undated letter regarding Robert Groden using info from Post Mortem sans permission:

"They were made by a scalpel in a nurse's hand as Carrico had described to me. I did not note the name of the one who did that when Carrico told me but it was either Margaret Henchcliffe(sic) or Diana Bowron."

From a 1977 Letter addressed to Dr. Malcolm Perry:

"When I left our last interview I went to the Parkland lobby and made notes immediately."

The above statements are verbatim quotes from Harold Weisberg in reference to interviews with Dr. C. James Carrico and Dr. Malcolm Perry at Parkland hospital on 12-1-1971. It is clear to me that Weisberg neither recorded these interviews nor took notes during the interviews.

Mr. Weisberg at no time refers to the presence of a third party during these interviews.

Tom

Ashton,

Are you angry with me for using the word "theory" as opposed to "hypothesis," or "idea," or "presentation?"

Are you angry with me regarding any of the other things you state above?

None of this has anything whatsoever with my being "angry" with you, Sandy. It has to do with being misrepresented. I make every effort not to misrepresent the statements of others, and I expect the same courtesy in return. If I ever inadvertently misrepresent you, please notify me right away and I will correct it in an instant. I always have been, and always will be, ready and willing to correct any erroneous statement I make about anyone here.

I simply ask that I be properly quoted, and that people don't take the liberty of rewriting me, then attributing statements to me that I didn't make.

Ashton,

Although I too have protested, I still have this very same issue with Sandy.

You expressed it better and more carefully than I would have -- so I GREATLY appreciate this post!

Tom

Now you're a psychiatrist, too?

...

Do you feel better now, Tom? Now that you've put me down for being what I am?

...

THIS IS THE LAST RESPONSE I WILL POST REGARDING YOUR ARMCHAIR PSYCHOANALYSIS.

IT IS OT AND HINDERS THE PROGRESS OF THIS THREAD.

"Peacemaker" is probably not my long suit, but I sincerely hope that both of you can set aside personal differences and return to a dispassionate discussion of the factsrather than of each otherbecause I value the probative value of the analysis of relevant facts from each of you.

Ashton,

Your generous response is GREATLY appreciated. Thanks for taking the time away from your book to post this.

Tom

Do you feel better now, Tom? Now that you've put me down for being what I am?

Do you do the same with people who aren't as smart as you expect them to be?

Or as healthy as you expect them to be?

Or as well off as you expect them to be?

etc.?

I suggest you put some thought into this.

Now you're a psychiatrist, too?

I felt fine before, and I feel fine now, Dr. Larsen.

But you OTOH must be feeling QUITE guilty Dr. Larsen, to come up these 'questions'. Possibly you were looking in a mirror when you wrote them.

If I disagree with you, obviously it's MY problem alone, therefore I MUST treat the entire world that way, because the idea that you are responsible for your careless action could not be attributed to you.

I suggest you think about this - don't foist your issues onto others, grow up and OWN it. Using your go-to response "I'm only human" is not owning it. It's saying what I did is OK because no one is perfect, but you use it to excuse behavior that is easily correctable and the average person does not do.

THIS IS THE LAST RESPONSE I WILL POST REGARDING YOUR ARMCHAIR PSYCHOANALYSIS.

IT IS OT AND HINDERS THE PROGRESS OF THIS THREAD.

Sandy Larsen said: "I trust photos more than I do a person who sees something in person but doesn't take measurements or study it."

And that is why your assertions are useless.

You see two LARGE holes in a bad photo, ....

I have never said the holes are large. But I have called them "holes/slits."

....and yes I've seen that photo for years, it is another high-contrast B&W photo in which black blood stains appear to be dark holes. You have know altered these large holes into 2mm holes to fit your theory.

I have never claimed these holes to be 2 mm in size.

I've done nothing to fit "my theory." Because I as yet have not settled on a theory. And in fact, I include in my list of potential theories the one you "would like to believe" because it is the "least complex scenario" (in your opinion).

Of course all scientists reject first-person examination of evidence in favor of poor photographs. That IS a poor photograph. IF it isn't tell how many loose threads you see and give their precise location.

I could do that. Do you think my count and locations would be worse than Dr. Mantik's, which he would have to recall from his memory of seeing the shirt? I don't think so. And that is my whole point. The information he relayed is merely his opinion based on seeing the shirt.

How many shadows are actually bloodstains and vice versa?

You are of course basing this on statements from Mantik that he took NO measurements at any time? Presumably this is another one of your unfailing assumptions.

Until somebody points out where Dr. Mantik published his data or the interpretation of his data, or some other convincing citation, I will continue to assume that he took no such measurements and performed no such study. Just the same as I do when anybody else states something without providing data or studies to back it up.

Of course without measurements Mantik can't determine that there is no fabric missing.

You posted two pictures with OBVIOUS holes in the middle of slit fabric, and that is your PROOF that a bullet can make a slit WITHOUT a hole.

I didn't claim anything of the sort. (Jeez, you have a lot of nerve calling ME careless with my posts. Kettle/black.)

You said "If you can find an example where an exiting or entering bullet left a round hole in the body and a slit in the shirt, I would REALLY like to see it. And so I showed you a picture of a slit in a shirt caused by a bullet. (Plus a second picture showing a slit in a jacket.) You didn't say the picture had to have no hole. The hole part didn't occur to me because I didn't make the claim you're attributing to me. You're the one putting words in my mouth about slits without holes being caused by bullets.

(Though certainly a slit in fabric can be made without making a hole... that is, without taking away much fabric. For example with a sharp pointed object. Like, perhaps, a bone fragment shaped that way.)

My position is that bullets and projectiles can make slit-like holes in fabric. And if conditions are right, a projectile can take away little fabric. It's as simple as that.

Sandy Larsen said: "I figured it was bound to come to this. Because I could see, no matter what, you just couldn't accept the possibility that those holes/slits could be projectile holes. I can and do accept that possibility."

And you can't accept the possibility that there ARE NO holes.

For a moment, let's assume it is true that I can't accept the possibility that there ARE NO holes. I ask myself, what is your point in stating that here? I'll tell you what I believe. I believe it's because you consider what I said above ("I could see, no matter what, you just couldn't accept the possibility that those holes/slits could be projectile holes.") was meant to belittle you or your belief. Because I've noticed that you easily take offense.

If that is what you belief, then I want you to know that that was not my intention at all when I said that. I was just making an observation. Just like the observation I made that Robert at one time was stuck on the idea that the tie knot really had six icons per row. These are nothing but observations on my part, with absolutely no belittling intended.

Having pointed that out.... the truth is than I CAN accept the possibility that there ARE NO holes. (That is, projectile holes in the shirt near the top button.) And I prove that by pointing out that my list of possibilities includes such scenarios.

Pot calls kettle black. I accept "no holes" and reject "holes". You accept "hole" and reject "no holes." I accept the former and you accept the latter. In your universe, you are a bigger person than I, because you "can accept" the "holes" theory. Now there's logic fit to make Spock cry.

LOL, I was right... no surprise. You do take offense easily, Tom. (Please note that that this statement is just an observation, not meant to demean you. Everybody has their own peculiar mannerisms.)

Ashton has made the same complaint that I have - you are attaching my name to a statement that you misquote when as Ashton said you could have cut and pasted. Like Ashton you present what I stated was a POSSIBLE theory because it had LARGE PROBLEMS as MY theory.

You pointed it out and I fixed it. Why make a big deal of it? I'll do the same for Ashton.

I haven't bothered to proof read this post to you. Any mistakes I made are perfectly acceptable to you...

That's right. Because I'm not the type of person who makes a big deal about people's mistakes. I will politely correct them, if it's important. But I don't make it personal.

....because I too am only human. So for once post no complaints!!!

I make innocent observations. You take them as a complaints. There's not much I can do about that.

That's right, Sandy. Change my statements just enough to make it APPEAR that you are answering when in fact you only are evading.

Do you make excuses for yourself automatically, or do you actually have to think about it?

Sandy Larsen said: "I trust photos more than I do a person who sees something in person but doesn't take measurements or study it."

And that is why your assertions are useless. You see two LARGE holes in a bad photo, and yes I've seen that photo for years, it is another high-contrast B&W photo in which black blood stains appear to be dark holes. You have know altered these large holes into 2mm holes to fit your theory. Of course all scientists reject first-person examination of evidence in favor of poor photographs. That IS a poor photograph. IF it isn't tell how many loose threads you see and give their precise location. How many shadows are actually bloodstains and vice versa?

You are of course basing this on statements from Mantik that he took NO measurements at any time? Presumably this is another one of your unfailing assumptions. Of course without measurements Mantik can't determine that there is no fabric missing.

You posted two pictures with OBVIOUS holes in the middle of slit fabric, and that is your PROOF that a bullet can make a slit WITHOUT a hole.

Sandy Larsen said: "I figured it was bound to come to this. Because I could see, no matter what, you just couldn't accept the possibility that those holes/slits could be projectile holes. I can and do accept that possibility."

And you can't accept the possibility that there ARE NO holes. Pot calls kettle black. I accept "no holes" and reject "holes". You accept "hole" and reject "no holes." I accept the former and you accept the latter. In your universe, you are a bigger person than I, because you "can accept" the "holes" theory. Now there's logic fit to make Spock cry.

Ashton has made the same complaint that I have - you are attaching my name to a statement that you misquote when as Ashton said you could have cut and pasted. Like Ashton you present what I stated was a POSSIBLE theory because it had LARGE PROBLEMS as MY theory.

I haven't bothered to proof read this post to you. Any mistakes I made are perfectly acceptable to you, because I too am only human. So for once post no complaints!!!

I would like to believe that the throat wound was inflicted by a small caliber bullet, located above the collar, and the slits in the shirt and the nick in the tie were caused by a scalpel used to remove the necktie. Adequate support exists for each piece of the total puzzle of the throat wound. This IMO is the least complex scenario that covers all evidence as it exists today.

Hmmm... but did you take into account the fact that the real wound would have had to be covered up in the autopsy photos? And a gash made at a lower location? That's not exactly a trivial matter.

If you hadn't hacked off this IMPORTANT part of the post where I said: "Does that PROVE it is correct? No. All of the above is true, but there is also strong evidence AGAINST it." you wouldn't be asking that question. This is one of the MANY reasons I don't EASILY commit to a scenario. People make comments like this just to accuse you of missing something. I SAID there was STRONG EVIDENCE against it. Did you EVEN read the post????

Yes, of course I read your post. I'm sorry that what I asked upset you. At the time I read your "strong evidence against it" comment, I didn't know what you were referring to. And by the time the cover-up issue popped into my head, I had forgotten about your "strong evidence against it" comment. It hadn't sunk in. I'm only human after all.

That's you're go to excuse "you're only human." Yes, you're human alright. One of the more careless humans that posts here without thinking.

I would like to believe that the throat wound was inflicted by a small caliber bullet, located above the collar, and the slits in the shirt and the nick in the tie were caused by a scalpel used to remove the necktie. Adequate support exists for each piece of the total puzzle of the throat wound. This IMO is the least complex scenario that covers all evidence as it exists today.

Hmmm... but did you take into account the fact that the real wound would have had to be covered up in the autopsy photos? And a gash made at a lower location? That's not exactly a trivial matter.

If you hadn't hacked off this IMPORTANT part of the post where I said: "Does that PROVE it is correct? No. All of the above is true, but there is also strong evidence AGAINST it." you wouldn't be asking that question. This is one of the MANY reasons I don't EASILY commit to a scenario. People make comments like this just to accuse you of missing something. I SAID there was STRONG EVIDENCE against it. Did you EVEN read the post????

I will address Dr. Mantik's assessment point by point:

In one of my replies to you I explained why I thought a bullet hole through fabric could have a shape different from a bullet hole in flesh. One thing I had thought of but forgot to mention is this: It seems to me that a bullet could break the fabric in TWO places, on opposite sides of the bullet nose, because of the friction between the nose of the bullet and the threads. I think it would do so only at high speeds. And so a bullet could carry some of the material with it.

Did you look at the bullet holes in the back of the shirt and jacket? That is a typical entry or exit hole unless the bullet has fragmented or tumbling. The only way a bullet could create a slit is by tumbling. In this case a bullet entry that created a slit in the shirt could not possibly create a neat round hole in the flesh. If it is an exit wound it was not tumbling as it passed through the flesh yet immediately began a RAPID tumble after encountering...cloth? Have you investigated how much velocity a bullet will lose penetrating 7 layers of skin? I just can't accept that for a bullet/fragment or bone. If you can find an example where an exiting or entering bullet left a round hole in the body and a slit in the shirt, I would REALLY like to see it.

Nevertheless, this comment by Mantik is irrelevant in our case because we have already eliminated the bullet scenario.

*I* have eliminated the bullet scenario based on the spectrographic analysis. That is good hard science with decades of provenance.

Your list includes the idea that bio-matter would allow the bullet to exit without bullet wipe, so I do not understand why *you* are saying you have eliminated the bullet scenario.

You also believe that there are two round holes in the shirt and don't believe Mantik who actually held the shirt, and says there is no material missing. How do you make a 1/4" hole through a shirt without removing any material? You are going to carefully study a poor quality B&W photo and make a better determination that Mantik could using the ACTUAL shirt?

Mantik's is not irrelevant as to what caused the slit. With no material missing it is a virtual certainty that they are 'knife' cuts. Not bullets or the bone fragments you still have on your list.

Dr. David Mantik: "and the lacerations in the shirt do look like the work of a scalpel"

I believe that can be the case only if the shirt was washed. Or if someone intentionally made the holes look more ragged. Those holes are not simple cuts. I think Dr. Mantik is showing some bias in this statement.

You are trumping Mantik's direct observation of the shirt by observing a poor quality B&W photo? And you have decided Mantik's observation is BIASED?

I'm emphasizing what may be assumptions, guesses, or exaggerations on his part. (I'm doing this because as I read it, some of it didn't ring true).

Assumptions, guesses, or exaggerations? And on what basis do they not "ring true"? Be specific and cite each example AND the reason for these accusations.

Wow! I don't agree with a single word you've said in this post!

This is the best photo that I have found showing the 'nick' in the necktie:

We don't know if this photo was taken before or after the forensic sample was removed or before or after the knot was undone and re-tied.

According to Dr. C. James Carrico, the tie was cut "as close to the knot as possible" as this image appears to depict. Note the cut through the tie. IMO the tie was cut in two separate stages. The two separate cuts appear to my eye as much smoother than the jagged cut that appears in other photos of the tie.

Tom

Well I've observed that you are very cautious to take a position, more so than myself.

Not always. See my statement above: "It is ALWAYS expected to be present."

But in most cases you are absolutely correct.

I would like to believe that the throat wound was inflicted by a small caliber bullet, located above the collar, and the slits in the shirt and the nick in the tie were

caused by a scalpel used to remove the necktie. Adequate support exists for each piece of the total puzzle of the throat wound. This IMO is the least complex scenario that covers

all evidence as it exists today.

Does that PROVE it is correct? No. All of the above is true, but there is also strong evidence AGAINST it. There are just too many unanswered questions, and too many other interlocking possibilities for each piece of this puzzle. So I am EXTRA cautious NOT to attach myself to any specific theory regarding this throat wound.

I just know that even the most honest of people can have differing interpretations of what they read or hear.

Absolutely. People are not always careful as to how they express what they want to say, either. So even if we correctly interpret what their words indicate, it is frequently not

the idea they intended to convey. As you have noted I'm rather manic regarding interpretations of what I state. I put a lot more effort into clarity on this site than anywhere

else because a small number of our members will cherry pick a phrase out of a precisely worded sentence and insist you meant something contrary to what you obviously meant. This

is how they "win" an argument. By being an obsessive pain in the ass I keep this to a minimum.

Speaking of "anyone," I wonder what happened to Robert. He doesn't seem to be participating in this topic anymore.

...or ANY topic of this forum. I made the same observation earlier, and sent you a PM.

Tom

My first impression when I look at this photo is that there are slit-like holes on both sides. It's a striped shirt, each stripe consisting of three very narrow stripes grouped together. It's easy to see that the anatomical right hole is indeed a hole by looking closely at the three narrow stripes. Two of the stripes are on the left side of the hole, and the third is on the right side. The two on the left make a semicircle. Thus it is not just a thin slit.

The hole on the anatomical left looks like it extends up into the collar area. But that could be an illusion caused by two or three threads extending up there. It looks more like a hole than a blood clot to me. The right margin of the hole looks slightly frayed, and maybe that's why it looks like a hole to me. The hole does look dark/black, bu then so does the button hole.

Sandy,

As you may recall I am awaiting a response from Dr. David Mantik (who examined the shirt at NARA) to several questions. Just a few minutes ago I came across Mantik's response to a question posted on a website (emphasis is mine):

"The lacerations of the shirt lie well inferior to the top of the collar -- and therefore well inferior to the throat wound. I have seen the clothing at NARA. The shirt does not exhibit any missing material, but such missing material would be expected for a real bullet. And the lacerations in the shirt do look like the work of a scalpel."

Tom

Version: 4 Date: 2/3/16

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Version: 5 Date: 2/3/16

Below The Collar Line

• A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat.
• A bullet fragment exited JFK's throat. (A coating of organic matter on the fragment prevented metal residue from being left on the shirt holes. According to Tom Neal, BuLab's report sheds doubt on the possibility of no metal traces being left on the shirt holes. The WC hid the test results as it didn't support their story. But are metal traces expected always to be present?)
• A plastic projectile either entered or exited JFK's throat.

Common Notes:

• The holes in the shirt were made by the projectile.
• The nick in the tie may have been made by the projectile. If it's true that the nick was on JFK's left, as reported by the FBI, then it could not have been made by the projectile. (Because in that case the nick would be higher than the shirt holes, due to the knot's structure.)
• According to Cliff Varnell, the neck x-ray (declared genuine by Dr. Mantik) conflicts with these scenarios. It shows an air pocket at C7/T1. On the other hand, Jerrol Custer thought the x-ray is fake. (Was he the one who saw bullet fragments or dust in the neck x-ray?) NOTE: The extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities.

Above The Collar Line

• A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.
• A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.)

Common Notes:

• There seems to be no explanation for the two holes/slits in the shirt or the nick in the tie.
• The true neck wound was successfully covered up, and a lower one faked in its place.

Non-Projectile Scenarios

• Ashton Gray's Theory: Everything (wound in throat, hole in shirt ,and nick in tie) was made by an assassin with a 1/4" diameter needle connected to a syringe full of non-traceable poison.

Sandy,

This table is a good idea.

A bullet fragment exited JFK's throat. (A coating of organic matter on the fragment prevented metal residue from being left on the shirt holes.

Can you provide a citation for this statement regarding "a coating of organic matter on the fragment"? The forensic manuals are clear that "bullet wipe" is expected to occur at the cite of exit and entry wounds. This sounds like a WC-type explanation to me, although I've never encountered it...

According to Tom Neal, BuLab's report sheds doubt on the possibility of no metal traces being left on the shirt holes.

I wrote that? No offense intended, but I don't even know what that means...

BuLab's report which is posted, states unequivocally that "NO BULLET METAL" was present at the slits in the front of the shirt. If you want to keep this as it is, that's fine, but if you do, PLEASE remove my name!

Tom

Per BuLab (the FBI's own "crime lab), the spectrographic testing performed on the hole in the back of the shirt was "destructive" testing. They cut away a sample (size and location NOT stated), and burned it to obtain the spectrographic analysis. Their stated conclusion is that traces of copper are present at the hole in the back of the shirt. This of course indicates that the tested material was removed along the circumference of the hole itself.

What they suppressed was, they had also tested the slit(s) in the front of the shirt and the nick in the tie. Why were the results of these two tests suppressed, but not the shirt results? To quote the memo from the Chief of BuLab that was sent to Hoover, Tolson, Belmont, Sullivan et al, there was NO trace of "BULLET METAL" (they tested for 5 different types) at the front shirt slit OR at the nick in the tie. Say goodbye to their required exit of a bullet through the shirt and tie...

I am convinced by Tom's argument that the results of the test to the shirt holes were suppressed because the test didn't show traces of metal.

But I don't know if metal is always expected to be present.

It is ALWAYS expected to be present.

As I've stated in previous posts: IMO, IF the FBI believed that the presence of metal did NOT *ALWAYS* occur for entry/exit wounds, why would they suppress the report? They would have reported the test results "inconclusive" and maintained that this was the exit 'hole' of a bullet. As they did with the LHO paraffin tests et al. And finally, the forensic books that I have read state clearly that "bullet metal" aka "bullet wipe" IS present for BOTH entry and exit wounds in a human body.

BTW, I don't necessarily agree that the photos were taken after the destructive tests were done.

Sandy,

Who are you AGREEING with? Not me! I said I "strongly believe" the photos were taken AFTER the testing. Let's be clear regarding this point: I did NOT say they WERE taken afterwards. The importance of this fact will become clear in later posts - AFTER these current questions are 'resolved.'

Yes, photos CAN be taken quickly. I'm sure BuLab photographed the before and after results. I strongly believe, but I'm not absolutely certain that the photos at NARA are were taken AFTER the samples were removed from the clothing. More later on this subject...

BTW, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the "holes" as depicted in this animation actually exist? This link will take you to the post, and you can also read my OPINION on this subject. As always, allow about 2 seconds for it to appear on screen AFTER the correct page appears.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=31#entry325044

Tom

Just to be absolutely clear on this, do you agree that the diagram I posted earlier (SEEN BELOW), correctly describes JFK's tie knot?

Yes, I agree with what you show here.

DISREGARD THE NICK. This is not meant to depict the location of the nick!

What I'm asking is; do you agree that the horizontal 'ridge' located between the 5th and 6th icons up from the bottom of the knot is the 'top' edge of the horizontal part of the knot in the tie? In other words the 6th 'row' of icons is NOT part of the horizontal part of the knot, but actually the VERTICAL part of the tie tucked in behind the HORIZONTAL part of the knot. To summarize: Is the width of the tie in the color overlay equal to the width of the knot in the B&W photo?

But I'm not sure about the "curl inward" comment. If that is referring to where the tie become narrow

If you look at the photo and note the white border at the top, you can see that the FULL WIDTH of the tie is shown. The top of the tie does NOT get narrower at this point, but the bottom does. This can be seen in the photo of the entire tie that I previously posted. Do you agree that neckties are symmetrical? They narrow equally on BOTH sides. I believe this 'inward' movement of the lower edge in the photo is 'memory' from being tied. The only reason I pointed this out on the photo was to show why the tie was slightly narrower in the color overlay than the knot in the B&W photo.

Tom

You call them "holes", but do they only look like that now due to some of the material having been cut away for spectographic analysis?

Actually, a further thought on that - was a 'control sample' also removed from the shirt for comparison? If so from where?

Per BuLab (the FBI's own "crime lab), the spectrographic testing performed on the hole in the back of the shirt was "destructive" testing. They cut away a sample (size and location NOT stated), and burned it to obtain the spectrographic analysis. Their stated conclusion is that traces of copper are present at the hole in the back of the shirt. This of course indicates that the tested material was removed along the circumference of the hole itself.

What they suppressed was, they had also tested the slit(s) in the front of the shirt and the nick in the tie. Why were the results of these two tests suppressed, but not the shirt results? To quote the memo from the Chief of BuLab that was sent to Hoover, Tolson, Belmont, Sullivan et al, there was NO trace of "BULLET METAL" (they tested for 5 different types) at the front shirt slit OR at the nick in the tie. Say goodbye to their required exit of a bullet through the shirt and tie...

I found no statement describing the location or the quantity of the material removed from the shirt and tie. Per the FBI's standard procedure, TWO sample were taken from EACH test area. One to be used for the test and the second to be used as a control. Where the official photos taken BEFORE or AFTER these samples were removed? Considering that the tests were performed within two days of the assassination, I strongly suspect that we have never seen the original holes, slits and nick.

Tom

I thought Ashton Gray did a very good job of demonstrating the so called "slits" in the shirt were actually holes that aligned with each other when the collar was done up.

Bob,

You and I are almost always on the same page, but we don't seem to have any common ground regarding the shirt and tie.

PLEASE CONFIRM OR DENY THIS STATEMENT: you are convinced that the red and green/blue areas as depicted by Ashton in his GIF, are actual physical holes completely through the cloth on each half of the shirt.

Looking at this high contrast B&W photo of a heavily blood-stained shirt, with an unknown number of loose threads, and stating that there are actually two 'large' holes completely through the two halves of the shirt...I can't see them. I'm not saying they are absolutely NOT THERE. I'm saying that to MY eye they look MORE like dried blood clots than holes. But due to the characteristics of the photo itself, I can NOT say that they ARE dried blood clots, to the exclusion of anything else.

Above The Collar Line

• Tom is right and a bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.

Sandy,

Please remove "Tom is right." Per my earlier posts, I don't rate this theory any higher than several others, as it has a number of issues working against it.

Thanks,

Tom

Somebody (you, I thought) posted a picture of the complete necktie showing how it had been cut. I responded by saying it looked like it had been cut with a scalpel/knife, not scissors.

This is not what I had posted, this is what I had planned to do. i.e. combine the two photos of the front and back of the tie to show the two edges of the severed tie in close proximity:

Note that the color in this photo has been so over-saturated the icons have been totally obliterated.

Thanks Tom. I was hoping this would show the number of icons per row.

Still, it is clear to me that the number of icons per row in the knot area had to be less than six.

Sandy, I responded to this post, and it WAS visible. Now I can't find it...can you see it?

TO REPEAT MY EARLIER RESPONSE:

Just to be absolutely clear on this, do you agree that the diagram I posted earlier (SEEN BELOW), correctly describes JFK's tie knot?

Tom

Tom believes all these scenarios are improbable. I invite him to add what he believes happened, one entry for an above-the-collar wound, and another entry for a below-the-collar wound.

Already did that -- it's still there -- for the moment...

Reading that, it seems that you don't believe the "slits" in the shirt are the holes for a below-collar-line scenario. If they aren't, then this scenario couldn't have happened. (Unless the projectile stopped precisely after exiting the wound. Or if the shirt we see is a fake or was altered.)

Or, if unlike every forensic example I'm been able to find, a round projectile made a round hole through skin and a vertical slit in fabric. As far as bullet/fragments entering or exiting spectrographic analysis is not a hoax, and per the most basic forensic documents bullets/fragments leave metal on cloth. In the memo I posted BuLab clearly is unhappy that there was no metal on the slit or the nick, yet they STILL accepted the testing without equivocation. Additionally, they chose to suppress this report - yet another indications that they believed that no bullet/fragment made that slit.

That leaves the above-collar-line scenario. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Except you wonder how the slits got in the shirt, and the nick in the tie.

As I've stated more than once already, the slits are a MAJOR problem in this scenario as well. To me, any scenario that has one or more major issues is improbable.

To summarize AND repeat myself; IMO, based upon all the evidence that has been stated in this thread, ALL of the scenarios that have been proposed here have at least one major problem - which renders them improbable at best. I don't HAVE a theory that fits the available data. When and if I receive the books/docs that I am awaiting, I'm hoping more information will be available, and I can eliminate some of the negatives and add some positives. I have no delusion that the 'contrarions' who only accept their own theories, even when riddled with holes, will be swayed.

If you disagree with the above, please tell me why you think any of these theories should be ranked higher than improbable. The logic behind several of these scenarios, as I've already indicated, completely eludes me, so any explanation from you would be helpful.

Tom

The issue I am addressing is whether the wound was above or below the collar line, but of course that is directly related to the DP v. Parkland issue.

Tom

Okay, the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photos/film and the neck x-ray indicate he was shot in the throat in Dealey Plaza.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

The issue I am addressing is whether the wound was above or below the collar line, but of course that is directly related to the DP v. Parkland issue.

Tom

Okay, the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photos/film and the neck x-ray indicate he was shot in the throat in Dealey Plaza.

Draw your own conclusions from that.

Cliff,

My conclusions are:

1. "he was shot in the throat in Dealey Plaza" is NOT an answer to the question "was the wound above the collar or below"

2. for whatever your reason, you are providing rude answers obviously designed to provoke me

3. in the future you can be sure I won't be asking your opinion on anything...

I said all misunderstandings were "my bad."

In my neighborhood that ain't rude.

You ain't in your neighborhood and there was no misunderstanding. I POLITELY asked you a simple question and TWICE you responded with a rude non-answer. I don't know what you have against me, nor do I care. Don't bother me and I won't bother you.

Somebody (you, I thought) posted a picture of the complete necktie showing how it had been cut. I responded by saying it looked like it had been cut with a scalpel/knife, not scissors.

This is not what I had posted, this is what I had planned to do. i.e. combine the two photos of the front and back of the tie to show the two edges of the severed tie in close proximity:

Note that the color in this photo has been so over-saturated the icons have been totally obliterated.