Tom Neal

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...

Did the FBI indicate to whose left the nick was located.

JFK's anatomical left.

My posts keep disappearing and I'm tired of re-typing them, so I'm replying without elaboration.

The next post that disappears will be last post on this site - too irritating to be worth the effort.

Based on all the above, I'm inclined to believe that -- at the time of the shooting -- JFK's tie knot was shifted a bit to his left. A projectile exited the throat, made the two holes in the shirt, nicked the tie knot on its right side (JFK's right), and went on its way.

The FBI report states that the nick in the tie was on the left. Why do you think that it was actually on the right? They certainly would have lied about this if it was to their benefit, but I can't think of a reason to lie about this.

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 feel that Ashton has demonstrated quite well that the openings in the shirt collar were not exactly slits.

1. There were no openings in the shirt collar at all that I'm aware of, so first confirm you are talking about the vertical slits in the shirt itself, or tell me what "openings in the shirt collar" that "were not exactly slits" you are referring to.

2. Please quote what Ashton said that indicates the "openings" were "not exactly slits" because all I recall is his statements they "overlap perfectly", and there is no material missing. I disagree with the former and agree with the latter.

1. We are mistaken about organic residue on bullets, and the bullet (or bullet fragment) exiting JFK's neck was coated in organic matter and left no residue on the collar.

2. Cliff is right and a projectile made from plastic either entered or exited JFK's throat, also nicking the tie and going through the shirt collar.

3. A fragment of bone from JFK's neck exited his throat, nicking his tie knot and passing through his shirt collar on the way through.

4. Ashton is right and everything (wound in throat, hole in collar and nick in tie) was made by an assassin with a 1/4" diameter needle connected to a syringe full of non-traceable poison.

I've already stated that I think 1,3 & 4 are highly improbable, and I don't think that 2 is what Cliff is saying, so I wouldn't include any of them on a list.

I thought the issue was where the throat wound was created -- Dealey or Parkland?

If that's not the issue -- my bad.

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. IMO, the wound occurred in DP not in Parkland. But there are question marks here dependent upon a throat wound located ABOVE the collar or BELOW. If below the collar, where is the hole in the shirt corresponding to the wound? Do round bullets make a 1/2" vertical slit in a shirt and a 1/5" round hole in the body and leave "No bullet material?" On this basis alone a stronger case is made for an above the collar wound. If above the collar, what made the slit and the nick? Not blunt-nosed scissors...how does a trained RN removing a necktie with a scalpel cut a slit completely through multiple layers of cloth without slicing into JFK's neck? Each option has it's positives and its negatives.

Tom

JFK was shot in the throat from the front right below his adams apple.

That's a provable fact established by the physical evidence and the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photos/film.

Cliff,

I was away all day yesterday and I've just now returned to this thread.

Am I correct that you believe a bullet entered ABOVE his collar line creating the throat wound located just beneath his adam's apple? Personally, I would VERY MUCH like to believe this is what actually happened, because it separates the throat wound, and the shirt slit/tie nick into separate events.

The first problem with this idea is, of those who COULD have seen this wound, only Diana Bowron states that she saw this wound PRIOR to the removal of JFK's clothing. Her testimony to the WC is ambiguous due to the questions she is asked. IMO, she appears to be uncertain as to which point in time Specter's questions are referring to. I have the transcript for her 1993 interview with Harrison Livingstone. She clearly states that she saw the throat wound while examining JFK in the limo. I've found a few additional comments from this book ("Killing the Truth") that offer an explanation as to why her statements differ from her 1964 WC testimony. I have this book on order, but have never read it. Once I search this book I'm hoping to find more evidence regarding her alleged "conflicting" testimony.

IIRC she stated in 1964 as well as in 1993, that while in the limo she couldn't find a pulse 'anywhere'. This indicates that she checked at more than one location. It seems almost a certainty she checked for a pulse at his carotid artery. In doing so she would be in an ideal position to observe the throat wound IF it was above the collar. She makes a reference that as a nurse she was doing whatever 'First Aid' she could despite the massive head wound. It's not unreasonable to think that she might have loosened his tie, and even gone so far as to unbutton his collar button to aid his breathing. Is this when she first saw the throat wound or did she see it with his shirt buttoned and tie in place? Hopefully the comments in Livingstone's book will clarify some of these issues.

The second problem is the physical location of the throat wound as indicated by the doctors/nurses/photographs may be too low to have been seen while clothed. The consensus of the medical people is that the throat wound was located just below the Adam's Apple. I don't wear my necktie on or above my necktie - does anyone? IMO, photographs of JFK on 11-22-1963 show that he did not either. In a 1997 video interview, Carrico states that the wound was AT the collar line, even poking his finger BEHIND the top of his collar in demonstration. It is regularly stated that in his WC testimony he says the words 'the wound was located above the collar.' He puts his had to his throat, begins to speak, and Dulles jumps on him, and states 'the wound was "ABOVE the collar". Carrico attempts to speak, and Dulles immediately cuts him off. But, all of this is irrelevant. Later in WC testimony, Carrico unequivocally states that he was "too busy then" and did NOT see the throat wound until AFTER removal of JFK's clothing. He repeats this same statement in his 1997 interview. Thus, when Carrico states the location of the throat wound RELATIVE to the collar line, he is only estimating -- not remembering what he actually observed.

Considering all of the above, IMO the best we can say is that the throat wound was very close to the collar line. Again, this is MY OPINION.

Tom

Tom,

Since the close proximity witnesses describe JFK reacting to throat trauma and the Zap film shows JFK reacting to throat trauma -- seems obvious that he was reacting to throat trauma on Elm St.

This is all "false mystery" nonsense, frankly and with all due respect.

Cliff,

My post is questioning the location of the throat wound relative to the shirt collar -- not arguing that there was no throat wound...so your post *appears* to be a non sequitur. Or is this your way of saying that you have no longer have any desire to participate regarding this issue? I can understand that you think the only thing that matters is there *was* a throat wound. With the same considerations and due respect, I don't agree that nothing matters beyond the fact that there was a throat wound.

Tom

JFK was shot in the throat from the front right below his adams apple.

That's a provable fact established by the physical evidence and the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photos/film.

Cliff,

I was away all day yesterday and I've just now returned to this thread.

Am I correct that you believe a bullet entered ABOVE his collar line creating the throat wound located just beneath his adam's apple? Personally, I would VERY MUCH like to believe this is what actually happened, because it separates the throat wound, and the shirt slit/tie nick into separate events.

The first problem with this idea is, of those who COULD have seen this wound, only Diana Bowron states that she saw this wound PRIOR to the removal of JFK's clothing. Her testimony to the WC is ambiguous due to the questions she is asked. IMO, she appears to be uncertain as to which point in time Specter's questions are referring to. I have the transcript for her 1993 interview with Harrison Livingstone. She clearly states that she saw the throat wound while examining JFK in the limo. I've found a few additional comments from this book ("Killing the Truth") that offer an explanation as to why her statements differ from her 1964 WC testimony. I have this book on order, but have never read it. Once I search this book I'm hoping to find more evidence regarding her alleged "conflicting" testimony.

IIRC she stated in 1964 as well as in 1993, that while in the limo she couldn't find a pulse 'anywhere'. This indicates that she checked at more than one location. It seems almost a certainty she checked for a pulse at his carotid artery. In doing so she would be in an ideal position to observe the throat wound IF it was above the collar. She makes a reference that as a nurse she was doing whatever 'First Aid' she could despite the massive head wound. It's not unreasonable to think that she might have loosened his tie, and even gone so far as to unbutton his collar button to aid his breathing. Is this when she first saw the throat wound or did she see it with his shirt buttoned and tie in place? Hopefully the comments in Livingstone's book will clarify some of these issues.

The second problem is the physical location of the throat wound as indicated by the doctors/nurses/photographs may be too low to have been seen while clothed. The consensus of the medical people is that the throat wound was located just below the Adam's Apple. I don't wear my necktie on or above my Adam's Apple - does anyone? IMO, photographs of JFK on 11-22-1963 show that he did not either. In a 1997 video interview, Carrico states that the wound was AT the collar line, even poking his finger BEHIND the top of his collar in demonstration. It is regularly stated that in his WC testimony he says the words 'the wound was located above the collar.' He puts his had to his throat, begins to speak, and Dulles jumps on him, and states 'the wound was "ABOVE the collar". Carrico attempts to speak, and Dulles immediately cuts him off. But, all of this is irrelevant. Later in WC testimony, Carrico unequivocally states that he was "too busy then" and did NOT see the throat wound until AFTER removal of JFK's clothing. He repeats this same statement in his 1997 interview. Thus, when Carrico states the location of the throat wound RELATIVE to the collar line, he is only estimating -- not remembering what he actually observed.

Considering all of the above, IMO the best we can say is that the throat wound was very close to the collar line. Again, this is MY OPINION.

Tom

If somebody could find the photo I mentioned that Tom posted, I'd be happy to reconsider my position if that photo provides clues to support another theory.

Sandy,

Which photo are you referring to above?

Tom

Well Bob,

Once again, you've avoided the step-by-step process by jumping ahead. You posted a question asking for someone to agree with you. You have now received 4 responses who have ALL disagreed with you, yet you cling to the notion that it is physically impossible for the icons to align at the vertical and horizontal intersection. Since I've already constructed this I'll post with the full expectation that you will blow this off too:

The B&W photo in this montage depicts the tie as worn by JFK on 11-22-1963. On top of this B&W is the color photo showing the nick in the tie. It has been rotated 90 degrees to match the orientation of the knot in the underlying photo, and resized (with no changes in proportion) to horizontally align these icons with those on the underlying B&W photo.

Note the white borders at the top and bottom of the color photo overlay. THIS IS THE FULL WIDTH OF THE TIE. IT HAS NOT BEEN TRIMMED. IT CONTAINS 5 ICONS. As stated on the photo above, the "TIE BEGINS TO CURL INWARD" slightly reducing the width of the tie, but the icon immediately above the curled 'lower' edge is still horizontally aligned with the corresponding icon of the underlay as are the remaining 4 icons across the FULL WIDTH of the tie. Note the fact that the icons in BOTH photos are all the SAME SIZE. Is it a coincidence that when the edges of the color tie are aligned with the edges of the B&W tie the icons are precisely the same size and align horizontally?

If I were to increase the width of the color overlay until it reached what you are claiming is the top boundary, not only will the color icons be significantly smaller that the B&W icons, there will still only be 5 icons on the blue tie v. the 6 you claim are present on the full width of the B&W tie.

Please explain as to how this 5 icon wide tie does the impossible and becomes a 6 icon wide tie?

You imply that it is physically impossible for the row of icons on the vertical part of the tie to align with the horizontal icons on the horizontal part of the tie yet you have have repeated your claim that the nick in the tie can be moved laterally a little bit at a time into any location. The icons are going to travel along with the nick so EITHER the horizontal icons could be matched to the vertical icons OR the nick can't be adjusted in small increments either. You can't have it both ways, so make your choice. The vertical part of the tie that is exposed above the horizontal part of the knot is considerably narrower than the full width of the tie causing the tie to curl so the edges are out of site. Additionally, the 'wings' of the collar would hide this. This would allow the icons to be shifted laterally to align the icons on the horizontal part of the tie. Tightening or loosening the knot increases/decreases the circumference of the tie. This action moves the icons laterally on the horizontal part of the tie.

I've just given you 3 DIFFERENT ways to align the icons, but if your counter-argument that JFK would NEVER appear in public without a perfectly knotted (which it isn't, the knot is asymmetrical which is causing the bottom of the knot to point to the right) tie trumps all of the above, then you continue to go with that. I've wasted more than enough time here - and this is the last I have to say on this subject.

Tom

PS Sandy, I'd appreciate any comments you have on this post and the photo montage...

In the horizontal wrap-around part of the knot, how many icons do you see in the vertical column of the knot?

What question was that, Tom?

Let's take this one step at a time:

How many icons do you see in the horizontal row that contains the nick?

I cannot believe I am even having this discussion with you, Tom. Can you not see the attempt at hustling us that has been made here?

Why don't you just answer my questions so I can attempt to follow your reasoning?

How many here believe JFK would leave part of the inner knot of the tie hanging out of the top of the knot?

I think it's more likely than the tie is 5 icons wide in the nick photo and 6 icons wide at the same place when it's tied around his neck...

Obviously Ashton also thinks JFK messed up his tie:

And if you answer my question in post #376, maybe I can follow your thinking...

No matter when it was done, it still requires the inability to count to 6, and a tie exists that is a perfect match except for that for the wrong number of icons.

Seriously, I don't understand what you are saying about an inability to count to six, Tom. Can you not see two vertical rows of six icons each in the tie knot?

Is your point that the tie in the c/u color photo of the nick is 5 icons wide, and the tie JFK is wearing in the B&W photo is 6 icons wide in the horizontal part of the knot?

Who can't count to 6? What are you saying?

Take a deep breath, let it out slowly, then go back and read your own posts...

No matter when it was done, it still requires the inability to count to 6, and a tie exists that is a perfect match except for that for the wrong number of icons.

P.S.

And what a coincidence that there is a square icon above the top circle icon on the left, and a circle icon above the top square icon on the right.

Have it your way. They can't count to 6...

You'll have to get some other opinions then, because that's the way it looks to me.

The alternative is what? Someone who can't count to 6 replaced the tie at NARA with a fake?

IMO the red arrow is pointing to the somewhat darker top edge of the horizontal part of the knot. The vertical part of the tie should have been pulled down until the horizontal part of the knot rises up and covers the part that appears above the top of the horizontal edge.

Depending upon your screen brightness and contrast settings, this may be easier to see the dark edge at the top of the horizontal tie knot:

Tom

This is a cool photo of Allen Dulles! And he certainly counted on the veracity of that quote...

But why did you put "-Mark Twain" at the bottom of the photo?

Tom

There are only 3 possible orientations that will maintain alignment with the pattern on the tie. The one Ashton has selected for animation and either 120 degrees clockwise or 120 degrees counter-clockwise. Remember, the pattern on JFK's tie is fixed relative to his body. If you rotate the overlay less than 120 degrees the pattern will be misaligned."[/font][/cvolor]

I don't understand what you are saying, Tom. If the section of tie we see above, with the nick, becomes the horizontal part of the tie knot, why couldn't the nick be anywhere on the 360° circumference of the tie knot?[/font][/color]

Bob,

If we view the tie at the level of the "nick" there are six 'icons' around the horizontal circumference of the tie in the underlying photo. Two icons are visible in the front, two in the back that are unseen, and one on each side that are partially visible. 360/6=60 degrees - every icon is located 60 degrees from the other around the circumference of the knot.

IF only one type of icon was used, the horizontal tie in the overlay could be moved ONLY at 60 degree increments or the icons will not overlap. However, two different icons are present and they alternate. A 60 degree movement would overlap two non-matching icons. This requires another 60 degrees of travel around the circumference of the tie in order to match the overlapping icons. Two incremental moves of 60 degrees each, equals a single movement of 120 degrees. 360/120=3 Therefore only 3 possible location of the nick in the tie exist - AS THE TIE IN THE PHOTO IS TIED.

If you presume the photo represents the knot AS WORN BY JFK then there are only 3 possible positions of the nick per the explanation above. However, we know by the photos of the untied full length tie, that the tie was obviously unknotted. When it was re-tied, the 'tighter' the knot was pulled, the shorter the circumference of the knot in the tie. It follows then that the 'looser' the knot the longer the circumference. Utilizing this procedure, the location of the nick could be moved laterally in VERY small increments. The knot in the tie would then appear larger or smaller than the knot in JFK's tie as seen in photographs. Any change in the size of the knot could be hidden by photographing the tie from a distance, and in any close-up, a photo from the side prevents any size-of-the-knot comparison. I do NOT have any closeup photos of the nick as viewed from the front. Are there any?

Did they photograph the tie ONLY after re-knotting it? Given their SOP, IF it was to their advantage to do so, then they almost certainly did!

Tom

DUPLICATE POST!

You could put the nick in the tie anywhere you wished; back, front or on either side, simply by altering the place you started tying the tie. Ashton has shown the nick in the front of the tie because it suits his purpose to do so.

Bob,

What purpose do you attribute to Ashton that requires the nick to be in the front?

BTW, There are only 3 possible orientations that will maintain alignment with the pattern on the tie. The one Ashton has selected for animation and either 120 degrees clockwise or 120 degrees counter-clockwise. Remember, the pattern on JFK's tie is fixed relative to his body. If you rotate the overlay less than 120 degrees the pattern will be misaligned.

And, the FBI located the nick on the anatomical left. You can trust them --- they're the FBI.

Tom

Bob,

The scissors you described used by EMTs for rapid clothing removal - have you ever removed a necktie with them? The cut in JFK's tie appears too ragged to have been cut by scissors, and also appears it took a minimum of two strokes to cut through it. Any thoughts?

Tom