Tom Neal

The 'white' that you see through the hole in the outer fabric, is the white inner lining of the tie which was not damaged. Also, the testing of the tie was destructive so a "sample" of unknown size was removed from the 'nick'. Before or after the photos were taken? Who knows... IMO, due to their SOP we are probably looking at the post-removal of fabric condition of the tie. If so, we don't know the original size and shape of the nick... The photo of the tie he used for his animation is of JFK in Dallas or Ft. Worth on 11-22-1963. When you say 'the knot is displaced so far to the right' I don't know what you mean. If you mean the lower half of the knot, looking at it after it was cut off the way the knot was tied has pointed the lower half of the knot toward his right. 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

Opinions please as to the location of the "nick" as determined using this photo alone: TIA for any comments... Tom

There are 6 columns of patterns, which match every other column, allowing 3 possible 'rotations' of the cloth that match. Per the FBI memo that I posted earlier, the location of the "nick" is on the anatomical left side of the tie. Harold Weisberg states that he requested photos be taken of the tie that would reveal the location of the nick when the tie was worn. He states that per his discussions with Nara personnel it was obvious that the tie had been untied and re-tied so as to move the nick toward the front center. I agree. Sandy, In your comments regarding the vertical slit, you mention that due to the 'weave', the shirt will tear along a vertical line. Isn't it equally likely to tear along a horizontal line if the force was applied in that direction? Tom

Scott, You chastise me for posting a reply after you said you are going to bed and therefore don't have time to answer a simple question. Yet you have the time to post a lame retort. Why don't you "psychoanalyze" that? Tom

I missed the rule that says no one is allowed to reply to Scott because Scott says he is going to bed. Couldn't you just wait until morning to reply? Or are you implying that I can force you to stay awake by posting a reply to your post? Tom

Scott, You can start with a response to my post #161, and explain how no video existed of Dulles speaking, so no one can psychoanalyze him... Try to avoid a repetition of this in your forthcoming counter arguments. Tom

Scott, Everyone understands what you are saying so you don't have to talk down to us so we can understand. I googled "Allen Dulles youtube" and here are the FIRST two results which are devoid of your claimed overdubs, etc. Didn't exactly look everywhere before you made your "Tidd-like" statement, now did you? Tidd doesn't know about the Garrison trial and you don't know about the internet... Before you psychoanalyze AWD from the videos, STATE you credentials and qualifications to do so... Tom

Jim and Paul: Absolutely perfectly said. Logic, facts and the latest research is strong evidence that Dulles could, would, and probably did play a major role in JFK's murder. Scott and Jon's counterargument is a closed loop: 1. state AWD wasn't involved because *I* believe he wasn't involved. 2. reject out of hand the latest AWD historical facts 3. respond to facts with over-the-top sarcasm 4. make an irrelevant response 5. return to step 1 and repeat You guys sound like Cronkite who summed up LHO's marksmanship like this: 'We know he COULD do it, because he DID do it.' Tom

At last someone besides me sees this loose thread! As I posted earlier it may even be two threads on top of the collar flap... Tom

Ashton, Nicely done! Photoshop for the wrap? This shows the position of the "nick" - sort of... Could they possibly have made it more difficult to determine the location of the nick? Whether this is before it was unknotted and reknotted they don't say. Tom

My first choice "The Big Sleep". Relevance: More than half a century after it was over, we still don't know who killed the chauffeur... Tom

"Tear it by hand" forces would be very different than the forces at work in this situation. Tom

Pretty much what I was thinking, Sandy. Great minds think alike... Sandy, After my comments, do you still think the bone scenario works? To reiterate, I don't have a theory that works... Tom

No one informed me that we were 'doing Casablanca' tonight... Or I would have added My favorite line: Senor Ferrari: "As the leader of all illegal activities in Casablanca, I am an influential and respected man." to the Richard Helms video. Tom

Hi Jim, I responded to his post earlier, but for some reason it seems to have disappeared! In the last response that is still extant, I was sticking within the boundaries he cited. I wanted him to respond to that first, and then I would step on his toe by pointing out the Garrison trial. I don't know where that post has gone, but you 'stomped" him better that I did, so I'm glad it was my post that vanished instead of yours! I'm sure he doesn't care, but I'm 'one more irrelevant post' away from putting him on ignore... Tom

DUPE!

This idea has already gone through my head also, so I'll state the objections I gave myself during its journey through my head... Are you positing that the tip rotated along a 1/2" arc while not moving forward along its velocity vector? IIRC you are an engineer so you are familiar with this terminology... FWIW, the nick is on the side of the necktie knot - not on the back. After it was untied and retied the nick has moved away from the side and toward the front of the knot. I agree with you there. Because:1. Despite what has been alleged, the transcript records that it is Dulles that says the wound is above the knot, NOT Carrico. Carrico attempts to respond and Dulles cuts him off. In WC testimony Carrico clearly states as I and Ashton have posted that HE himself unbuttoned JFK's shirt and (then) observed the neck wound. The phrasing clearly indicates that this is the first time he has seen it. Whether he or Dulles states that the wound was above or below the collar, Carrico himself clearly states that he did NOT see the wound until after JFK's clothes were removed. So either way Carrico is estimating. 2. Nurse Henchliffe saw it prior to the tracheostomy, but gives no indication as to whether she first observed it before or after clothing removal. I have requested a transcript from Wallace Milam (a BIG thank you to Jim DiEugenio for supplying the contact info!) of his interview with her in the hope that it will resolve this issue as well as the scalpel v. scissors debate. 3. Nurse Bowron stated in her WC testimony that she did not observe the throat wound until after the trach tube was removed. However, in a 1993 interview with Harrison Livingstone she states that she observed it while in JFK's limo. It has been suggested that her testimony was alterred in 1964. IMO it's more likely that her 30 year old memory is faulty. The WC wants the throat wound low enough to connect with the back wound, so they had a motive to alter this. However, she also mentions observing the back wound in 1993, but did see "any other wounds" meaning other than head/throat in 1964. Which caused the bone fragment to create the slit and the nick... One of the many issues I have with any theory of a bone creating the slit is that the slit is absolutely vertical. If created by a scalpel this is EXACTLY what we would expect. But isn't this one hell of a coincidence if done by a bone fragment? No matter how the slit was created, why are the two slits so different in appearance? Pardon me for throwing rocks at your theory, but I have run out of reasonable explanations that fit the evidence: bullet fragment - no spectrographic evidence on shirt slit and tie bone fragment - gyrations required for bone fragment to exit a 1/5" round hole, yet cut a 1/2" VERTICAL slit through 2-3 layers of fabric that is touching this wound at the time shirt slit - all the characteristics of a scalpel cut, but considering Carrico's statement that the tie was pulled away from the patients neck and then cut with a scalpel, how do we reconcile a slit cut through 2-3 layers of shirt with a short-bladed scalpel? no vertical incision in JFK's throat - To pull the shirt away from his throat you MUST first unbutton the shirt collar. Carrico is clear that only the tie was pulled away and cut. Then he unbuttoned the shirt himself. After cutting away the tie, a slit through JFK's shirt does nothing to assist its removal AND would have created a vertical incision in JFK's throat, which does not exist I am REALLY hoping that the evidence I am awaiting helps, because I have no reasonable scenario here at all... Tom

Well, with this kind of talk no one will accuse you of posing as a lawyer. Apparently, I missed the actual trial. None of the evidence was struck down nor was it accepted. You are attempting to impose the rules of evidence in an ongoing trial with the evidence presented for consideration. In your own words, anything that hasn't passed a judges ruling is "bunk"; thus every piece of evidence is bunk. You can QED all you want, you haven't demonstrated anything, and your stipulation is BS. Ipso Facto. Tom

Scott, No sarcasm intended -- You continue to confuse -- Everything you ask for is in the book. I don't understand your continual refusal to simply read the book... Tom

Sandy, Just to clarify/elaborate: Prior to reading "THE DEVIL'S CHESSBOARD" I was convinced that AWD was, at the VERY least a major participant in JFK's murder. The "Power Elite" wanted him dead. They needed someone with a track record of: flagrantly opposing the plans of the POTUS. e.g. Dulles making a personal deal with top nazi officials contrary to strict presidential orders; the BOP (no need to elaborate); assassination of Lamumba et al. experience in the successful assassination of Leaders of State while covering up any US involvement close long-term connections to the media to control the reaction of the press e.g. Henry Luce, et al the list goes on and on... Name someone else with this experience who hated JFK for publicly humiliating him and making his last official act the debacle that was the BOP? "THE DEVIL'S CHESSBOARD" and all of its new insight to AWD did NOT change my previous opinion of him, but it did lower it even more and increase my confidence that whatever title you want to give him, AWD was a MAJOR player in getting this job done. Tom

Scott, Paul Brancato has nailed it, but please allow me to elaborate and personalize: I was not born a CONSPIRACY THEORIST. I became one by virtue of the information that I have acquired over a period of decades. I have weighed the evidence and made my decision. Having made that decision I remain open to any reasonable evidence to the contrary. My belief is not based on Faith, it is based on the best evidence available. I was born my father's son. In dealing with me, I trust him more than anyone I know. I know the man, and base my trust on that. Am I biased on his behalf? Yes. Can your friend truly say that he not biased toward what his father told him? Bissell and Dulles had the same belief system. Did your friend ever tell you if his father thought Kennedy should or should not have been assassinated? Knowing that under AWD, the CIA has actually assassinated heads of state; knowing CIA's goals at that time and JFK's direct interference with their achievement, I strongly *suspect* that any high-ranking CIA officer would agree that killing JFK was the best thing for the greater good. This of course doesn't mean any specific individual was actually involved, but it would dramatically affect his opinion as to the right or wrong of JFK's murder. For Scott and John Tidd: (Stepping up on my soapbox) I continue to be a student of the assassination as I believe are all (OK, ALMOST all) who post here. Whatever my overall belief, I accept any information that has been reasonably substantiated whether it supports my overall belief or undermines it. Whether an individual hates AWD, loves AWD, or places him somewhere within this range, can you honestly call yourself a student of the assassination while not only ignoring, but strongly rejecting out-of-hand the most up to date information on AWD? Tom (Stepping down off his soapbox)

Excellent clip, Brian! Thanks for sharing. The only thing that's missing is a zoom into a closeup of Helm's while he intones: "I was convicted of purjery, and to this day I wear that conviction as a badge of honor -- remember this, you CAN TRUST ME!" For anyone who is unfamiliar, "wear it as a badge of honor" is indeed a direct quote. Not something Helms said once, but a mantra used again and again... Tom

Jon, Can you identify this "amateur" by name? If not, why do you declare him to be an amateur? Tom

A few hours ago, while in search of the origin of the 'scalpel v. tie'; as I had mentioned earlier, it did indeed originate with Harald Weisberg. He states quite clearly (and more than once) that during his interview with Carrico, the doctor went so far as to demonstrate the method. The nurse pulled the tie far enough away from JFK's neck to avoid any chance of inflicting a wound, and as close to the knot as possible. This is the ONLY statement I've found anywhere that indicates whether a scalpel or scissors was used to cut the tie. I have several legitimate medical scalpels that I use for hobby-type stuff, and the blades are quite short. IMO she would have held the tie too far away to have cut a slit into the shirt while severing the tie. After all the shirt was touching his body at the time and the blade would have created a wound. It also appears to me that a scalpel was used to cut the tie. Considering the appearance of the cut ends, IMO it required two or more 'strokes' with the knife to complete the cut. Sandy, Thanks for the input. I had given up on anyone commenting on this photo re front or back. It doesn't really make sense to me that in the first photo of the tie you see the front twice and then back. The next photo has the same issue but in reverse. Like the wrong CE number is this designed to confuse the issue? I honestly can't tell, and I don't know what that 'spot' is. I was unable to fit "WHAT THE HELL IS THIS" into the space available, and the ONLY reported damage with the nick. So I used the word "NICK" and a question mark. They did a horrendous job photographing this tie as far as locating the "nick" on the knot. Or probably with their agenda I should have said they did a GREAT job... BTW, in an all-nighter that has yet to terminate, I discovered two things about this tie that I had never read. in addition to the spectrographic examination of the hole in the back of the shirt and the slit in the front of the shirt as I reported earlier, they actually did test the "nick" in the tie at the same time. Like the slit in the front of the shirt, no "Bullet Metal" was detected. in order to conduct the exam a small amount of material was removed from the tie. The remaining questions are: how much material was removed from the tie, and were the extant photos taken before or after this removal of material? IMO the photos were taken AFTER the removal of material to give the impression of a larger nick. The stain that appears on the tie at the site of the nick has not been commented on by the FBI who had the tests done. The spectrographic analysis that was performed at all three 'sites' would have detected the presence of blood, and unsurprisingly, they do not mention whether or not any blood was revealed on the shirt or tie. As stated above, according to Weisberg/Carrico you nailed it! The one comment I have is that IMO a penetration of the shirt by the scalpel would have penetrated the shirt that was touching his body and left an incision in his throat. Question re the shirt photo: the slit on the anatomical left side of the shirt appears to begin well into the collar. To me eyes it appears that this is actually two loose threads on top of the collar. Any opinions regarding this possibility? Thanks again for responding, Tom

Hello There Gene, You've hit every one of what are to me the high points in this book, and your take is identical to mine. The deGaulle section was intriguing - especially the failure of the US media to report the question of CIA involvement and deGaulle's statements regarding the JFK assassination. I don't want to give away TOO many details... That brings the total that read the book up to four. Are you as surprised as I am at how few members have read this book? Tom