Sandy Larsen

Sandy, I apologize. It appears that when I accused you of cherry picking you took that to have a negative connotation and I didn’t mean that at all. My point is that whenever we make a conclusion about what happened, especially with respect to the medical evidence, we’re cherry picking some data to make our point and ignoring other data. I think that’s just what we do and I don’t mean anything bad by the term. I see no way to avoid cherry picking if you’re going to come to conclusions. With respect to the statements by Dr. Clark, I fully concede your point. He makes many statements referring to occipital/parietal wounds and only two that we’ve discussed are counter to that. As I said before I think it is reasonable to discount the two examples you cited. Why is it reasonable? Because Specter was a bullying xxxx and it’s easy to understand why Dr. Clark chose to go along with his leading hypothetical question rather than to get into an argument. And I also think it is reasonable to discount Lattimer’s statements about what Dr. Clark because they’re hearsay, they’re in contradiction with his other statements, and I have no reason to trust Lattimer. So I agree with your point regarding Dr. Clark’s statements and I apologize if I caused any offense. Ms. Cranor accused Mr. Speer of cherry picking on page two of this thread, based on his use of the somewhat counterfactual alleged statements of Dr. Clark cited above. I think it’s unfortunate that Mr. Speer relied utilized those two statements because I don’t think he needed to. I think his head wound explanation (at least as I understand it) is consistent with all of the statements of Dr. Clark which you cited which emphasize an occipital/parietal wound. Thanks for the apology Ollie. I was offended, but I'd already forgotten about it by the time I read your post here. I don't hold a grudge. I had assumed "cherry picking" is a derogatory remark, as I'd only heard it used that way. But it apparently isn't in America. It is in the UK, though. Let me ask you... when you said "I think his head wound explanation (at least as I understand it) is consistent with all of the statements of Dr. Clark which you cited which emphasize an occipital/parietal wound," were you referring to Pat Speer's "head wound explanation?" Because if you were, I'll have to take a second look at it. My understanding of it is that it is in no way consistent with Dr. Clark's statements. Where do you believe Pat places the wound in his theory/explanation?

Question for Pat Speer: Pat, do you mention on your website the fact that nearly every Parkland doctor who saw the head wound stated early on (1963 and 1964) that it was located on the posterior, or right posterior, of Kennedy's head?

LOL, this is crazy! The FBI was initially going to go with the March 20 $21.95 money order purchase. Then later changed their minds and decided to fabricate their own money order! DVP, how do you explain the fact that the FBI got the wrong order from the microfilm? I mean, are they so inept that they thought they saw serial number C2766 on that order when in fact it wasn't there? Remember, this was not just one FBI agent... it was three! So all three hallucinated the C2766 serial number??? This is yet another smoking gun, Jim. But can DVP convincingly explain it away?? I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for a reply!

I think people should be careful when criticizing others of cherry picking. If a person cites several things that support a hypothesis, but misses something merely because he is unaware of it, that cannot be fairly called cherry picking. Cherry picking is when someone intentionally mentions only what supports his hypothesis. Now, if there are numerous pieces of evidence pointing in one direction, and just a few pointing the other way, a person who cites just those few without mentioning a single one of the numerous... well, he is surely cherry picking. IMO

I agree with Pat on this one. Though I didn't know that a lot of people have a hard time grasping it. Ollie, would elaborate on what you believe? I'd like to understand it. The issue is the skull defect had two sizes at Bethesda: upon arrival, and after scalp retraction. According to autopsy report and witness reports, the skull bone was severely fragmented so when the scalp was retracted, many pieces fell off or were attached to scalp. The autopsy report noted a 17x10cm (6.7 x 4 inch) defect, so did that refer to the smaller upon arrival size or larger, after broken bits removed? Millicent Cranor argues the former, Pat Speer the latter. I tend to agree with Ms. Cranor, based on the apparent size of the opening in the mystery photo, and it would seem to make more sense to measure the wound initially, when they were measuring things like scalp tears, and also because the brain was removed without substantially enlarging the opening after the broken bits fell away, and I don't see how even half a brain could be easily removed from a 7 x 4" hole. Thanks for the explanation, Ollie. I always just assumed that the 10 x 17 cm measurements matched the huge hole as drawn by Boswell in his notes.. But upon reading what you wrote, I did some measuring and I can see that my assumption was wrong. I agree with you and Ms. Cranor on this matter. Boswell's hole is much larger than 10 x 17 cm.

Well of course there was missing occipital scalp. How else could the following Parkland doctors have seen the cerebellar and occipital lobe tissue that they reported seeing? Clark McClelland Jenkins Carrico Perry Peters Crenshaw Baxter Does Pat mention these observations on his website? Source: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm If a portion of the skull over the occipital lobe were gone but there was a scalp flap, then why wouldn't they be able to see the brain despite a retracted scalp flap? Or, if the parietal bone were all gone but the occipital bone was intact, you can see directly down onto the occiput. Actually I misread what you wrote. My eyes saw "scalp" but my brain thought "skull." So never mind... my bad. But what I wrote about cerebellar and occipital lobe tissue does indicate that the wound was on the back of head.

I thought this was settled long ago. A shot from behind that grassy knoll fence is what caused Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left movement, and also the back-of-head blowout.

I agree with Pat on this one. Though I didn't know that a lot of people have a hard time grasping it. Ollie, would elaborate on what you believe? I'd like to understand it.

Well of course there was missing occipital scalp. How else could the following Parkland doctors have seen the cerebellar and occipital lobe tissue that they reported seeing? Clark McClelland Jenkins Carrico Perry Peters Crenshaw Baxter Does Pat mention these observations on his website? Source: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

I emphatically disagree. Dr. Gary Aguilar has noted the following statements and testimony given by Dr. Clark: ....in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland [Dr. Clark] described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392) In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10) In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322) Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark described his findings upon arrival to the emergency room, "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (WC--V6:20) Specter, either inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to move the wound more anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it, later asked Clark, "Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the of the President's head, with brain protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound to Mr. Specter again, "...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders." (WC--V6:29) In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of Kennedy's head wounding, Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes wound have been of specific importance..." (WC6:26) That Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the brain was missing cannot suggest anything but a very posterior defect.

I am an Obama supporter. Hillary too, other than for her once pro Iraq-war position I'll leave it at that.

In 1972 Stringer told David Lifton, in a recorded interview, that the wound was on the back of the head: Lifton: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?" Stringer: "In the back." Lifton: "In the back?...High in the back or lower in the back?" Stringer: "In the occipital part, in the back there, up above the neck." Lifton: "In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?" Stringer: "Yes. In the back part." Lifton: "The back portion. Okay. In other words, there was no five-inch hole in the top of the skull?" Stringer: "Oh, some of it was blown off--yes, I mean, toward, out of the top in the back, yes." Lifton: "Top in the back. But the top in the front was pretty intact?" Stringer: "Yes, sure." Lifton: "The top front was intact?" Stringer: "Right." Lifton, unsatisfied with precisely what Stringer may have meant by the 'back of the head' asked if by "back of the head" Stringer meant the portion of the head that rests on the rear portion of a bathtub during bathing. Stringer replied, "Yes." (Best Evidence, p.516) You can't get any more "back of the head" than that! Stringer changed his testimony -- as did others -- once he realized that it didn't fit with the archived evidence. IMO.

Pat, who do you think had a better view of the large skull wound... the Dealey Plaza witnesses or the Parkland Doctors? Maybe an exploding bullet was used and the result was blow-back shooting out the entrance wound. If so, that could explain why Dealey Plaza witnesses saw blood shooting out the temple area. Or maybe these witnesses got the wound location confused because, upon getting hit in the temple, Kennedy's head quickly snapped to his left in such a way that the back of his head -- with the gaping wound -- arrived almost instantaneously in the same position his temple had been. This happened so quickly that witnesses didn't realize the wound was in the rear of the head, not the side. I just took another look again at Zapruder, and I now believe that what I just described is probably what happened.

This is not true. Some of the doctors thought the wound was on the side or top of the head. What Don Jeffries said is true, Pat. At Parkland, nearly every medical professional who saw the gaping wound said it was in the rear, or extended to the rear. In your response to him, you picked the very few doctors whose recollections jibe most closely with what you believe. But let's look more closely at the exceptions you pointed out to Don. Salyer, for one, said [the wound] was on the side. Dr. Sayler: "I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound" (Warren Commission-V6:81) I see that Sayler is a good first choice for you, because he places the wound squarely in the area of the right ear. But he also makes the point that he was on Kennedy's left side and didn't have a direct "point of view" to observe the wound. Giesecke, for one, said it was on top. Dr. Giesecke: "...from the vertex to the left ear, and from the brow line to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing." Specter, surprised that Giesecke claimed the left side asked: "That's your recollection?" Giesecke answered: "Right, like I say, I was there a very short time--really." (WC-V:6:72-78)" Giesecke is not a very good witness for you, Pat, because he says that the wound extends to the occiput (the very back part of the skull). But then, he isn't a good witness for ANYBODY given that he recalls the wound being on Kennedy's left side. Perhaps that can be explained by his comment that he was there for "a very short time--really." So far, this makes two for two pro-Speer witnesses who didn't have a good view of the wound. McClelland, of course, famously said it was a wound to the left temple. Dr. McClelland: "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33): I don't know how you get "left temple" out of that, Pat. McClelland is a very poor witness for your side. You are also wrong to say they uniformly thought it was a blow-out wound. A "blow-out" wound is an exit wound. Dr. Clark, the most qualified man in the room, said he thought the wound was a tangential wound. A tangential wound is a wound of both entrance and exit. It is a big sloppy mess. It is not a "blow-out" wound. Actually Pat, what Dr. Clark said supports what Don said. Dr. Clark: "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) As you said, a "blow out" wound is an "exit wound." Your position on the blow-out wound seems very wrong, Pat. However.... The evidence you provide here is very compelling. You're right, the inside view of the Harper fragment does NOT have grooves and ridges like what we see in the photo of the occipital region. I'd like to hear what Dr. Mantik has to say about this. This looks like a major problem for him and those with his view regarding the Harper fragment location. (Since I'm convinced that the blow-out wound was on the back of the head -- the right side of the back of the head, to be more precise -- I'm betting that either 1) you've made some sort of mistake regarding the ridges on the occipital bone, or 2) the fragment placement by Mantik is wrong and should really be further to Kennedy's right. That would more closely fit the location of the wound as described by witnesses, and I don't see any big ridges there.)

I agree. As for the squabbling over the details, I'm starting to become Mantik-depressive. LOL, another good one, Ron.

I'll let you decide..... jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes I don't have a lot of time, but I'll take a stab a some of these things Jim D. is said to believe: 1.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at JFK. I'm pretty sure there is zero evidence that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/63. There is, however, evidence he didn't shoot a rifle that day. 2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit. That person apparently wasn't Oswald. Interestingly, Oswald's wallet was found there, even though it was also found on Oswald at the theater. Clearly it was planted. 3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker. I don't know enough to comment. 4.) Oswald did not visit the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963. The evidence points to an imposter, not Oswald, being there in Mexico City. Though it is possible that both the the imposter AND Oswald were there. Whether he was there depends partly upon whether it was he who visited Sylvia Odio. (I currently believe it was an Oswald imposter visiting Odio. So Oswald may have been in Mexico City. Though not necessarily at the embassies.) 5.) Oswald probably wasn't even IN Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963. Same as #4. 6.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods. The evidence suggest this to be the case. 7.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc. I don't know anything about this topic. 8.) Oswald's signature on the register of the Hotel del Comercio in Mexico City is a fake signature. That wouldn't surprise me given that the style Oswald's signature was all over the map, and thus could easily be forged. Look at his endorsements on checks he deposited and you will find that his signature varied greatly. 9.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake. The evidence indicates that many of the rifle documents had to have been faked. 10.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake. I don't know enough to comment. 11.) Marina Oswald lied about dozens of things, including when she said that Oswald had told her that he had taken a shot at General Walker. Marina contradicted herself numerous time. So there is no question that she lied a lot. 12.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, with Ruth being instrumental in getting Oswald his job at the Book Depository so that LHO could be set up as the proverbial "patsy". Either the conspirators got VERY lucky that a suitable patsy just happened to have gotten a job at a place where he could be set up, or Ruth Paine got him that job for that very purpose. I find the latter case to be far more likely. But I also find it highly unlikely that she had any idea as to why she was told to get him a job there. 13.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963. Don't know. 14.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the TSBD. I've seen a number of videos where Frazier talks about the length of that bag. In all but one he said that the bag was too small to have been carrying a broken down Carcano. 15.) Captain J. Will Fritz of the Dallas Police was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the DPD basement on Nov. 24, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot. Don't know. 16.) The backyard photos of Oswald are fakes (despite what the HSCA said). I'm currently not convinced either way. However I tend to lean on the "fakes" side of the fence because: 1) It is clear to me that the sling mount that can be seen in one of the photos doesn't match the sling mount on the rifle allegedly used to kill Kennedy. 2) It certainly does appear to me that the shadows from the wood steps are identical in multiple BY photos, even though the shadows from the Oswald character change dramatically from photo to photo. 3) In one BY photo, the Oswald character is missing fingertips. And 4) Oswald's chin is wrong, something I'm not convinced the lighting could account for. 17.) The autopsy report is pure bunk, which almost certainly means that DiEugenio thinks that all three autopsy doctors (Humes, Finck, and Boswell) lied out their collective assholes about President Kennedy's wounds. Well of course the Autopsy is bunk. That's a proven fact as far as I'm concerned. No question about it. 18.) The conspirators planning the assassination, although they wanted to frame ONLY Lee Oswald, shot JFK from a variety of locations, and they fired more than three shots in so doing, which pretty much guaranteed that their "One Patsy" plot would be exposed after the shooting. (But Jimbo and many like him believe this craziness anyway. Go figure.) This is absolutely true. One shot hit Kennedy in the back, one at the base of his skull from the back, and one from the front hit near his temple, blowing out the back of his skull. The throat wound was likely caused by an exiting bone fragment. Connally was hit by a separate bullet., from behind. 19.) A Mauser rifle was found in the TSBD after the assassination, even though the plotters knew they had to frame their one and only patsy with a Carcano rifle. (Brilliant!) The evidence strongly suggests this to be the case. Clearly a clumsy blunder. 20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey. In the case of JFK's murder, yes, it appears that most the evidence was fabricated or manipulated. That's surely wasn't a difficult feat given that so much was classified and filed away for no one to scrutinize. 21.) There were very likely at least two "Lee Oswalds" running around in various locations before the assassination. (In general, DiEugenio pretty much believes everything in John Armstrong's book of fantasy about there being "2 Oswalds" and "2 Marguerites". This proves that NO theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate.) I haven't read the Armstrong's book yet... just the first fifty pages. So I'm not sure about Harvey and Lee. But there were certainly some impostors involved... the ones in Mexico City proven to be impostors by the FBI. 22.) Jim Garrison was right about Clay Shaw after all. Shaw was guilty of being a co-conspirator in JFK's murder, despite the fact that Garrison did not provide ONE solid piece of evidence at Shaw's 1969 New Orleans trial to show that Shaw was involved in planning the assassination. I read Jim's book, and he laid out a good case. But I feel I don't understand it well enough to comment on Clay Shaw's role. I am convinced, however, that Garrison's case and reputation were systematically destroyed by those involved in the assassination cover-up. In summary, I can't see merit in any of your allegations against Jim DiEugenio, aside from the topics I don't have a good understanding of.

That surprises me. From what I've heard, Trumps past statement's paint him as a Democrat. I've been thinking that if he wins the GOP primary, our next president is guaranteed to be a small-d democrat.

Utter nonsense, Jim. The media was reporting that the murder weapon had a SCOPE on it as early as just a few hours after the assassination. There are even several FILMS (broadcast to the public on television on November 22) that show the scope attached to the rifle -- such as Tom Alyea's film, which was shown in its "wet" form (i.e., totally unedited) on WFAA-TV on the afternoon of the 22nd, with the film being narrated at various times by Bob Clark and Bert Shipp and Bob Walker, with the newsmen even pointing out the obvious fact that the rifle had a SCOPE on it. And Walter Cronkite, on Nov. 22 and 23, talked about the rifle's "sniper scope attachment". And Dan Rather, at about 7:00 PM on Nov. 22, narrated a film showing Lt. Carl Day walking through the DPD corridor carrying the rifle, with Rather telling the CBS audience that the rifle "has a four-power telescopic sight on it" (with the scope easily visible in the film as well; see video below).... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html#An-Italian-Gun And the newspapers were reporting about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle as early as Day 1 (November 22) as well. Here's an example from a Portland, Oregon, paper: Portland-Oregon-Newspaper-Front-Page-November-22-1963.jpg Here's another newspaper (also dated 11/22/63), showing the same information about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle: Sante-Fe-New-Mexico-Newspaper-Front-Page-November-22-1963.jpg And yet another: Oxnard-California-Newspaper-Front-Page-11-22-63.jpg Those newspapers were reporting the early erroneous info about the rifle being a "7.65 Mauser". But each paper also mentioned the fact that the assassination rifle was equipped with a "telescopic sight". That Oxnard paper was even correctly reporting, as early as November 22 (the date on the paper), that the rifle was an "Italian" gun. So, as all these examples illustrate, Jim DiEugenio doesn't know what he's talking about. Yes, Jim is mistaken on this one point. Everybody makes an occasional mistake. (Hopefully you're not generalizing when you say he doesn't know what he's talking about.) I guess Jim thinks that just because the media was reporting the $12.78 price for the assassination weapon for a few days beyond Nov. 22, that means that "the entire media...somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope". But if that's Jimmy's belief, he looks awfully silly, because I just provided a bunch of examples showing that the media WAS reporting on the "scope" within hours of the assassination.

I don't think ANY testimony should be changed or altered. But my guess is that James Cadigan answered the same question twice, and the revised answer was used in the transcript. Is it your contention that Cadigan never uttered the words "No, this is a latent fingerprint matter"? Do you think the WC (Dulles?) just inserted those words into the mouth of Cadigan? I'm saying that the Warren Commission altered evidence. What this example of evidence tampering tells me is that the WC had no qualms about changing evidence to meet their needs. What DVP's response to this tampering tells me is that -- no matter how bad something looks -- he will make an excuse for it. But only if it suits his pro-WC agenda.

Jim didn't post the example of the government (the FBI in this case, according to John Armstrong) taking liberties in modifying sworn testimony. So I will. Here's the transcript of Cadigan's testimony: Note the handwritten changes! Now here is proof that the changes made their way to the Warren Report: Incredible! What do you have to say about this, David V.P.? BTW Jim, maybe you're having trouble posting images because of the 1 MB limit placed on images hosted on the forum. Are you aware that you can still post images? The images remain hosted on another website (like harveeandlee.net) but appear here in the thread. Here's how to do that, just in case you don't know. Right-click on the image you want and select Copy Image Location. Then in the thread here, click the editor's Image icon. When asked for the image URL, paste the image location (right-click and select Paste) you had copied.

Excellent point made by John Armstrong in his write-up. David V.P., why didn't the WC prove that the 2/15/63 date on the deposit slip was a mistake, and that the deposit was really made on 3/15/63? All they had to do was introduce into evidence Klein's February and March bank statements. And DVP, why did Waldman testify that he had no way of proving the date was wrong?

The first thing to determine is whether or not the extant neck x-ray(s) are genuine. Here's what I've found in this forum so far: Cliff Varnell stating that the extant x-ray has been declared genuine by Dr. Mantik. Also stating that the x-ray shows an "air pocket" at C7/T1. Robert Prudhomme stating that Jerrol Custer remembered the x-ray showing several fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. Also noting that Custer therefore thought the extant x-ray to be inauthentic. Pat Speer stating that Custer was looking at HSCA cropped and enhanced versions of the x-rays, and it was those he said he didn't recognize. However, when shown the originals by the ARRB, Custer acknowledged them as x-rays he'd taken. (In the post I saw, Pat Speer doesn't dispute that Custer remembered fragments at C3/C4.) Someone (Cliff Varnell?) stating that the extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA expert witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities. (Could these be the fragments near C3/C4 that Custer remembers??) (Note that some of the above may be dated. My apologies if I mischaracterized any of it.) Any help will be greatly appreciated. Information gained in this thread could help solve the neck wound mystery.

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios Version: 11 Date: 2/10/16 (Changes shown in red.) Below The Collar Line A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat. A plastic projectile either entered or exited JFK's throat. Common Notes: These scenarios are supported by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below. The holes/slits in the shirt were made by the projectile. But a test done on the holes showed no traces of metal. The nick in the tie may have been made by the projectile. If it's true that the nick was on JFK's left side of the knot, 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.) Note, however, that if by "JFK's left" the FBI meant the left side of the front of the knot, that would mean the the nick was unrelated to the wound. (This may be the case as there is extant a photo showing the nick in that very position. Though it is unknown to us if the knot shown is the original knot.) It was unrelated to the wound because the trajectory could not include the knot. 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: These scenarios are contradicted by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below. The shirt holes/slits were suspected of being bullet holes, as they were tested for traces of metal. There seems to be no explanation for this test being performing if the wound was above the collar line, or if the the holes/slits looked like scalpel cuts. (Incidentally, the test revealed no traces of metal.) 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. It seems that the only reasonable explanation for this cover-up would be to support the SBT. (See the line of reasoning for this in Post 538 on this page.) Due to the SBT's late date, this cover-up had to have been performed by altering the "death stare" autopsy photo, not the body. Non-Projectile Scenarios Theory Based on Ashton Gray's Hypothesis: Everything (wound in throat, hole in shirt, and possibly nick in tie) was made by an assassin with a 1/4" diameter needle connected to a syringe full of non-traceable poison. This scenario is supported by eyewitness testimony which points to the neck wound being located behind the tie. See the Early Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. This is linked to below. The major difficulties for this scenario are 1) there had to have been a nurse or doctor involved in the conspiracy; 2) who happened to be in the right place to perform the injection; and 3) who did so in front of others, thus risking being caught. According to Cliff Varnell, the neck x-ray (declared genuine by Dr. Mantik) conflicts with this scenario. (See details under the Below the Collar Line scenarios, above.) Related Posts Post 556 on this page: Early Throat Wound Testimonies Useful Animated GIF (Posted by Ashton Gray years ago. Note that I believe the arrow should be lowered by about 1/4" to aligned with the holes. But I need to carefully check this.) (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 567 on this page.)