Sandy Larsen

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. Yes Tom, I am a terrible person. You have me nailed.

Ernie, First let me say that I read some of the testimony and skimmed some of it. So I may be mistaken somehow in my response here. But I think not. It seems like you (and Mr. Greener) are mistaken in some way. You both say the Dallas Herald got involved with the Irving Gun Shop before the FBI did. But I think it happened the other way around. You said: Only when the story broke did the FBI get involved, naturally. Had the FBI known about this first why would the Dallas Herald even be involved in the story? Mr. Greener (the shop owner) agrees with you: Mr. LIEBELER. I am trying to find out at what time this story first broke, whether the FBI had been here at the shop to ask any questions before the story came out in the newspapers? Mr. GREENER. As I recall, no. None of the law enforcing agencies had been by previous to that. Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression is that he [FBI agent] came here because they saw the story in the paper? Mr. GREENER. That is my idea. Either that, or they were informed by the news reporters. But I read in other testimony that the FBI got involved on Monday the 25th, whereas the Dallas Herald didn't get involved until Wednesday the 28th. The following Ryder (the workman) testimony establishes the date for the FBI visit: Mr. LIEBELER. When did the FBI first come out? Mr. RYDER. On Monday. Mr. LIEBELER. On Monday? Mr. RYDER. Yes; that was on Monday, of the funeral of the late President. Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 25, 1963, when the FBI came out on Monday and you gave them the tag or showed them this tag; is that right? Now, as you read the following Greener testimony, keep in mind that the Oswald tag had been found by Monday the 25th: Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression now is that the FBI man was here when the tag was found [on Monday 25th or earlier]? Mr. GREENER. That is my impression; yes. So Mr.Greener changes his mind and no longer agrees with you. Now he agrees with his employee, Ryder. The FBI was there early. Now let's turn to the testimony of Schmidt, the newspaper reporter. His testimony establishes the date for the Dallas Times Herald visit: Mr. LIEBELER. As I have indicated to Mr. Ryder, Mr. Schmidt testified yesterday that on the morning of November 28, 1963, you came to work in your office at the Dallas Times Herald and received information of some sort that possibly Lee Oswald had had some work done on a rifle, on his rifle or a rifle, in some sports shops or gunshop in the outlying areas of Dallas. Would you tell us briefly what happened after that, Mr. Schmidt? Mr. SCHMIDT. After I got the tip, I traced it down and thought it was Garland first and I looked it up in the phonebook--the city directory--and the usual sources that we go through--I looked-through and this Ryder was the only one that I could find, or apparently he was the one that said what I was looking for. Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you get Ryder's name in the first place; do you know? Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, it was from a tip around the police station. Now, I don't remember. I have been trying to remember where who specifically it came from, but it was one of the many we were getting at that tim. Incidentally, the highlighted text near the end tells us who found out about the gun shop's Oswald tag. Someone around the police station knew about it. Perhaps a DPD employee?? So you see, the FBI really did go to the gun shop first. BTW, regarding the accusation that Ryder lied about conversing with newspaper man Schmidt, I have three comments: Ryder claimed he wouldn't talk to Schmidt. He even took the phone off the hook. Schimdt claimed that he did talk to Ryder, and that an associate listened in on the whole conversation. I only skimmed the article. But from what I saw, I couldn't tell who was lying. Why would somebody listen in on the conversation? I couldn't tell from the testimony, but if this associate heard BOTH sides of the conversation, to me this stinks. Maybe to provide later corroboration for a conversation that didn't really happen? I wish I had time to delve into this. Sandy, it's not a real big deal but my name is Bernie not Ernie, the clue is in the name at the top of the post you replied to.You say you haven't really read the whole transcript (as well as the name of the person you are replying to) but already everyone excluding Ryder seems suspicious to you. I know why of course. This story isn't a story unless there is a possible doppelganger attached to it. On this particular example though it is water-thin gruel. Look I aren't criticising the article for the sake of it, I've said, I thought it threw up some real good information. My irritation is this constant attempt to create the illusion that there was a second Oswald who can account for EVERY anomaly in the records or from witness testimony. Only Ryder knew about this tag, but the implication is that the FBI also knew about it too. Given that the Oswald in question didn't look like LHO and the gun in question wasn't LHO's why would the FBI need to know this information beforehand anyway. What are you implying? I thought we had established that it couldn't have been a doppelganger because Ryder didn't identify him. And surely if it had been 'Lee' setting up 'Harvey' (because that is what all this is about!) Ryder would have seen the likeness like dozens of others. We have also proved that Ryder did lie to Greener about talking to the press. He said he hadn't spoken to anyone "AT ALL" whereas Schmidt, who asked to take a lie detector test to prove his credibility, went into great detail on how the conversation went. If this isn't true then the info he is using must have come straight from the FBI. Don't you think it a bit odd that they would give the info to a journalist, wait until he rings Ryder and gets the story published and only then do the FBI decide to go and see Ryder? That didn't happen! As to the guy listening in on the conversation, it doesn't say, but I took it that he was just in the room listening to Schmidt's part of the dialogue. That would be perfectly normal (we even used to do that in our sales office if there was a particularly 'difficult' conversation to be had with a client.) According to the testimony Sandy, the FBI were informed by the media, it was an anonymous tip made to a couple of media outlets who then contacted the FBI. It started with a phone call from someone who knew for definite that tag was there. If the FBI did know this why didn't they act on it instead of calling the Dallas Herald? At that stage the FBI knew nothing. The only person who knew of this tag was Ryder. It seems logical then to assume that he is the source of the information. Can anyone add to the three possible scenarios as to how this tag business could have come about. 1 - It was the historic LHO who wanted work doing on different riffle to the one subsequently found in TSBD . 2 - It was someone else called Oswald about a different riffle to the one subsequently found in TSBD 3 - Ryder wrote the tag after the event and either he or his partner anonymously tipped off the media. Bernie, Sorry I got your name wrong. I actually noticed the mistake -- literally as the page was just loading in my browser and shifting around as it always does on this forum -- and I fixed it before reading your post. As I read your reply, I actually wondered for a while if you were responding to somebody else's post. All that stuff about two Oswalds and a doppelganger had nothing to do with what I had written. (If it seems to have, it's just a coincidence. While I know about Harvey & Lee and I've seen the word doppelganger used, I haven't read the book (yet) and I don't believe I've ever written the word doppelganger till now.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- It appears that you have discussed and/or studied this material thoroughly. I can't even discuss it with you because I really don't know much about it. The reason I replied to your post is that I noticed that you said: Only when the story broke did the FBI get involved... Which agreed with what Greener had said. From both those things I got the impression that the Oswald tag was in newspapers first, and the FBI checked up on it afterward. But then I was surprised to read other testimony stating that the FBI had been to the shop on Monday, just three days after the assassination. I found it hard to believe that the the Oswald tag story had already been in newspapers, some time between Friday and Monday. Then I read testimony that seemed to indicate that the press DIDN'T know about the Oswald tag story till later in the week, Wednesday. So the testimony appeared to disagree with what you said. (And also with what Greener had said, of course.) I decided to reply to your post and make this correction. Then, while writing my post, I found that Greener had essentially reversed his position and was then agreeing with the other testimony, supporting the idea that the FBI knew about the Oswald Tag first, before the newspapers learned of it. Leaving just your statement at odds. -------------------------------------------------------------------- So my question for you, Bernie, is this: Where am I wrong regarding this issue? What between the two horizontal dashed lines above is incorrect? I can't see anything that is wrong and that's the reason I ask.

Barto, I seriously doubt that Oswald ever used the word "vestibule" to refer to the area inside the front door or to the small, five-sided, three-doored, room-like section of hallway / passageway / corridor next to the second-floor lunchroom. I don't think he used the word, period. But if he did, for all practical purposes it would have worked just fine in referring to the latter. I think Holmes put the "vegetables" in Oswald's mouth, figuratively speaking. --Tommy Tommy, Since you insist on believing that the second floor encounter really occurred, why don't you do so in a way that is actually plausible. Holmes's last statement quoted in Bart's post makes it absolutely clear that he is talking about the vestibule on the first floor, right there at the front entrance of the TSBD. There should be no question about that. I mean, had he merely said "on the first floor," then you could say that he just misspoke, or that he got confused and thought the lunchroom was on the first floor. But not only does Holmes specify the first floor (twice!), he also connects the vestibule to the front door. Not to a lunchroom! So let me help you out. What about suggesting that perhaps Oswald, in his interrogation, reported that he had had encounters with TWO policemen. One in the lunchroom, the other on the first floor. And that Holmes accidentally conflated the two stories in his testimony. Doesn't that sound like it actually could have happened? With a little creative thought, I'll bet you can come up with an even better denial than mine! Or why not just surrender to the truth that the second floor encounter never occurred? That way you'll be ahead of the curve, not left in the dust!

Jon, I agree 100 percent. I've wondered if the way they got the cover-up started was by whispering into key ears at the earliest moment, something like, "It would be bad for all of America if this case to end up unsolved. We can't be seen as a Banana Republic." James DiEugenio (and I'm sure many others, possibly including on-the-fence me) believes that the cover-up was triggered by the potential for word of the Mexico trip leading to war. (If I understand him correctly.) What baffles me, though, is how did the cover-up begin within literally minutes of the assassination? This quickness of it points to it being part of the assassination plot. The bungling of it points to it being part of an unplanned cover-up.

Bernie, First let me say that I read some of the testimony and skimmed some of it. So I may be mistaken somehow in my response here. But I think not. It seems like you (and Mr. Greener) are mistaken in some way. You both say the Dallas Herald got involved with the Irving Gun Shop before the FBI did. But I think it happened the other way around. You said: Only when the story broke did the FBI get involved, naturally. Had the FBI known about this first why would the Dallas Herald even be involved in the story? Mr. Greener (the shop owner) agrees with you: Mr. LIEBELER. I am trying to find out at what time this story first broke, whether the FBI had been here at the shop to ask any questions before the story came out in the newspapers? Mr. GREENER. As I recall, no. None of the law enforcing agencies had been by previous to that. Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression is that he [FBI agent] came here because they saw the story in the paper? Mr. GREENER. That is my idea. Either that, or they were informed by the news reporters. But I read in other testimony that the FBI got involved on Monday the 25th, whereas the Dallas Herald didn't get involved until Wednesday the 28th. The following Ryder (the workman) testimony establishes the date for the FBI visit: Mr. LIEBELER. When did the FBI first come out? Mr. RYDER. On Monday. Mr. LIEBELER. On Monday? Mr. RYDER. Yes; that was on Monday, of the funeral of the late President. Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 25, 1963, when the FBI came out on Monday and you gave them the tag or showed them this tag; is that right? Now, as you read the following Greener testimony, keep in mind that the Oswald tag had been found by Monday the 25th: Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression now is that the FBI man was here when the tag was found [on Monday 25th or earlier]? Mr. GREENER. That is my impression; yes. So Mr.Greener changes his mind and no longer agrees with you. Now he agrees with his employee, Ryder. The FBI was there early. Now let's turn to the testimony of Schmidt, the newspaper reporter. His testimony establishes the date for the Dallas Times Herald visit: Mr. LIEBELER. As I have indicated to Mr. Ryder, Mr. Schmidt testified yesterday that on the morning of November 28, 1963, you came to work in your office at the Dallas Times Herald and received information of some sort that possibly Lee Oswald had had some work done on a rifle, on his rifle or a rifle, in some sports shops or gunshop in the outlying areas of Dallas. Would you tell us briefly what happened after that, Mr. Schmidt? Mr. SCHMIDT. After I got the tip, I traced it down and thought it was Garland first and I looked it up in the phonebook--the city directory--and the usual sources that we go through--I looked-through and this Ryder was the only one that I could find, or apparently he was the one that said what I was looking for. Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you get Ryder's name in the first place; do you know? Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, it was from a tip around the police station. Now, I don't remember. I have been trying to remember where who specifically it came from, but it was one of the many we were getting at that tim. Incidentally, the highlighted text near the end tells us who found out about the gun shop's Oswald tag. Someone around the police station knew about it. Perhaps a DPD employee?? So you see, the FBI really did go to the gun shop first. BTW, regarding the accusation that Ryder lied about conversing with newspaper man Schmidt, I have three comments: Ryder claimed he wouldn't talk to Schmidt. He even took the phone off the hook. Schimdt claimed that he did talk to Ryder, and that an associate listened in on the whole conversation. I only skimmed the article. But from what I saw, I couldn't tell who was lying. Why would somebody listen in on the conversation? I couldn't tell from the testimony, but if this associate heard BOTH sides of the conversation, to me this stinks. Maybe to provide later corroboration for a conversation that didn't really happen? I wish I had time to delve into this. EDIT: Oops... Bernie not Ernie. So sorry.

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios Version: 7 Date: 2/4/16 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: The holes/slits 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 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: 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 Theory Based on Ashton Gray's Theory 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.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 first.)

Ashton, there is no chain of possession for this "prima facie visual evidence." Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos. One problem...in her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated: <quote on> Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described? A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on. <quote off> So the woman on record as having developed this "prima facie visual evidence" denies having developed it. Thanks for quoting that, Cliff. I was unaware of this important piece of information.

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. 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.

There is no "Ashton's Theory," so please remove any and all such claims. At no time did I posit any "theory" on this subject. I have in good faith attempted to answer questions about what COULD have caused the hole in the throat, the slits/holes in the shirt, and the nick in the tie that was NOT a projectile from the front, because I emphatically and repeatedly have stated that the throat wound could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front. I have presented prima facie visual evidence that the hole in the throat could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front, and I absolutely stand by that. I further will state emphatically and repeatedly that the holes/slits in the shirt, and the nick in the tie, also could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front. And I absolutely stand by that. I do not carry the burden of supplying a "theory" of who or what DID cause any it. So please don't feed the trolls using my name with false claims about what I have said. I will speak for myself. If you want to claim I've said something, use the QUOTE function and quote me. Thanks. Ashton 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?

On the one hand, the fake rifle purchase seems to have been a part of the cover up... not engineered by the assassination plotters. Because it seemingly wasn't planned beforehand. On the other hand, it was initiated so quickly that it's hard to believe it could have been a part of the cover-up. Does anybody have a plausible explanation for this?

Many thanks to both John Armstrong and Jim Hargrove!

*PLONK* No, I didn't mean "true" to that sentence, Ashton. I meant "true" the sentence prior to that, which I highlight here in red: 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. You can see that to be the case in everything I write. I never thought you did anything to suit your purpose. I regret that I didn't see that my reply was ambiguous before posting it. Someone brought this post to my attention so I now don't have you on "Ignore." As for this, that you did choose to say "true" to: Well, it's certainly "true" that someone who was either unspeakably irresponsible or who had a disinformation agenda could "put the nick in the tie anywhere" they wished, but in my re-creation, I put it where TWO other photos of the tie with the knot tied indicate that the nick was located on the knot. In doing so, I put the re-creation onto a photo that has the tie knot in situ—which is unprecedented in 53 years of analysis—and I mapped it more accurately than anyone ever has done in 53 years. So, no, the statement you quoted that's in red above isn't "true" in any relevant sense whatsoever. The statement is merely a part of a veritable blizzard of posts attempting to discredit the re-creation I painstakingly did, but the re-creation is dead-on accurate in alignment with all other existing visual evidence of the nick in the tie. Ashton I was just agreeing that someone could do that, Ashton. Not you. If you were to read all my posts since then you would discover that I've been your number one advocate. I will add also, that when you posted that animated gif, I had no idea as to where the nick was supposed to go, other than "on the side." I had to find out which side. But even knowing that, I still didn't know if "left side" meant the left side of the front of the knot (as you have it) or the left side of the knot. "Around the corner," so to speak. The impression I've gotten on this thread (for which I may be to blame) was that the FBI said the nick was on the left side of the knot, not where you put it. Just today (or now, yesterday) I commented in a post that if we knew the FBI meant the left side of the front of the tie, this mystery would be readily solved. Recently I have seen a photo that shows the nick where you put it. But we don't know if that was the original position, or the position after the knot was untied and re-tied post-assassination. And I don't know if what we see in the photo is what the FBI described.

*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. I told you I was eliminating it, and I did. See post 487 on page 33. 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? I've seen estimates on the size of the throat wound as small as 2 mm. I don't know that it was really 1/4 inch. Nevertheless, I certainly can make a 1/4 inch hole in fabric without removing any material. (I think you must not have seen my post on why I believe a hole in fabric can have a different shape than a hole in flesh. It's all explained there). You are going to carefully study a poor quality B&W photo and make a better determination that Mantik could using the ACTUAL shirt? First, earlier today I posted a good quality photo of the holes. Did you see it? Second, I trust photos more than I do a person who sees something in person but doesn't take measurements or study it. Mantik's is not irrelevant as to what caused the slit. He spoke of a bullet. It could have been a narrow fragment of bone. Not the same thing. 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. I disagree in the case of a bone fragment. 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? A simple scalpel slice doesn't cause the fraying I see. 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. Do you believe that the nurses said they cut those holes with a scalpel? That's what Mantik said. And please note, I didn't say he is wrong, I said he MAY be wrong. I based my criticisms largely on what I have learned from you. And I admit right now that I may have misremembered or misunderstood some things. Wow! I don't agree with a single word you've said in this post! 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. As for what Mantik wrote, I call it as I see it and I show nobody any favor. I'm sure he's great at what he does, but this is not what he does. He's just a man stating his opinion on a issue that he didn't study. He might be right, he might be wrong, just as with anybody else with an opinion.

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.

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.

Well if this is the tie before being re-tied, then Ashton put the nick in the correct spot. Well, maybe. The knot here is very loose. UPDATE: Okay, I took my mock JFK sloppy tie and pretended I cut it. Here's what I found: Loosening the knot (the knot, not the tie) on purpose is a hassle, would have consumed valuable time, and would have been unnecessary. I'm sure they didn't do that. The mere acting of moving the knot around while "cutting" the tie made the knot loose. I'm sure this is what happened. The mock nick did NOT move by doing #2. When the FBI said the nick is on the anatomically left side, if what they meant was the left side of the front of the knot, and not the actual side of the tie, this mystery would be readily solved. It would mean the nick had nothing to do with a projectile. Because it was out in front where a projectile wouldn't hit it.

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 I will address Dr. Mantik's assessment point by point: "The lacerations of the shirt lie well inferior to the top of the collar -- and therefore well inferior to the throat wound."That's the way it looks to me too. But Ashton's animated gif convinced me otherwise. I studied that gif carefully and it is very well done. (Except that I believe he placed his arrow too high by about 1/4 inch.) But in light of of what Dr. Mantik says, I plan on checking Ashton's gif more thoroughly. "The shirt does not exhibit any missing material, but such missing material would be expected for a real bullet."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. But I know that that is not always the case, because I found some counter-examples. Nevertheless, this comment by Mantik is irrelevant in our case because we have already eliminated the bullet scenario. "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. Here is the full paragraph Dr. Mantik wrote about the shirt holes. 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). "Although both were damaged, such damage is mostly silent about the direction of a projectile. The nurses claimed that scalpels (used to remove JFK's clothing) caused this damage. Neither the front of the shirt nor the tie showed any scientific evidence (low energy X-ray scattering) of metal from a bullet passage, although the bullet holes in the back of JFK's jacket and shirt did show such evidence. Furthermore, the relevant witnesses described the throat wound as lying above the collar and tie. While before the WC, Dr. Charles Carrico clearly implied that the wound was above the necktie and above the shirt collar (3H361-362). To leave no doubt about what Carrico had seen, Harold Weisberg reports his own confirmatory interview with Carrico (Post-Mortem 1969, pp. 357-358 and 375-376). And then there is nurse Diana Bowron, who saw the throat wound while JFK was still in the limousine – before the shirt and tie had been removed. But here is the problem: the lacerations in the shirt lie well inferior to the top of the collar – and therefore well inferior to the throat wound. Moreover, I have seen the clothing at the National Archives and Records Administration (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."

My latest comments in green.

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 LineA 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 ScenariosAshton 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. 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... 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 Yeah, I know I didn't word it well. You had said something about BuLab expecting metal, or being surprised there was no metal, or something like that. I couldn't remember and I was tired. So I wrote what I did figuring that if anybody cared I could fix it later. (I certainly didn't want to NOT make the note, for fear I'd forget to do so later.So I wrote it the best I could at the time.)

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios Version: 6 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.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 first.)

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. Well I've observed that you are very cautious to take a position, more so than myself. So I'll take your word for this. (I don't question "your word," of course. I just know that even the most honest of people can have differing interpretations of what they read or hear.) I'll remove the offending item from the list. If anyone disagrees with that move, they can raise an objection. (Speaking of "anyone," I wonder what happened to Robert. He doesn't seem to be participating in this topic anymore.) 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.' I meant that I don't necessarily agree with your "strong belief" on this matter. 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 (Answered in a another post.) Tom