Sandy Larsen

Per BuLab (the FBI's own "crime lab), the spectrographic testing performed on the hole in the back of the shirt was "destructive" testing. They cut away a sample (size and location NOT stated), and burned it to obtain the spectrographic analysis. Their stated conclusion is that traces of copper are present at the hole in the back of the shirt. This of course indicates that the tested material was removed along the circumference of the hole itself.What they suppressed was, they had also tested the slit(s) in the front of the shirt and the nick in the tie. Why were the results of these two tests suppressed, but not the shirt results? To quote the memo from the Chief of BuLab that was sent to Hoover, Tolson, Belmont, Sullivan et al, there was NO trace of "BULLET METAL" (they tested for 5 different types) at the front shirt slit OR at the nick in the tie. Say goodbye to their required exit of a bullet through the shirt and tie... I found no statement describing the location or the quantity of the material removed from the shirt and tie. Per the FBI's standard procedure, TWO sample were taken from EACH test area. One to be used for the test and the second to be used as a control. Where the official photos taken BEFORE or AFTER these samples were removed? Considering that the tests were performed within two days of the assassination, I strongly suspect that we have never seen the original holes, slits and nick. Tom I am convinced by Tom's argument that the results of the test to the shirt holes were suppressed because the test didn't show traces of metal. But I don't know if metal is always expected to be present. I'll update my list to reflect this. BTW, I don't necessarily agree that the photos were taken after the destructive tests were done. Just because the tests were done within two days? Photos can be taken quickly too.

(Deleted)

This is not what I had posted, this is what I had planned to do. i.e. combine the two photos of the front and back of the tie to show the two edges of the severed tie in close proximity: Note that the color in this photo has been so over-saturated the icons have been totally obliterated. Thanks Tom. I was hoping this would show the number of icons per row. Still, it is clear to me that the number of icons per row in the knot area had to be less than six. Sandy, I responded to this post, and it WAS visible. Now I can't find it...can you see it? TO REPEAT MY EARLIER RESPONSE: Just to be absolutely clear on this, do you agree that the diagram I posted earlier (SEEN BELOW), correctly describes JFK's tie knot? Tom Yes, I agree with what you show here. When the nick segment you show here is wrapped around the knot, the nick will be on the anatomical right side of the knot, to it's very back (toward the chest). But I'm not sure about the "curl inward" comment. If that is referring to where the tie become narrow, my interpretation is as follows: There is an inside corner at the bottom of this segment, close to the horizontal center. The tie gets wider to the right of this corner. The corner has to do with the way the tie was sewn. It is what makes the tie get wider and wider on the wide end of the tie.

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios Version: 4 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.) 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 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.)

Or, if unlike every forensic example I'm been able to find, a round projectile made a round hole through skin and a vertical slit in fabric. I personally believe that it is a mistake to assume that a projectile of given shape will necessarily make the same shape in fabric that it does in human flesh, for these reasons: Projectiles like bullets do not cut. They stretch materials to the point of breaking them. I believe that the way a solid stretches and breaks will be different than the way a thin object will stretch and break. And the type of materiel will also make a difference. Furthermore, human flesh is more or less omniaxially symmetrical, whereas fabric is biaxially symmetrical. If a fabric is made from one type of thread horizontally and another type vertically, then it is uniaxially symmetrical along each of the two axes. I believe that these factors will affect the way a projectile breaks the material. The way a bullet hole looks can be affected by the way the material relaxes, or the way it is made to relax, after it has been shot. For example, flesh closes up naturally, and threads in material can be put back in place manually. Having said that, I agree that bullets do tend to make round holes in fabric. But there are exceptions. Here is one I found: To me it looks like the threads along one axis are stronger than the threads along the other. Now, there is a caveat to what I'm saying here. While the alleged bullet holes on the front of JFK's shirt are slit-like in shape, the hole on the back of the shirt looks quite round. On the other hand, the picture of this hole is questionable because there are no frayed threads to be seen in the picture. Compare that to the hole in JFK's jacket, which looks much more slit-like: . This picture alone gives me confidence that the slit-like holes in the front of the shirt may be real. (As Ashton showed, they aren't perfect slits.) As far as bullet/fragments entering or exiting spectrographic analysis is not a hoax, and per the most basic forensic documents bullets/fragments leave metal on cloth. I had a little trouble making this sentence out. I changed it as follows to get the meaning of it. Correct me if I interpreted it wrongly. As far as bullet/fragments entering or exiting, spectrographic analysis is not a hoax. Per the most basic forensic documents, bullets/fragments do leave metal on cloth. But do they always (or nearly almost always) leave metal on cloth after exiting from flesh? (Maybe your following sentences answer that question.) In the memo I posted BuLab clearly is unhappy that there was no metal on the slit or the nick, yet they STILL accepted the testing without equivocation. Additionally, they chose to suppress this report - yet another indications that they believed that no bullet/fragment made that slit. I apparently missed that post. Did you actually post what BuLab said about those holes? I'd like to see it. If we can eliminate that entry from my list of possible scenarios, that would be great. As I've stated more than once already, the slits are a MAJOR problem in this scenario as well. To me, any scenario that has one or more major issues is improbable.To summarize AND repeat myself; IMO, based upon all the evidence that has been stated in this thread, ALL of the scenarios that have been proposed here have at least one major problem - which renders them improbable at best. I don't HAVE a theory that fits the available data. When and if I receive the books/docs that I am awaiting, I'm hoping more information will be available, and I can eliminate some of the negatives and add some positives. I have no delusion that the 'contrarions' who only accept their own theories, even when riddled with holes, will be swayed. If you disagree with the above, please tell me why you think any of these theories should be ranked higher than improbable. The logic behind several of these scenarios, as I've already indicated, completely eludes me, so any explanation from you would be helpful. Tom

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios Version: 3 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.) 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 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 Tom is right and a A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. Cliff is right and a 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.)

For all we know, JFK could have been reacting to a collapsed lung when he brought his hands up to his neck. Glenn Bennett's account of the later back wound is corroborated by Willis 5, Altgens 6, and the location of the holes in the clothes. But according to your scenario not only is the neck x-ray faked, but Glenn Bennett was a flat out prevaricator. So JFK was shot in the back and he immediately grabbed at his throat (his tie, actually)? This is ether, not even theory. In what way does the scenario I described contradict Glenn Bennett? (I don't have everybody's statements and testimonies memorized.) This is from his day after statement: <quote on> About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit" and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw S/A Hickey had the AR15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shots. The President's car immediately kicked into high gear and the follow-up car followed. <quote off> According to Bennett he was looking to is right when he heard the first shot. This is corroborated by the Willis 5 photo: Bennett is on the far right, seated. He said he turned to look toward the President. Altgens 6 shows Bennett with blurry features, consistent with him moving his head. Bennett said the back shot was about 4 inches below the shoulder -- the bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars. His account is well corroborated. I still don't see how what Bennett wrote contradicts what I said. Here is what I said: "For all we know, JFK could have been reacting to a collapsed lung when he brought his hands up to his neck." The collapse lung, of course, being a result of the shot to the back. That is the shot Bennett describes. And it occurred seconds before the two head shots, right?

The frangible bullet particles weren't from the throat shot... they were from the shot to the back of the head, which hit near the external occipital protuberance. They were deflected downward upon hitting the skull. (This is a theory, of course.) One of the technicians (I forget who) said fragments could be seen in the neck x-ray. Now they're gone. Those fragments were dust artifacts according to the HSCA. <quote on> On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed. <quote off> So JFK was shot in the head at Z313 and a bone fragment exited his throat? But he was responding to throat trauma 6 seconds earlier. How does someone respond to throat trauma 6 seconds before suffering a wound in the throat? Cliff, I think you are a valuable member of this discussion. Even if only to serve as a critic of theories proposed here.

The frangible bullet particles weren't from the throat shot... they were from the shot to the back of the head, which hit near the external occipital protuberance. They were deflected downward upon hitting the skull. (This is a theory, of course.) One of the technicians (I forget who) said fragments could be seen in the neck x-ray. Now they're gone. Those fragments were dust artifacts according to the HSCA. <quote on> On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed. <quote off> They weren't dust particles given the fact that they had metallic-like densities. What else could they be? There is no reasonable explanation that I can think of under the WC conclusions. Similar to that artifact in the head x-ray that has no reasonable explanation. But if this x-ray is authentic, the reasonable CT explanation is that the particles are deflected bullet fragments. If the x-ray is faked, then I have no idea what caused these artifacts. Does the extant x-ray (still) show these artifacts?

The frangible bullet particles weren't from the throat shot... they were from the shot to the back of the head, which hit near the external occipital protuberance. They were deflected downward upon hitting the skull. (This is a theory, of course.) One of the technicians (I forget who) said fragments could be seen in the neck x-ray. Now they're gone. So JFK was shot in the head at Z313 and a bone fragment exited his throat?But he was responding to throat trauma 6 seconds earlier. How does someone respond to throat trauma 6 seconds before suffering a wound in the throat? The wound to the throat may have been caused by the shot to the back. (Didn't I suggest that earlier?) I'm not quite ready myself to discuss connections between the shots and the wounds. I'm a couple days behind, trying to catch up with the forum posts.

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios Version: 2 Date: 2/2/16 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.) 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.) NEW! According to Cliff, 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 in the neck x-ray?) Above The Collar Line Tom is right and a bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. Cliff is right and a plastic projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. 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'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 years ago.)

This is not what I had posted, this is what I had planned to do. i.e. combine the two photos of the front and back of the tie to show the two edges of the severed tie in close proximity: Note that the color in this photo has been so over-saturated the icons have been totally obliterated. Thanks Tom. I was hoping this would show the number of icons per row. Still, it is clear to me that the number of icons per row in the knot area had to be less than six.

These are good questions that perhaps can be used to eliminate some of the scenarios. Maybe now is the time to answer the questions of when and from where the projectile originated in each of the cases listed.

The frangible bullet particles weren't from the throat shot... they were from the shot to the back of the head, which hit near the external occipital protuberance. They were deflected downward upon hitting the skull. (This is a theory, of course.) One of the technicians (I forget who) said fragments could be seen in the neck x-ray. Now they're gone.

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios 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.) 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.) Above The Collar Line Tom is right and a bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. Cliff is right and a plastic projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. 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'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 years ago.)

Only if the neck x-ray is genuine. Custer seemed to think it wasn't. Mantik says it isn't a matter of doubt -- the neck x-ray is genuine. Custer has been all over the map. Prove it. Custer put the back wound in two different locations, for instance. Want to explain the point of faking the neck x-ray? Maybe to hide particles from a frangible bullet.

Already did that -- it's still there -- for the moment... I guess you're talking about your post #416. Reading that, it seems that you don't believe the "slits" in the shirt are the holes for a below-collar-line scenario. If they aren't, then this scenario couldn't have happened. (Unless the projectile stopped precisely after exiting the wound. Or if the shirt we see is a fake or was altered.) That leaves the above-collar-line scenario. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Except you wonder how the slits got in the shirt, and the nick in the tie. I'll add this to Robert's list of possibilities. Correct me if I get it wrong.

For all we know, JFK could have been reacting to a collapsed lung when he brought his hands up to his neck. Glenn Bennett's account of the later back wound is corroborated by Willis 5, Altgens 6, and the location of the holes in the clothes. But according to your scenario not only is the neck x-ray faked, but Glenn Bennett was a flat out prevaricator. So JFK was shot in the back and he immediately grabbed at his throat (his tie, actually)? This is ether, not even theory. In what way does the scenario I described contradict Glenn Bennett? (I don't have everybody's statements and testimonies memorized.)

I would modify your list to the following (changes in red): 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 shirt collar. 2. Cliff is right and a plastic projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. Don't know where the shirt holes or tie nick came from. This true (higher) neck wound was successfully covered up, and a lower one faked in its place. 3. A plastic projectile either entered or exited JFK's throat, also nicking the tie and going through the shirt collar. 4. 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. 5. Ashton is right and everything (wound in throat, hole in shirt 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. 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. Then this list will be complete, I think. I'm gonna bump this list periodically so that it can be modified as needed. I want to include this important (imo) animated gif: (Posted by Ashton years ago.)

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 Did the FBI indicate to whose left the nick was located. (Sorry I ask... I just need to be sure.) I placed it on JFK's right because if you place it to his left it moves up significantly. (Due to the way the knot is made.) In which case it is higher than the holes in the shirt. But not above the shirt (of course). So there is no way to explain how the nick got there. If the nick was to JFK's left, it could not have been related to the projectile at all. Correct me if I'm wrong. (If you have to, make a knot in a tie and check for yourself.)

For all we know, JFK could have been reacting to a collapsed lung when he brought his hands up to his neck.

Sandy, Which photo are you referring to above? Tom Somebody (you, I thought) posted a picture of the complete necktie showing how it had been cut. I responded by saying it looked like it had been cut with a scalpel/knife, not scissors.

Cliff is right (and I was wrong), the front of the knot isn't up against the bottom of the Adams apple. Now that somebody (Robert) acknowledged my post about the slit being on the back side of the tie, I decided to spend more time studying that. I found a tie that has a repetitive icon patterned and tied it as closely as possible to match how JFK's looked. I tied it "sloppily" to match the "sloppiness" of JFk's tie. When finished it looked identical to JFk's tie (same shape, tightness, and sloppiness). The only difference being that mine has six icons per row on the knot, not five. Then I determined with more accuracy where the location of the nick would be if it were moved around to the right (JFK's right) by two icons. Or, in the case of my tie, by 2 x 6/5 = 2.4 icons, to account for the 6 icons per row, not 5. The location came out to be on the side of the knot, at the very back of the side. One end of the nick would touch the shirt (if the knot were pushed up against the shirt), but not the other end. MOVING ON.... I found an animated gif that Ashton posted years ago, that I think is very well done and very informative. I post it below. (Posted years ago by Cliff.) (Posted years ago by Ashton.) If you made this gif, Ashton, my hat's off to you. Very well done. Very informative. The red arrow points to the left corner of the gash, just below the top margin of the gash. I estimate that the holes in the shirt are about 1/4" below that pointer. Looking at the stare-of-death photo, I'd say that the shirt holes are located at the very bottom of the gash. (Posted on jfkmurdersolved.com .) 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. I see very little reason to believe the neck wound was above the shirt collar. If it was, the cover-up artists did a great job covering it up. Even the witnesses at Bethesda didn't notice it.

Cliff, what was he shot with and how did it get through the tie? It didn't go thru the tie. JFK didn't wear his tie upon his adams apple. The shot struck above the tie and below the adams apple. The autopsists thought he may have been struck with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up in the autopsy, or on x-ray. That's right there in the historical record, a record for which Pet Theorists display little truck. Well I'm open to the high-tech weapon theory. I think Tom Neal is too. Problem is, there's too much evidence against this scenario for the throat. First, look at where JFK wore his tie: Maybe not the tie, but the shirt is right up against the Adams apple. Now look where the wound is: Source: McAdams If you click to enlarge, it's easy to see that the wound is about an inch below the bottom of the Adam's apple. In fact, it is right where the holes in the shirt are as well as the nick on the tie! (Note: The nick you see in the photo above either should be located on the back side of the tie knot, where it could have been hit, or isn't related to the bullet/fragment at all.) Then there is the testimony. The early testimony points more to "the wound was discovered after the shirt was opened" than to the opposite. Thus supportingthat the tie (or at the very least, the top of the shirt) covered the wound. What evidence is there indicating a high-tech weapon, with a shot from the front? Speculation?

Robert is to be congratulated on his theory/discovery that Baker didn't go in right away. I don't believe he has totally accepted that yet, but he's right. He'll be vindicated. He already has been imo.