Sandy Larsen

Cliff, what was he shot with and how did it get through the tie?

Somehow you missed my explanation. Or dismissed it. Suppose there are indeed only 5 icons per row in the nick area. If you take the way Ashton positioned it, but rotate the nick area to JFK's right by 120 degrees, that places the nick squarely in the middle of the BACK side of the knot. This scenario would indicate that a fragment exited the throat wound, made the holes through the shirt, and nicked the back of the tie. I envision the fragment wasting its final bit of energy pushing the knot away from JFK's chest, before coming to a stop and falling down.

Tom, I agree with everything you say here. I liked your point that, if you changed the nick segment so that it had 6 icons per row instead of 5, and then photographically adjusted it to fit the knot in the photo of JFK, the number of icons would fit, but they would be smaller than the ones on the tie JFK is wearing. EDIT: No, wait. The part I said I liked doesn't really make sense, the way I understood it that is. I think I misunderstood what your point was with that.

Hey guys, You know how The Fonz used to go up to the mirror in the mens room to comb his hair, only to discover his hair already looked great? Well, maybe JFK noticed his tie had slipped, but likewise discovered it looked great the way it was -- complete with aligned and properly spaced icons -- and decided to leave it that way! Heyyyy!

Robert, I understood your point in post #388 and agree that the spacing of the "6th icons" matches that of the icons on the front of the knot. I can't explain it. And I agree it's quite a coincidence that the "6th icons" are aligned with the others. But I just can't get past the fact that there can be no more than 5 1/2 icons per row on the front of the knot; and that 5 icons is perfectly consistent with the fact that ties get narrower the further away from the wide end you look. Now, I think that some ties do get a little wider at the end opposite the very wide end. I tried to find the photo that Tom posted showing the rough scalpel cutting of the band to see if that is the case for this tie. And if so, if where the tie begins to widen again could possibly be part of the front of the knot. Unfortunately I couldn't find it. But we do have the photo of the segment of the tie with the nick, and it has five, not six, icons per row. So till it can be explained how there can possibly be 6 icons per row where the nick is, and why the tie and photos would be modified in a way that would remove one icon per row, I'm sticking with the innocent explanation. If somebody could find the photo I mentioned that Tom posted, I'd be happy to reconsider my position if that photo provides clues to support another theory.

Robert, I have proof that Kennedy was sloppy with his tie that day. Here it is: The wider the tie is, the more icons there are on a row. Ties are widest at the end that hangs down in front when worn. In the photo below, the widest part of the tie we can see has 6 1/2 icons. Halfway between that row and the knot, there are 6 icons. That's 1/2 fewer because the tie is more narrow there. Just below the knot there are 5 1/2 icons. That's 1/2 fewer because the tie is more narrow there. The number of icons on the front of the knot must be less than or equal to 5 1/2. Because the width of the tie is either the same or more narrow there, Therefore, the 6th icon that seems to be on the front of the knot must really be on a different part of the knot. Which leaves only 5 icons per row on the front of the knot Click to count icons.

I don't blame you for being pissed off Greg. I remember Richard Gilbride's inflammatory remarks (which I assumed were true, only because I didn't think he would lie) and I can't blame you at all for defending yourself. Good luck in getting satisfaction for both your injustices.

True. BUT... *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. P.S. What does PLONK mean?

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. True. BUT... my understanding is that the photo we see with JFK wearing the shirt and tie was taken as part of that event. If so, he likely left his tie tied. and so the knot wouldn't have shifted much. Am I wrong?

I had some trouble following some of what you said about the shirt, Robert. Tell me if I am saying the same here: The lines on the front of the shirt should be vertical. As they are on the photo of Kennedy. But on Ashton's gif they are not vertical. If you leave the button where it is, acting as a pivot, and pull the left and right halves of the shirt apart below the button, so that the lines are vertical as they should be, the two holes will no longer be perfectly aligned. There will be a gap between them. If a bullet from behind made both those holes, it had to have been traveling toward Nellie Connally, not her husband. The Magic Bullet is therefore more magic than we had all imagined, as it had to have made a much sharper turn in mid air in order to hit the Governor. And of course we know it did, because the WC needs to know Oswald is guilty. Check! And thumbs up! As for the tie, I don't understand your criticism/comment. Assuming Ashton oriented it correctly (that is, rotationally), then it seems to me that it has been position properly by Ashton since its emblems are in the proper location. Though Ashton may not have picked the correct set of emblems to place the nicked section upon. Am I right about this?? I don't think I'm missing anything. Actually, I am more interested in the horizontal stripes in the collar band behind the button and the button hole In Ashton's gif, when the collar is done up (in an empty shirt), the horizontal stripes on the button hole side are pointing down at an angle to the anatomical right. In other words, with the button done up, the shirt material and collar have been rotated on the collar button; making it appear the bullet hole on the anatomical left is further to the left than it really is. Further, look at the vertical stripes on the shirt with JFK in it. They run up and meet the collar band at what appears to be roughly 90°; almost perpendicular. Now look at Ashton's gif, in particular the vertical stripes of the shirt on the buttonhole side. Do they meet the collar band at a 90° angle? Nope, not even close. Someone has played with something in the material Ashton is working with, with what I believe is an intent to place the bullet hole on the shirt further to the left and more compatible with the SBT. I see exactly what you mean. However, I'm sure that after Ashton rotated the pieces, he moved them together so that the button and hole locations are the same. But that is the only thing that appears correct. If you rotate the pieces to make the horizontal lines truly horizontal, that makes the vertical lines LESS vertical. And vice versa. You can't make both the vertical lines and horizontal lines correct at the same time. Therefore the fabric has been altered, just as you said. It may just be folded under temporarily for the photo. Or it may be permanent... we don't know.

It appears the the top of this tie segment extended to the WIDE end of the tie, and the bottom extended to the NARROW end. Assuming that is true, Ashton oriented it on his gif the way it should be if JFK tied it the way I tie mine. Which is as follows: The tie is draped over the neck, the the wide end hanging on the anatomical right and the narrow end on the left. Then cross the wide over the narrow, and finish up. EDIT: Conclusion: Assuming the top of the tie segment in the photo above leads to the wide part of the tie, and assuming JFK tied his knots the way I do (as indicated in Ashton's gif), then moving the nick to the anatomical right would place the nick on the back side, exposed, and a bit lower than where it is in the front. About 1/16th inch lower.

Sandy, To answer your question and help you deal with your confusion, please re-read my post # 84, this thread, and then go to the "link" I provided in it. If you do those two things, everything will be revealed. I promise. In a nutshell, it has everything to do with perspective in photography. --Tommy PS Do try to keep up in the future. PPS Thanks for saying you think the woman holding the child in Altgens 6 is Peggy Joyce Hawkins. I saw the word "perspective," looked again at Altgens, and noticed the man's left shoulder was visible. Which I'd never noticed before. I then realized he couldn't be holding the baby on the woman's right and have his shoulder visible on her left, unless he was a very wide man! So, okay, got it! (It's amazing how a telephoto lens brings everybody up to near the same location. For a long time I wasn't even aware there is a road between Elm and the TSBD.) EDIT: Actually, after another look I see his left shoulder is in about the right place (left of her face) to be holding her and the baby. Excellent illusion.) BTW thanks for your post Robin.

I had some trouble following some of what you said about the shirt, Robert. Tell me if I am saying the same here: The lines on the front of the shirt should be vertical. As they are on the photo of Kennedy. But on Ashton's gif they are not vertical. If you leave the button where it is, acting as a pivot, and pull the left and right halves of the shirt apart below the button, so that the lines are vertical as they should be, the two holes will no longer be perfectly aligned. There will be a gap between them. If a bullet from behind made both those holes, it had to have been traveling toward Nellie Connally, not her husband. The Magic Bullet is therefore more magic than we had all imagined, as it had to have made a much sharper turn in mid air in order to hit the Governor. And of course we know it did, because the WC needs to know Oswald is guilty. Check! And thumbs up! As for the tie, I don't understand your criticism/comment. Assuming Ashton oriented it correctly (that is, rotationally), then it seems to me that it has been position properly by Ashton since its emblems are in the proper location. Though Ashton may not have picked the correct set of emblems to place the nicked section upon. Am I right about this?? I don't think I'm missing anything.

I recommend that you tie a four-in-hand knot, then slip it off without untying it and look at the back of it. I did as you suggested and found it was easier to determine the answer than I had anticipated. Assuming JFK tied his knots the way I do -- and judging by the tilt of his knot's front fabric, he did -- then moving the nick to the anatopical right would place the nick on the back, exposed, and a bit lower than where it is in the front. About an 1/8th inch lower. Maybe a bit less, like 0.1 inch. I need to revise this a little. First, I took a closer look and realize that I was influence by Ashton's photoshopped addition of the nicked area over the knot. Without that, it is difficult for me to determine the direction in which JFK tied his knots. If he did it the same way I do, then what I said holds. If he did it reversed, then what I said doesn't hold because the nick is too high (~ 3/8"). Second, I changed my tie to make it tighter, afterwhich it looked more like JFK's. Upon doing so, I found that the nick doesn't drop by much at all when moving it to the back. Maybe by 1/16 inch. I'm right handed. Was JFK right-handed, and do most right-hander's tie their ties the same direction (as I do)? Those are pertinent questions. The way I do it is as follows: I place the tie over my neck so the wide end is on my right side, and the narrow end of my left. Then I cross the wide end over the top of the other end. Then I finish up. (I assume there is only one way to make a knot that looks like JFK's and mine.) I tried doing it the opposite way and found it to be a little awkward, but certainly doable and not difficult. HOWEVER, once finish I had a hard time adjusting it. Very hard. For some reason it would bind up when I tried loosening it. I started over and the same happened again. Apparently the fine motor skills are important. EDIT: Oops. I need to check and see how Ashton "tied" the knot with Photoshop. Since that affects the vertical location of the nick..

My response in green. I recommend that you tie a four-in-hand knot, then slip it off without untying it and look at the back of it. I did as you suggested and found it was easier to determine the answer than I had anticipated. Assuming JFK tied his knots the way I do -- and judging by the tilt of his knot's front fabric, he did -- then moving the nick to the anatopical right would place the nick on the back, exposed, and a bit lower than where it is in the front. About an 1/8th inch lower. Maybe a bit less, like 0.1 inch. (Sigh). There is no "Ashton's theory." I answered a question about what possibly could have caused such a wound as was observed in JFK's throat by several medical personnel. I was referring to your idea that a Parkland doctor could have injected poison. As you said, the nick in the front could have been caused by accidentally touching it with something sharp, by which I thought you meant that needle, or whatever it is called. (I think it is fair to call that your theory.) What I have stated unequivocally is that no bullet fired from the front made the hole in JFK's throat, and I stand by it. Ashton

If a back-to-front projectile stopped before penetrating the tie backing, that could explain a nick on the back side of the tie. The nick being where it is now favors Ashton's theory. I wonder if it would be exposed on the back side of the knot if it were moved left or right, which would have to be done to match the pattern of course. If not, the nick must have been where Ashton has it.

Yes, it is. It's right here: Ashton He's got his head turned and body tilted somewhat. Maybe that explains the tilted collar. The tie is tilted even more. Of course that can happen to anybody wearing a tie.

Could somebody explain this picture for me? In Altgens 6 the man is holding the baby/youth. But in this picture a woman is holding the child. Is the idea that the woman was holding the child during the film clip, and the man walked on over and took the child before the Altgens 6 shot? BTW Tommy, thanks for the weather report. I've got my jacket on. The gal does look like Peggy Joyce Hawkins, as you say. Credit: Robin Unger http://educationforu...showtopic=20032

I would say he believes it in a rather twisted fashion, Sandy. It is really the only way one could believe it. LOL... okay, so my question is a little ambiguous. I hope Paul gets it the other way. Well, Sandy, it's somewhat of an ambiguous issue, so the question is understandably ambiguous. But I understand your intent. Here's my answer: LHO's own words were, "I'm just a PATSY!" Now, by definition, a Patsy is involved with people who don't respect him (or her) in the slightest, and will sacrifice him (or her) in a heartbeat. Usually this involves some kind of crime. In this case, the murder of JFK. Now -- the fact is, a Patsy has been associating with criminals. The Patsy may or may not have knowledge of the crime they are about to commit, but the Patsy is still their FRIEND. Gerry Patrick Hemming told A.J. Weberman that he called LHO on 11/21/1963 from Miami, and offered LHO double the price of his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle if only LHO would hand it over to one of his pals at the TSBD in the morning. Evidently, according to Gerry Patrick Hemming, who was a mercenary on contract to assassinate Fidel Castro, LHO accepted his deal, and took his rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/1963. LHO evidently handed it to somebody in the parking lot, because witnesses tend to agree that LHO didn't take any package into the building with him. There's my point. LHO was *cooperating* with the JFK Killers. LHO *trusted* the JFK Killers enough to hand over his rifle to them. LHO didn't know they were going to Kill JFK and blame him -- but he probably knew that it was for some Underground or criminal activity, otherwise, why the high price and the secret handoff? So, LHO was cooperating with criminals -- and he KNEW it. That's a CLASSIC definition of a Patsy. Trust of the criminals, and doing something stupid for them. Without the rifle in their possession, the JFK Killers could hardly have blamed LHO for the JFK murder. With LHO's rifle in their possession, the JFK Killers had an open-and-shut case. Henry Wade said, "I've sent men to the electric chair on less evidence than this!" So, Sandy, that's what I mean. Even though LHO was totally innocent of killing JFK, nevertheless, he let himself become the PATSY of the JFK Killers, and that made him an Accomplice. Yes, a Patsy is the lowest form of Accomplice, but still. Also, once LHO realized he was a Patsy, as he openly stated, then he could have and should have named names to the Press right then and there. But he didn't. LHO calmed down and kept playing the "Red Maverick" card, and demanded to see New York sedition attorney John Abt, and kept boasting that he was a supporter of the FPCC and that he had lived in Russia. This means, IMHO, that LHO was still hoping that the criminals whom he trusted would "come forward and give me legal assistance." Regards, --Paul Trejo Thanks Paul, for for the thorough explanation.

I would say he believes it in a rather twisted fashion, Sandy. It is really the only way one could believe it. LOL... okay, so my question is a little ambiguous. I hope Paul gets it the other way.

Paul, In what way do you believe Oswald was an accomplice in the murder? What evidence is there for that?

Well, if it is not a hole completely through the tie, the nicked area had to be on the side of the knot. I just wonder why Aston's photo shows the tie knot displaced so far to the anatomical right. Is there historical evidence showing JFK's tie knot off to his right? Not only is the knot displace to the anatomical left, so is the collar. Maybe that happens when you turn your head?

All I can say is, if that is a knot, somebody needs to be given a tie-knot tying lesson.

There are 6 columns of patterns, which match every other column, allowing 3 possible 'rotations' of the cloth that match. Per the FBI memo that I posted earlier, the location of the "nick" is on the anatomical left side of the tie. Sorry... I missed that post somehow. When you say the location of the "nick" is on the anatomical left side of the tie, do you mean when it is completely untied and laying flat, with the wide end down, as it would normally hang? Or do you mean the left side of the knot? If the latter, is it on the side of the knot, or the left half of the front of the knot? Harold Weisberg states that he requested photos be taken of the tie that would reveal the location of the nick when the tie was worn. He states that per his discussions with Nara personnel it was obvious that the tie had been untied and re-tied so as to move the nick toward the front center. I agree. Tom, after Ashton showed that the nick almost exactly matches the holes in the shirt, I decided to do an even more accurate measurement. I did so carefully and was surprised not only to find Ashton was right, but that the the nick matches the holes dead on. Either I made a mistake (I don't believe I did), or there is an optical illusion. Sandy, In your comments regarding the vertical slit, you mention that due to the 'weave', the shirt will tear along a vertical line. Isn't it equally likely to tear along a horizontal line if the force was applied in that direction? Yes, you're right. I believe that a sharp object cutting fabric will tend to straighten up if it is close enough to the vertical or horizontal running threads. Tom

The pendulum swings... Ashton Yes you're right. Optical illusion fooled me..