Sandy Larsen

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.

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.