John Butler

"That line is way too low on JC, which is the known data point. I mean, you say its just below his nipple but then the image you post shows it exiting JFK's chest, exiting JC's stomach, raise the line up to where the throat wound is on kennedy, the jacket hole is, if a little bunching is added and where the shirt hole is. Bunching does not need to be proved on the shirt as the location is the same as the jacket, and we can see the jacket. That was a strange image to use as evidence. " The chest wound exits below Governor Connally's right nipple. That spot is on the red line. The line extends beyond the wound area. Your black line is just another conjecture. See the next post on angles that people have argued for. Take a look at the AMIPA film. Use software that will allow you to look at one frame at a time. I used imagery from the AMIPA film because it shows the images of how Kennedy and Connally were sitting in multiple images throughout the film. It is actually a better look at there seating arrangements then the Zapruder film.

This, also was posted in another thread: In the last sentence "shots" should be "spots".

Or, if you want to argue for a front shot then you would need to align the front throat wound with a gunshot wound in the president's back. The hole in the tie (front throat wound) can be aligned with one of several spots on JFK's back. This is what people have done by choosing various spots for the back wound. This would look like this: The more reasonable conjecture is No. 2 which has a shot passing through the windshield and exiting at a spot more in tune with the autopsy wound placement.

In order to speak about the SBT or a throat shot from the front one needs to agree on where the bullet struck. For the SBT, one needs to connect the hole in the tie (throat wound) to an area on John Connally. This spot would be just below the right nipple of John Connally where the bullet exited his chest. This angle would look something like this. This was posted in another thread. It is an approximation that is close enough to suggest that the bunched jacket and shirt really isn't much of an argument.

In order to speak about the SBT or a throat shot from the front one needs to agree on where the bullet struck. For the SBT, one needs to connect the hole in the tie (throat wound) to an area on John Connally. This spot would be just below the right nipple of John Connally where the bullet exited his chest. This angle would look something like this: If you assume this to be true you do not have to argue about the jacket and shirt bunching upward. This angle matches one of the holes in JFK's back.

These photos produce more questions then they answer.

The assassination film were altered long before Groden got his hands on them. When? About 1964.

At least something matches. The photo on the left is obviously taken before the photo on the right. The one on the right appears to be cleaned of blood and specs of white material on the photo left photo (Isn't that FBI tampering with evidence). We know this photo was taken in 1993. The photo on the left must have been done earlier. Was it also done on 11-24-63? It is a cut tie, photo left, probably with scissors and not sliced with a scalpel and there are no slit marks observable. There is only a single hole which is a bullet hole and not a two fragment hole. It appears to be the same hole with little change after cleaning in the right photo. How do we account for a single hole in the jacket, two slits by scalpel or two bullet fragments making two holes and, then move on to a single hole in the tie. The hole in the back of the shirt was tampered with by the FBI on 11-24-63. The 11-24-63 hole in the back of the shirt is mysteriously restored in the 1993 photo. Could we have the possibility of one hole through everything? It doesn't look that way to me at all. To me this is still manufactured evidence. But, the Lone Gunners now have a better claim to one shot one kill. Well, that is discounting the head wound.

Interesting. Very interesting. What is this date for this cut tie photo?

Manufactured evidence? You decide. You may need to study this for a moment. Five photos showing things are a bit much without study. Read the notes. Don't know how I missed this: Adam Johnson said the FBI snipped the back shirt hole on 11-24-63. The reason I believe that this is manufactured evidence is this photo shows more than one bullet hole in the back. The line drawing with one hole is what people saw for years before this photo was released.

Looking at all of the photos involved in this thread, to me, they don't really match up. This has nothing to do with their relative positions. For instance, the hole in the jacket is a single hole without threads facing forward. The hole in the back of the shirt seems to be two holes (I think people refer to bullet fragments) with threads coming forward. Are we to believe that if the bullet came from the rear and hit the jacket it fragmented into two segments that produced what appears to be two holes in the rear of the shirt? Then, the two fragments passed through the body in a strange manner and then made two holes in the front of the shirt directly below the collar button. And, here is the amazing part, the two fragments came back together and made a single hole in the tie. The single hole in the back of the jacket matches the single hole in the tie. But, the holes in the shirt don't. What's up with that? Can you offer an explanation that covers the evidence of the photos? Or, is this like most everything in Dealey Plaza, badly manufactured evidence?

Robin Unger has posted two fair videos on Patsy Paschall. The second is about as good a viewing as you can get on the film. Even so there is very little that you can see in the film that is useful. The claim of seeing Zapruder flee the scene is questionable as anything else you see in the film. The images are too vague. The film is dark, brooding, and generally blurred enough to not see much of anything. The film has been altered to make it that way. I use to call the Patsy Paschall film the Giant Jackie film. The following frame and others is what I based the claim of alteration on. If Jackie was to stand she would be maybe 8 or 9 feet tall in comparison to the limo. Possibly 10. And,

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od noun noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. There is no general hypothesis concerning the holes in the shirt and tie. There is no way to test a hypothesis of any kind. I do not have access to the original materials and no one else does for testing. I am at the stage of observation and analyzation of the photos (not the real material) and can only make a general observation that the facts presented by the photos of the shirt and tie gives one contradictory evidence concerning their nature. This contradictory evidence leads me to believe that the photos and material photographed are frauds. This is something I have suspected for a long time due to the belief that President Kennedy was shot in the back multiple times. This is based on the autopsy photo I have posted and some of the questions about it. You might ask this question. Does the FBI manufacture evidence? Do they have a history of corruption? Is the 302 their most corrupt tool or is it photo editing or evidence manufacture in the Kennedy Assassination investigation.

Which perspective do you prefer? I would guess the perspective in these two frames is something not natural. The left hand scene shows a road behind the monument that is horizontal in comparison to the monument. The right had scene shows a street that is vertical to the monument. I like the scene on the right. It has blocked out the Triple Underpass so you can't tell whether there is a train on the tracks or not. A definite sign of alteration. It also blocks any view of what's happening in front of the TSBD.

Isn't there something wrong with this film? Is it even the Patsy Paschall film? This has to be an altered crop of the Paschall film. Patsy Paschall filmed from the 3rd floor tower of the old red brick court house on Main Street. The perspective on the frame below is from directly across from Main St. and not at an angle as it should be if filmed from Paschall's location. You do not see any of the structure on Houston Street that should be visible in this frame. And, what street is that behind the so-called Shelter. Where is the railroad yards? The film is so blurred and unreadable (that matches the rest of the film) you really can't identify Zapruder. You can identify someone you think is Zapruder. Zapruder was balding but, so were a lot of other people. Wasn't he wearing a hat?

And, more of the single hole in the tie problem:

To add to the FBI snipped bullet mystery hole is this mystery concerning the hole in the tie:

Sandy, Thanks for your clarification. I think we are in agreement. The two holes four holes comment says there our two holes on the other side. Its just that I couldnt make out the holes due to the gettyimages overlay. No arguments from me. I need a higher quality photo of the color photo I posted earlier. I couldnt find the two holes in that photo. Then there is the business of the fbi snipping material from the back hole. The 1993 photo did not have the snipped appearance of the other photo. Im assuming the fbi did that early on after the assassination. It is a mystery. Thanks for the help.

Yeah Ron, Great comment. I agree with you on LBJ. He was the first president i voted for and being a good democrat I voted for him when I just turned 17. He was my favorite president until I wised up.

Thanks Sandy, It took a moment to understand what you were saying. So, holes on both sides that button together. Two holes. Four holes. You can see that in the black and white on the photo left side. But, not so much on the photo right side. That presents a problem. Dr. Perry said he saw only one hole, not two or, any kind of wound with two holes. What about the problem of the snipped hole done by the FBI? When was that done? If the black and white photo was taken in 1993 how does that relate to the photo showing a snipped hole? l have always felt that JFKs cothing was a forgery but, had no evidence or reason to believe it. I have felt this way because of the autopsy photo and line drawing shown earlier that suggests more than one gunshot in the back. Now there seems to be more data to back that up. Thanks for your response. PS There is only one hole in Vince Palamaras post of the JFK tie. Strange isnt it?

Vince, I have edited my recent post and have added extra material. Even though the black and white is much clearer than the color photo I still don't see a hole in the shirt in the color photo just below the collar button.

This discussion has moved considerably since I last posted here. Bart Kamp's photo has been posted by Vince Palamara with an explanation of its source. He also wonders about the angle of the two holes in the shirt matching anything reasonable. I don't think JFK could have bent over that far to make those holes match for someone shooting from above. There's another problem. Is this a forgery? Or, is other pictures of JFK's shirt a forgery? Look at this an see if you can find a hole in the shirt just below the collar button in the left hand part of this photo. I can't find one. The image to the left is a little blurry but, still clear enough to see whether a hole is there or not. What do you think? The right hand photo of the JFK shirt suggests it was taken prior to the FBI snipping segments away from the hole. Is that right? Does that make sense with a photo taken in 1993? Something is not right about this hole in the back of the shirt just as there is something not right with the hole in the front of the shirt. Couple this apparent forgery (which one?) with the argument over which hole in Kennedy's back lines up with these holes in shirt and jacket then you have a real mystery.

Here's someone else that is not quite in tune with where the wound in JFK's back is. I am assuming the white and red arrow connects the wound in the back with the wound in the jacket. Also, the wound site where I placed the no. 3 and the arrow is often argued as the back wound site. There are a lot of places on JFK's back that look like gunshot wounds rather than blood scabs. Which, this photo and others fits my "no creditability" theories.

Bart, That is an interesting photo. If my memory hasn't flaked out on me this is the first time I have seen a hole in the shirt just below the collar button. It suggests a weird angle between the back shirt hole and the front shirt hole. One that suggests an upward angle. Can you provide a reference for the photo. It looks like a usable photo in this discussion.

Hey Ray, Finally, something we can agree on. Best Wishes over holidays.