There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat

[Robert Prudhomme]

From Sandy Larsen:

1. "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"
   

Please read Post # 388 again, and see why this is not possible.

[Robert Prudhomme]

See how the vertical row of icons, that mostly contains the nick, has a round icon as the number 5 icon (counting from the bottom)? By matching up the tie knot, as worn by JFK in this black and white photo, with the knot Ashton has tied from the Archives photo tie, the row of icons with the nick can only match the B & W photo row of icons on JFK's anatomical right; IF we believe the tie was only five icons wide at this point.

This now places the nick closer to the centre of the tie knot, and away from the edge of the tie knot. As we have determined already that the nick only goes through the coloured portion of the tie, and not through what appears to be a white backing layer in the tie, placing the nick in the position above eliminates the possibility of this nick being caused by a projectile; either entering or exiting JFK's throat, as this would have made a hole completely through the tie.

If we eliminate a projectile as the cause of this nick, we then must find something else that made this nick.

The only possible explanation so far has been put forward by Ashton Gray. According to him, an assassin, armed with a syringe sporting a 1/4" diameter needle, injected an untraceable poison into JFK's throat at the level of the 3rd tracheal ring which, coincidentally, is precisely the preferred location for a tracheostomy site. To explain the nick that does not go completely through the tie, Mr. Gray hypothesizes that the assassin, in haste and carelessness, first accidentally inserted the tip of the 1/4" needle into JFK's tie knot in his attempt to insert this needle through JFK's collar, realized his mistake, pulled the tie aside and then inserted the needle through his collar and into his throat; ultimately injecting the poison there.

There are a number of problems with this theory.

First, the blood stain on the tie.

I don't know about the rest of you but, I find it a bit spooky that there is blood on the coloured part of the tie while the backing material, seen through the nick, is still a nice sparkling white. Also, if the nick was on the front of the tie knot, why is the spread of the blood stain, seen above in the Archives photo, contained to what would be the front and left edge of the tie? If it was coming from a hole made in the shirt collar, shouldn't we see a blood stain extending all the way to the top of the photo, as the material near the top of the photo would have been at the back of the tie knot, and in contact with the shirt?

In order for a 1/4" diameter needle to take a nick out of a tie, it would have to be extremely sharp. I don't know if all of you can comprehend just how big a 1/4" needle is but, I can tell you that it is huge. I work with copper and plastic tubing a lot, and I cannot imagine using a needle this big. Anyways, if this needle was so sharp it was able to cut out a plug of tie material (an oblong one at that) why did it make a ragged tear in the right side of JFK's trachea? For that matter, how did such a sharp round tipped instrument make a tear in the side of the trachea at all? A tear like that is more indicative of something passing through at a high velocity.

But getting back to the tie, here is how to place the nick on the anatomical left side of JFK's tie knot. Looking at Ashton's tie knot, simply add a square icon to the top of the vertical row containing the nick, making it six icons high. This vertical row now has six icons (the prevailing number of icons seen on the rest of the tie) in it with a square icon at its top. It now matches the row of icons seen on the anatomical left of JFK's tie knot in this photo below, and the nick would be on the left edge of the tie knot:

[Robert Prudhomme]

deleted

Edited January 31, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Here is a REALLY dumb question. Has anyone ever seen the back side of the section of tie with the nick in it, or seen a photo of the back side of the tie?

We are assuming the defect does not go all of the way through the tie, simply because this is what we have been told. Can we prove this?

[Michael Cross]

Good question. How do we know we're not seeing the background material instead of the white lining of the tie?

[Sandy Larsen]

From Sandy Larsen:

1. "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"

Please read Post # 388 again, and see why this is not possible.

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.

[Sandy Larsen]

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!

[Cliff Varnell]

JFK was shot in the throat from the front right below his adams apple.

That's a provable fact established by the physical evidence and the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photos/film.

The rest of this discussion is nothing but fake debate.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

Well Bob,

Once again, you've avoided the step-by-step process by jumping ahead. You posted a question asking for someone to agree with you. You have now received 4 responses who have ALL disagreed with you, yet you cling to the notion that it is physically impossible for the icons to align at the vertical and horizontal intersection. Since I've already constructed this I'll post with the full expectation that you will blow this off too:

The B&W photo in this montage depicts the tie as worn by JFK on 11-22-1963. On top of this B&W is the color photo showing the nick in the tie. It has been rotated 90 degrees to match the orientation of the knot in the underlying photo, and resized (with no changes in proportion) to horizontally align these icons with those on the underlying B&W photo.

Note the white borders at the top and bottom of the color photo overlay. THIS IS THE FULL WIDTH OF THE TIE. IT HAS NOT BEEN TRIMMED. IT CONTAINS 5 ICONS. As stated on the photo above, the "TIE BEGINS TO CURL INWARD" slightly reducing the width of the tie, but the icon immediately above the curled 'lower' edge is still horizontally aligned with the corresponding icon of the underlay as are the remaining 4 icons across the FULL WIDTH of the tie. Note the fact that the icons in BOTH photos are all the SAME SIZE. Is it a coincidence that when the edges of the color tie are aligned with the edges of the B&W tie the icons are precisely the same size and align horizontally?

If I were to increase the width of the color overlay until it reached what you are claiming is the top boundary, not only will the color icons be significantly smaller that the B&W icons, there will still only be 5 icons on the blue tie v. the 6 you claim are present on the full width of the B&W tie.

Please explain as to how this 5 icon wide tie does the impossible and becomes a 6 icon wide tie?

You imply that it is physically impossible for the row of icons on the vertical part of the tie to align with the horizontal icons on the horizontal part of the tie yet you have have repeated your claim that the nick in the tie can be moved laterally a little bit at a time into any location. The icons are going to travel along with the nick so EITHER the horizontal icons could be matched to the vertical icons OR the nick can't be adjusted in small increments either. You can't have it both ways, so make your choice. The vertical part of the tie that is exposed above the horizontal part of the knot is considerably narrower than the full width of the tie causing the tie to curl so the edges are out of site. Additionally, the 'wings' of the collar would hide this. This would allow the icons to be shifted laterally to align the icons on the horizontal part of the tie. Tightening or loosening the knot increases/decreases the circumference of the tie. This action moves the icons laterally on the horizontal part of the tie.

I've just given you 3 DIFFERENT ways to align the icons, but if your counter-argument that JFK would NEVER appear in public without a perfectly knotted (which it isn't, the knot is asymmetrical which is causing the bottom of the knot to point to the right) tie trumps all of the above, then you continue to go with that. I've wasted more than enough time here - and this is the last I have to say on this subject.

Tom

PS Sandy, I'd appreciate any comments you have on this post and the photo montage...

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.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

See how the vertical row of icons, that mostly contains the nick, has a round icon as the number 5 icon (counting from the bottom)? By matching up the tie knot, as worn by JFK in this black and white photo, with the knot Ashton has tied from the Archives photo tie, the row of icons with the nick can only match the B & W photo row of icons on JFK's anatomical right; IF we believe the tie was only five icons wide at this point.

This now places the nick closer to the centre of the tie knot, and away from the edge of the tie knot. As we have determined already that the nick only goes through the coloured portion of the tie, and not through what appears to be a white backing layer in the tie, placing the nick in the position above eliminates the possibility of this nick being caused by a projectile; either entering or exiting JFK's throat, as this would have made a hole completely through the tie.

If we eliminate a projectile as the cause of this nick, we then must find something else that made this nick.

The only possible explanation so far has been put forward by Ashton Gray.

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.

[Sandy Larsen]

JFK was shot in the throat from the front right below his adams apple.

That's a provable fact established by the physical evidence and the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photos/film.

The rest of this discussion is nothing but fake debate.

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

[Cliff Varnell]

JFK was shot in the throat from the front right below his adams apple.

That's a provable fact established by the physical evidence and the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photos/film.

The rest of this discussion is nothing but fake debate.

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.

[Sandy Larsen]

JFK was shot in the throat from the front right below his adams apple.

That's a provable fact established by the physical evidence and the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photos/film.

The rest of this discussion is nothing but fake debate.

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 Prudhomme]

JFK was shot in the throat from the front right below his adams apple.

That's a provable fact established by the physical evidence and the Dealey Plaza witnesses and photos/film.

The rest of this discussion is nothing but fake debate.

Did the projectile go over or through the collar, Cliff?

[Robert Prudhomme]

See how the vertical row of icons, that mostly contains the nick, has a round icon as the number 5 icon (counting from the bottom)? By matching up the tie knot, as worn by JFK in this black and white photo, with the knot Ashton has tied from the Archives photo tie, the row of icons with the nick can only match the B & W photo row of icons on JFK's anatomical right; IF we believe the tie was only five icons wide at this point.

This now places the nick closer to the centre of the tie knot, and away from the edge of the tie knot. As we have determined already that the nick only goes through the coloured portion of the tie, and not through what appears to be a white backing layer in the tie, placing the nick in the position above eliminates the possibility of this nick being caused by a projectile; either entering or exiting JFK's throat, as this would have made a hole completely through the tie.

If we eliminate a projectile as the cause of this nick, we then must find something else that made this nick.

The only possible explanation so far has been put forward by Ashton Gray.

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.

Well, this is always possible, too. What I find most interesting about the nick is that it is so long horizontally, and the holes in the collar, once highlighted, are much rounder; indicating a round fragment or a bullet. The long nick would be a result of the tie material being folded almost in half at the left outer edge of the tie.