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

[Sandy Larsen]

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Below The Collar Line

1. A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat.

When did this shot occur?

1. 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.)

When did this shot occur?

1. A plastic projectile either entered or exited JFK's throat.

If it were an exit where did the shot enter?

So all the throat entrance witnesses got it wrong and the neck x-ray is fake even though Dr. Mantik rather huffily declared it genuine?

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

1. Tom is right and a bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.
2. 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

1. 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.)

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.

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

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 Larsen]

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Version: 2 Date: 2/2/16

Below The Collar Line

1. A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat.
2. 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.)
3. 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

1. Tom is right and a bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.
2. 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

1. 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.)

[Tom Neal]

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.

Already did that -- it's still there -- for the moment...

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.)

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. 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. 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.

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.

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

[Tom Neal]

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.

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

[Tom Neal]

Above The Collar Line

• Tom is right and a bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.

Sandy,

Please remove "Tom is right." Per my earlier posts, I don't rate this theory any higher than several others, as it has a number of issues working against it.

Thanks,

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

I thought Ashton Gray did a very good job of demonstrating the so called "slits" in the shirt were actually holes that aligned with each other when the collar was done up.

[Ian Lloyd]

You call them "holes", but do they only look like that now due to some of the material having been cut away for spectographic analysis?

Actually, a further thought on that - was a 'control sample' also removed from the shirt for comparison? If so from where?

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ian Lloyd

[Tom Neal]

I thought Ashton Gray did a very good job of demonstrating the so called "slits" in the shirt were actually holes that aligned with each other when the collar was done up.

Bob,

You and I are almost always on the same page, but we don't seem to have any common ground regarding the shirt and tie.

PLEASE CONFIRM OR DENY THIS STATEMENT: you are convinced that the red and green/blue areas as depicted by Ashton in his GIF, are actual physical holes completely through the cloth on each half of the shirt.

Looking at this high contrast B&W photo of a heavily blood-stained shirt, with an unknown number of loose threads, and stating that there are actually two 'large' holes completely through the two halves of the shirt...I can't see them. I'm not saying they are absolutely NOT THERE. I'm saying that to MY eye they look MORE like dried blood clots than holes. But due to the characteristics of the photo itself, I can NOT say that they ARE dried blood clots, to the exclusion of anything else.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

You call them "holes", but do they only look like that now due to some of the material having been cut away for spectographic analysis?

Actually, a further thought on that - was a 'control sample' also removed from the shirt for comparison? If so from where?

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

[Cliff Varnell]

• 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?)

Bullet fragments or dust?

Meanwhile, Dr. Mantik:

8. Have the extra-cranial X-rays been altered?

Answer: No one has ever suggested this, and I have had no reason to believe so. Why is this an issue at all? After all, the radio-opaque dye from the myelogram is still visible.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Meanwhile, you need to rationalize the dismissal of the neck -x-ray, the Dealey Plaza film/photos, and the witnesses in Dealey and at Parkland -- all of which indicate JFK was shot in the throat from the front.

So much faked evidence and so much mistaken witness testimony!

Carry on, don't mind me...

Edited February 2, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Jon G. Tidd]

I believe this whole matter is a distraction.

For years, many researchers and other critics assumed there was an assassination-related wound in JFK's throat and that it was a wound of entrance. There was much beating of the drums over this. And what was the outcome? A yawn from the press. The U.S. Government didn't even yawn. Now there are questions as to whether the wound was assassination-related (A.G.), as to whether the wound was a wound entrance or a wound of exit, and whether if it was a wound of exit it was caused by bone or metal.

There is no resolution, no finality, here; only endless debate that has no winner; and even if it has a winner, the winner's prize is a yawn from the press and a no-reaction from the U.S. Government.

I urge all the knowledge and talent here to focus on the cover-up. If the cover-up can be understood, everyone is one clear step further toward understanding the assassination. The cover-up is understandable, I believe.

[Cliff Varnell]

I believe this whole matter is a distraction.

For years, many researchers and other critics assumed there was an assassination-related wound in JFK's throat and that it was a wound of entrance. There was much beating of the drums over this. And what was the outcome? A yawn from the press. The U.S. Government didn't even yawn. Now there are questions as to whether the wound was assassination-related (A.G.), as to whether the wound was a wound entrance or a wound of exit, and whether if it was a wound of exit it was caused by bone or metal.

Yes, this is the claim that is repeated endlessly,

A Zombie Pet Theory.

There is no resolution, no finality, here; only endless debate that has no winner; and even if it has a winner, the winner's prize is a yawn from the press and a no-reaction from the U.S. Government.

Just because someone repeats a conclusion over and over it doesn't mean they are engaged in debate.

This is fake debate.

I urge all the knowledge and talent here to focus on the cover-up.

Which one?

Ozzie the Lone Nut or Ozzie the Red Assassin?

What did the guys who killed Kennedy need to know about Oswald?

Nothing.

If the cover-up can be understood, everyone is one clear step further toward understanding the assassination. The cover-up is understandable, I believe.

I find the murder understandable once you approach it like a murder case.

The autopsists thought JFK was hit with an MKNAOMI type high tech weapon, the bullets wouldn't show up on x-ray.

An obvious lead right there in the historical record largely ignored for 50 odd years,,,

[Sandy Larsen]

Want to explain the point of faking the neck x-ray?

Maybe to hide particles from a frangible bullet.

Ah, but how does this frangible bullet hit nothing but soft tissue and not blow out the back of his neck?

Jackie K said he had a quizzical look on his face.

If he were shot in the throat with a frangible bullet it would leave a quizzical look on his face?

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.