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

[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.

Those fragments were dust artifacts according to the HSCA.

<quote on>

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the

region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because

of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because

these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.

<quote off>

They weren't dust particles given the fact that they had metallic-like densities.

What else could they be? There is no reasonable explanation that I can think of under the WC conclusions. Similar to that artifact in the head x-ray that has no reasonable explanation.

But if this x-ray is authentic, the reasonable CT explanation is that the particles are deflected bullet fragments. If the x-ray is faked, then I have no idea what caused these artifacts.

Does the extant x-ray (still) show these artifacts?

[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.

Those fragments were dust artifacts according to the HSCA.

<quote on>

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the

region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because

of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because

these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.

<quote off>

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?

Cliff, I think you are a valuable member of this discussion. Even if only to serve as a critic of theories proposed here.

[Sandy Larsen]

Are we to believe JFK was shot in the head prior to Z225 and he reacted to the bullet fragment exiting his throat, but not the shot in the head?

How come no one saw that he was shot in the head until Z313?

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.)

This is from his day after statement:

<quote on>

About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit" and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw S/A Hickey had the AR15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shots. The President's car immediately kicked into high gear and the follow-up car followed.

<quote off>

According to Bennett he was looking to is right when he heard the first shot.

This is corroborated by the Willis 5 photo:

Bennett is on the far right, seated.

He said he turned to look toward the President.

Altgens 6 shows Bennett with blurry features, consistent with him moving his head.

Bennett said the back shot was about 4 inches below the shoulder -- the bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars.

His account is well corroborated.

I still don't see how what Bennett wrote contradicts what I said. Here is what I said:

"For all we know, JFK could have been reacting to a collapsed lung when he brought his hands up to his neck."

The collapse lung, of course, being a result of the shot to the back. That is the shot Bennett describes. And it occurred seconds before the two head shots, right?

[Sandy Larsen]

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Version: 3 Date: 2/3/16

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.)
• According to Cliff Varnell, 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?) NOTE: The extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities.

Above The Collar Line

1. Tom is right and a A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.
2. Cliff is right and a A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.)

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 Gray'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 Gray years ago.)

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

I personally believe that it is a mistake to assume that a projectile of given shape will necessarily make the same shape in fabric that it does in human flesh, for these reasons:

• Projectiles like bullets do not cut. They stretch materials to the point of breaking them. I believe that the way a solid stretches and breaks will be different than the way a thin object will stretch and break. And the type of materiel will also make a difference.
• Furthermore, human flesh is more or less omniaxially symmetrical, whereas fabric is biaxially symmetrical. If a fabric is made from one type of thread horizontally and another type vertically, then it is uniaxially symmetrical along each of the two axes. I believe that these factors will affect the way a projectile breaks the material.
• The way a bullet hole looks can be affected by the way the material relaxes, or the way it is made to relax, after it has been shot. For example, flesh closes up naturally, and threads in material can be put back in place manually.

Having said that, I agree that bullets do tend to make round holes in fabric. But there are exceptions. Here is one I found:

To me it looks like the threads along one axis are stronger than the threads along the other.

Now, there is a caveat to what I'm saying here. While the alleged bullet holes on the front of JFK's shirt are slit-like in shape, the hole on the back of the shirt looks quite round. On the other hand, the picture of this hole is questionable because there are no frayed threads to be seen in the picture. Compare that to the hole in JFK's jacket, which looks much more slit-like:

.

This picture alone gives me confidence that the slit-like holes in the front of the shirt may be real. (As Ashton showed, they aren't perfect slits.)

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.

I had a little trouble making this sentence out. I changed it as follows to get the meaning of it. Correct me if I interpreted it wrongly.

As far as bullet/fragments entering or exiting, spectrographic analysis is not a hoax. Per the most basic forensic documents, bullets/fragments do leave metal on cloth.

But do they always (or nearly almost always) leave metal on cloth after exiting from flesh? (Maybe your following sentences answer that question.)

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.

I apparently missed that post. Did you actually post what BuLab said about those holes? I'd like to see it. If we can eliminate that entry from my list of possible scenarios, that would be great.

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

[Sandy Larsen]

Version: 3 Date: 2/3/16

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Version: 4 Date: 2/3/16

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. According to Tom Neal, BuLab's report sheds doubt on the possibility of no metal traces 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.)
• According to Cliff Varnell, 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?) NOTE: The extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities.

Above The Collar Line

1. A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.
2. A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.)

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 Gray'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 Gray years ago.)

[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, 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

Yes, I agree with what you show here. When the nick segment you show here is wrapped around the knot, the nick will be on the anatomical right side of the knot, to it's very back (toward the chest).

But I'm not sure about the "curl inward" comment. If that is referring to where the tie become narrow, my interpretation is as follows: There is an inside corner at the bottom of this segment, close to the horizontal center. The tie gets wider to the right of this corner. The corner has to do with the way the tie was sewn. It is what makes the tie get wider and wider on the wide end of the tie.

[Sandy Larsen]

(Deleted)

Edited February 3, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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

I am convinced by Tom's argument that the results of the test to the shirt holes were suppressed because the test didn't show traces of metal. But I don't know if metal is always expected to be present.

I'll update my list to reflect this.

BTW, I don't necessarily agree that the photos were taken after the destructive tests were done. Just because the tests were done within two days? Photos can be taken quickly too.

[Sandy Larsen]

Version: 4 Date: 2/3/16

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Version: 5 Date: 2/3/16

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. According to Tom Neal, BuLab's report sheds doubt on the possibility of no metal traces being left on the shirt holes. The WC hid the test results as it didn't support their story. But are metal traces expected always to be present?)
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.)
• According to Cliff Varnell, 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 or dust in the neck x-ray?) NOTE: The extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities.

Above The Collar Line

1. A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.
2. A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.)

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 Gray'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 Gray years ago.)

Edited February 3, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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...

Cliff,

How is it that you missed the fact that I have included your theory on my list.

Because I have an open mind. (Do you?)

Edited February 3, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

Jon,

To understand the crime is to understand the cover-up. And we are making progress here.

Of all the seemingly inexplicable events I've studied related to the JFK assassination, I've never walked away without a satisfying conclusion. The key is to determine which parts of the puzzle are real and which are missing or intentionally modified. I've found that it is generally possible to distinguish between the two.

[Tom Neal]

Just to be absolutely clear on this, do you agree that the diagram I posted earlier (SEEN BELOW), correctly describes JFK's tie knot?

Yes, I agree with what you show here.

DISREGARD THE NICK. This is not meant to depict the location of the nick!

What I'm asking is; do you agree that the horizontal 'ridge' located between the 5th and 6th icons up from the bottom of the knot is the 'top' edge of the horizontal part of the knot in the tie? In other words the 6th 'row' of icons is NOT part of the horizontal part of the knot, but actually the VERTICAL part of the tie tucked in behind the HORIZONTAL part of the knot. To summarize: Is the width of the tie in the color overlay equal to the width of the knot in the B&W photo?

But I'm not sure about the "curl inward" comment. If that is referring to where the tie become narrow

If you look at the photo and note the white border at the top, you can see that the FULL WIDTH of the tie is shown. The top of the tie does NOT get narrower at this point, but the bottom does. This can be seen in the photo of the entire tie that I previously posted. Do you agree that neckties are symmetrical? They narrow equally on BOTH sides. I believe this 'inward' movement of the lower edge in the photo is 'memory' from being tied. The only reason I pointed this out on the photo was to show why the tie was slightly narrower in the color overlay than the knot in the B&W photo.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

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 am convinced by Tom's argument that the results of the test to the shirt holes were suppressed because the test didn't show traces of metal.

But I don't know if metal is always expected to be present.

It is ALWAYS expected to be present.

As I've stated in previous posts: IMO, IF the FBI believed that the presence of metal did NOT *ALWAYS* occur for entry/exit wounds, why would they suppress the report? They would have reported the test results "inconclusive" and maintained that this was the exit 'hole' of a bullet. As they did with the LHO paraffin tests et al. And finally, the forensic books that I have read state clearly that "bullet metal" aka "bullet wipe" IS present for BOTH entry and exit wounds in a human body.

BTW, I don't necessarily agree that the photos were taken after the destructive tests were done.

Sandy,

Who are you AGREEING with? Not me! I said I "strongly believe" the photos were taken AFTER the testing. Let's be clear regarding this point: I did NOT say they WERE taken afterwards. The importance of this fact will become clear in later posts - AFTER these current questions are 'resolved.'

Yes, photos CAN be taken quickly. I'm sure BuLab photographed the before and after results. I strongly believe, but I'm not absolutely certain that the photos at NARA are were taken AFTER the samples were removed from the clothing. More later on this subject...

BTW, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the "holes" as depicted in this animation actually exist? This link will take you to the post, and you can also read my OPINION on this subject. As always, allow about 2 seconds for it to appear on screen AFTER the correct page appears.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=31#entry325044

Tom

Edited February 3, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

Version: 4 Date: 2/3/16

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Version: 5 Date: 2/3/16

Below The Collar Line

• A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat.
• 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. According to Tom Neal, BuLab's report sheds doubt on the possibility of no metal traces being left on the shirt holes. The WC hid the test results as it didn't support their story. But are metal traces expected always to be present?)
• 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.)
• According to Cliff Varnell, 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 or dust in the neck x-ray?) NOTE: The extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities.

Above The Collar Line

• A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.
• A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.)

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

• Ashton Gray'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.

Sandy,

This table is a good idea.

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.

Can you provide a citation for this statement regarding "a coating of organic matter on the fragment"? The forensic manuals are clear that "bullet wipe" is expected to occur at the cite of exit and entry wounds. This sounds like a WC-type explanation to me, although I've never encountered it...

According to Tom Neal, BuLab's report sheds doubt on the possibility of no metal traces being left on the shirt holes.

I wrote that? No offense intended, but I don't even know what that means...

BuLab's report which is posted, states unequivocally that "NO BULLET METAL" was present at the slits in the front of the shirt. If you want to keep this as it is, that's fine, but if you do, PLEASE remove my name!

Tom