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

[Cliff Varnell]

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?

The back shot was post-Z255.

At the time of the throat shot Bennett was turned to the right.

JFK's lung would have had to collapse prior to being shot in the back...no way.

[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...

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?)

I don't regard the idea that all the witnesses got it wrong and all the photo evidence is fake as viable.

It's an exercise in witness bashing, essentially.

This isn't theory, it's ether.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

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

From the HSCA analysis:

<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>

What else could they be?

"Debris."

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?

Edited February 3, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

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.

Here's a better photo:

Tom,

My first impression when I look at this photo is that there are slit-like holes on both sides. It's a striped shirt, each stripe consisting of three very narrow stripes grouped together. It's easy to see that the anatomical right hole is indeed a hole by looking closely at the three narrow stripes. Two of the stripes are on the left side of the hole, and the third is on the right side. The two on the left make a semicircle. Thus it is not just a thin slit.

The hole on the anatomical left looks like it extends up into the collar area. But that could be an illusion caused by two or three threads extending up there. It looks more like a hole than a blood clot to me. The right margin of the hole looks slightly frayed, and maybe that's why it looks like a hole to me. The hole does look dark/black, bu then so does the button hole.

I'm not sure why the hole on the anatomical right isn't dark like the other hole. Maybe there isn't blood on the back of the shirt in that particular spot, and we are seeing the back-side fabric though the hole.

The only thing that concerns me is if that hole on the anatomical left does indeed extend up into the collar.

[Sandy Larsen]

Tom,

I see that you are right, that the photos were made after the residue tests were performed. The WC exhibit labels give it away.

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

Well I've observed that you are very cautious to take a position, more so than myself. So I'll take your word for this. (I don't question "your word," of course. I just know that even the most honest of people can have differing interpretations of what they read or hear.) I'll remove the offending item from the list. If anyone disagrees with that move, they can raise an objection. (Speaking of "anyone," I wonder what happened to Robert. He doesn't seem to be participating in this topic anymore.)

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.'

I meant that I don't necessarily agree with your "strong belief" on this matter.

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

(Answered in a another post.)

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

Version: 5 Date: 2/3/16

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Version: 6 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. Note that I

believe the arrow should be lowered by about

1/4" to aligned with the holes. But I need to

carefully check this first.)

Edited February 4, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Yeah, I know I didn't word it well. You had said something about BuLab expecting metal, or being surprised there was no metal, or something like that. I couldn't remember and I was tired. So I wrote what I did figuring that if anybody cared I could fix it later. (I certainly didn't want to NOT make the note, for fear I'd forget to do so later.So I wrote it the best I could at the time.)

[Tom Neal]

My first impression when I look at this photo is that there are slit-like holes on both sides. It's a striped shirt, each stripe consisting of three very narrow stripes grouped together. It's easy to see that the anatomical right hole is indeed a hole by looking closely at the three narrow stripes. Two of the stripes are on the left side of the hole, and the third is on the right side. The two on the left make a semicircle. Thus it is not just a thin slit.

The hole on the anatomical left looks like it extends up into the collar area. But that could be an illusion caused by two or three threads extending up there. It looks more like a hole than a blood clot to me. The right margin of the hole looks slightly frayed, and maybe that's why it looks like a hole to me. The hole does look dark/black, bu then so does the button hole.

Sandy,

As you may recall I am awaiting a response from Dr. David Mantik (who examined the shirt at NARA) to several questions. Just a few minutes ago I came across Mantik's response to a question posted on a website (emphasis is mine):

"The lacerations of the shirt lie well inferior to the top of the collar -- and therefore well inferior to the throat wound. I have seen the clothing at NARA. The shirt does not exhibit any missing material, but such missing material would be expected for a real bullet. And the lacerations in the shirt do look like the work of a scalpel."

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

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?

The back shot was post-Z255.

Well that's your opinion. I happen to believe that the back shot was taken when JFK was hidden behind the sign (~Z210). And, BTW, that doesn't contradict Bennett given that the Willis 5 photo was at Z201 or Z202).

At the time of the throat shot Bennett was turned to the right.

JFK's lung would have had to collapse prior to being shot in the back...no way.

[Sandy Larsen]

My latest comments in green.

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

From the HSCA analysis:

<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>

What else could they be?

"Debris."

Oh come on... what kind of medical facility would have metallic debris on their x-ray film or cartridges? Do you think the facility doubles as a machine shop?

Medical facilities keep their x-ray film and cartridges clean. Sheesh!

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?

[Cliff Varnell]

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?

The back shot was post-Z255.

Well that's your opinion. I happen to believe that the back shot was taken when JFK was hidden behind the sign (~Z210). And, BTW, that doesn't contradict Bennett given that the Willis 5 photo was at Z201 or Z202).

Bennett was looking to the right at Z202.

That's what he testified to, that's what Willis 5 shows.

He heard a shot while facing to the right, then he turned to the front in time to see JFK hit.

That's what he testified to, that's what his blurred features in Altgens 6 (Z255) indicate.

Bennett was not facing front at Z202, a split second after the first shot.

Clearly, the shooting sequence was throat shot/back shot/head shot/s.

At the time of the throat shot Bennett was turned to the right.

JFK's lung would have had to collapse prior to being shot in the back...no way.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

My latest comments in green.

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

From the HSCA analysis:

<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>

What else could they be?

"Debris."

Oh come on... what kind of medical facility would have metallic debris on their x-ray film or cartridges? Do you think the facility doubles as a machine shop?

Medical facilities keep their x-ray film and cartridges clean. Sheesh!

Take it up with the HSCA.

Hey, it's easy to feed Pet Theories when all the photo evidence is faked, the HSCA x-ray analysis is wrong just because it's inconvenient, and all the witnesses got it wrong.

Have a ball...

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?

Edited February 3, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Tom Neal]

Well I've observed that you are very cautious to take a position, more so than myself.

Not always. See my statement above: "It is ALWAYS expected to be present."

But in most cases you are absolutely correct.

I would like to believe that the throat wound was inflicted by a small caliber bullet, located above the collar, and the slits in the shirt and the nick in the tie were

caused by a scalpel used to remove the necktie. Adequate support exists for each piece of the total puzzle of the throat wound. This IMO is the least complex scenario that covers

all evidence as it exists today.

Does that PROVE it is correct? No. All of the above is true, but there is also strong evidence AGAINST it. There are just too many unanswered questions, and too many other interlocking possibilities for each piece of this puzzle. So I am EXTRA cautious NOT to attach myself to any specific theory regarding this throat wound.

I just know that even the most honest of people can have differing interpretations of what they read or hear.

Absolutely. People are not always careful as to how they express what they want to say, either. So even if we correctly interpret what their words indicate, it is frequently not

the idea they intended to convey. As you have noted I'm rather manic regarding interpretations of what I state. I put a lot more effort into clarity on this site than anywhere

else because a small number of our members will cherry pick a phrase out of a precisely worded sentence and insist you meant something contrary to what you obviously meant. This

is how they "win" an argument. By being an obsessive pain in the ass I keep this to a minimum.

Speaking of "anyone," I wonder what happened to Robert. He doesn't seem to be participating in this topic anymore.

...or ANY topic of this forum. I made the same observation earlier, and sent you a PM.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

This is the best photo that I have found showing the 'nick' in the necktie:

We don't know if this photo was taken before or after the forensic sample was removed or before or after the knot was undone and re-tied.

According to Dr. C. James Carrico, the tie was cut "as close to the knot as possible" as this image appears to depict. Note the cut through the tie. IMO the tie was cut in two separate stages. The two separate cuts appear to my eye as much smoother than the jagged cut that appears in other photos of the tie.

Tom