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

[Sandy Larsen]

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

I will address Dr. Mantik's assessment point by point:

• "The lacerations of the shirt lie well inferior to the top of the collar -- and therefore well inferior to the throat wound."

  That's the way it looks to me too. But Ashton's animated gif convinced me otherwise. I studied that gif carefully and it is very well done. (Except that I believe he placed his arrow too high by about 1/4 inch.) But in light of of what Dr. Mantik says, I plan on checking Ashton's gif more thoroughly.

• "The shirt does not exhibit any missing material, but such missing material would be expected for a real bullet."

  In one of my replies to you I explained why I thought a bullet hole through fabric could have a shape different from a bullet hole in flesh. One thing I had thought of but forgot to mention is this: It seems to me that a bullet could break the fabric in TWO places, on opposite sides of the bullet nose, because of the friction between the nose of the bullet and the threads. I think it would do so only at high speeds. And so a bullet could carry some of the material with it.

  But I know that that is not always the case, because I found some counter-examples.

  Nevertheless, this comment by Mantik is irrelevant in our case because we have already eliminated the bullet scenario.

• "And the lacerations in the shirt do look like the work of a scalpel."

  I believe that can be the case only if the shirt was washed. Or if someone intentionally made the holes look more ragged. Those holes are not simple cuts. I think Dr. Mantik is showing some bias in this statement.

Here is the full paragraph Dr. Mantik wrote about the shirt holes. I'm emphasizing what may be assumptions, guesses, or exaggerations on his part. (I'm doing this because as I read it, some of it didn't ring true).

"Although both were damaged, such damage is mostly silent about the direction of a projectile. The nurses claimed that scalpels (used to remove JFK's clothing) caused this damage. Neither the front of the shirt nor the tie showed any scientific evidence (low energy X-ray scattering) of metal from a bullet passage, although the bullet holes in the back of JFK's jacket and shirt did show such evidence. Furthermore, the relevant witnesses described the throat wound as lying above the collar and tie. While before the WC, Dr. Charles Carrico clearly implied that the wound was above the necktie and above the shirt collar (3H361-362). To leave no doubt about what Carrico had seen, Harold Weisberg reports his own confirmatory interview with Carrico (Post-Mortem 1969, pp. 357-358 and 375-376). And then there is nurse Diana Bowron, who saw the throat wound while JFK was still in the limousine – before the shirt and tie had been removed. But here is the problem: the lacerations in the shirt lie well inferior to the top of the collar – and therefore well inferior to the throat wound. Moreover, I have seen the clothing at the National Archives and Records Administration (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."

[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).

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.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this Cliff. The fact remains that the scenario I described is fully compatible with the evidence you're pointing out.

In my scenario I have (after the missed shot), back shot, Connally shot, head shots. Boom (long pause) Boom (short pause) Boom-Boom (that sounds like a single shot).

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

It's just a theory... in both of our cases.

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!

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.

Hey, you're the one with the pet theory pal. I have a list of potential theories, including yours for heavens sake.

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?

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Well if this is the tie before being re-tied, then Ashton put the nick in the correct spot. Well, maybe. The knot here is very loose.

UPDATE: Okay, I took my mock JFK sloppy tie and pretended I cut it. Here's what I found:

1. Loosening the knot (the knot, not the tie) on purpose is a hassle, would have consumed valuable time, and would have been unnecessary. I'm sure they didn't do that.
2. The mere acting of moving the knot around while "cutting" the tie made the knot loose. I'm sure this is what happened.
3. The mock nick did NOT move by doing #2.

When the FBI said the nick is on the anatomically left side, if what they meant was the left side of the front of the knot, and not the actual side of the tie, this mystery would be readily solved. It would mean the nick had nothing to do with a projectile. Because it was out in front where a projectile wouldn't hit it.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

Hmmm... but did you take into account the fact that the real wound would have had to be covered up in the autopsy photos? And a gash made at a lower location? That's not exactly a trivial matter.

[Tom Neal]

I will address Dr. Mantik's assessment point by point:

In one of my replies to you I explained why I thought a bullet hole through fabric could have a shape different from a bullet hole in flesh. One thing I had thought of but forgot to mention is this: It seems to me that a bullet could break the fabric in TWO places, on opposite sides of the bullet nose, because of the friction between the nose of the bullet and the threads. I think it would do so only at high speeds. And so a bullet could carry some of the material with it.

Did you look at the bullet holes in the back of the shirt and jacket? That is a typical entry or exit hole unless the bullet has fragmented or tumbling. The only way a bullet could create a slit is by tumbling. In this case a bullet entry that created a slit in the shirt could not possibly create a neat round hole in the flesh. If it is an exit wound it was not tumbling as it passed through the flesh yet immediately began a RAPID tumble after encountering...cloth? Have you investigated how much velocity a bullet will lose penetrating 7 layers of skin? I just can't accept that for a bullet/fragment or bone. If you can find an example where an exiting or entering bullet left a round hole in the body and a slit in the shirt, I would REALLY like to see it.

Nevertheless, this comment by Mantik is irrelevant in our case because we have already eliminated the bullet scenario.

*I* have eliminated the bullet scenario based on the spectrographic analysis. That is good hard science with decades of provenance.

Your list includes the idea that bio-matter would allow the bullet to exit without bullet wipe, so I do not understand why *you* are saying you have eliminated the bullet scenario.

You also believe that there are two round holes in the shirt and don't believe Mantik who actually held the shirt, and says there is no material missing. How do you make a 1/4" hole through a shirt without removing any material? You are going to carefully study a poor quality B&W photo and make a better determination that Mantik could using the ACTUAL shirt?

Mantik's is not irrelevant as to what caused the slit. With no material missing it is a virtual certainty that they are 'knife' cuts. Not bullets or the bone fragments you still have on your list.

Dr. David Mantik: "and the lacerations in the shirt do look like the work of a scalpel"

I believe that can be the case only if the shirt was washed. Or if someone intentionally made the holes look more ragged. Those holes are not simple cuts. I think Dr. Mantik is showing some bias in this statement.

You are trumping Mantik's direct observation of the shirt by observing a poor quality B&W photo? And you have decided Mantik's observation is BIASED?

I'm emphasizing what may be assumptions, guesses, or exaggerations on his part. (I'm doing this because as I read it, some of it didn't ring true).

Assumptions, guesses, or exaggerations? And on what basis do they not "ring true"? Be specific and cite each example AND the reason for these accusations.

Wow! I don't agree with a single word you've said in this post!

[Tom Neal]

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.

Hmmm... but did you take into account the fact that the real wound would have had to be covered up in the autopsy photos? And a gash made at a lower location? That's not exactly a trivial matter.

If you hadn't hacked off this IMPORTANT part of the post where I said: "Does that PROVE it is correct? No. All of the above is true, but there is also strong evidence AGAINST it." you wouldn't be asking that question. This is one of the MANY reasons I don't EASILY commit to a scenario. People make comments like this just to accuse you of missing something. I SAID there was STRONG EVIDENCE against it. Did you EVEN read the post????

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton has shown the nick in the front of the tie because it suits his purpose to do so.

True. BUT...

*PLONK*

No, I didn't mean "true" to that sentence, Ashton. I meant "true" the sentence prior to that, which I highlight here in red:

You could put the nick in the tie anywhere you wished; back, front or on either side, simply by altering the place you started tying the tie. Ashton has shown the nick in the front of the tie because it suits his purpose to do so.

You can see that to be the case in everything I write. I never thought you did anything to suit your purpose. I regret that I didn't see that my reply was ambiguous before posting it.

Someone brought this post to my attention so I now don't have you on "Ignore." As for this, that you did choose to say "true" to:

You could put the nick in the tie anywhere you wished; back, front or on either side, simply by altering the place you started tying the tie

Well, it's certainly "true" that someone who was either unspeakably irresponsible or who had a disinformation agenda could "put the nick in the tie anywhere" they wished, but in my re-creation, I put it where TWO other photos of the tie with the knot tied indicate that the nick was located on the knot. In doing so, I put the re-creation onto a photo that has the tie knot in situ—which is unprecedented in 53 years of analysis—and I mapped it more accurately than anyone ever has done in 53 years.

So, no, the statement you quoted that's in red above isn't "true" in any relevant sense whatsoever. The statement is merely a part of a veritable blizzard of posts attempting to discredit the re-creation I painstakingly did, but the re-creation is dead-on accurate in alignment with all other existing visual evidence of the nick in the tie.

Ashton

[Ashton Gray]

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

. . .

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.

There is no "Ashton's Theory," so please remove any and all such claims.

At no time did I posit any "theory" on this subject. I have in good faith attempted to answer questions about what COULD have caused the hole in the throat, the slits/holes in the shirt, and the nick in the tie that was NOT a projectile from the front, because I emphatically and repeatedly have stated that the throat wound could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front. I have presented prima facie visual evidence that the hole in the throat could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front, and I absolutely stand by that.

I further will state emphatically and repeatedly that the holes/slits in the shirt, and the nick in the tie, also could not possibly have been caused by a projectile from the front. And I absolutely stand by that.

I do not carry the burden of supplying a "theory" of who or what DID cause any it.

So please don't feed the trolls using my name with false claims about what I have said. I will speak for myself. If you want to claim I've said something, use the QUOTE function and quote me. Thanks.

Ashton

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

Hmmm... but did you take into account the fact that the real wound would have had to be covered up in the autopsy photos? And a gash made at a lower location? That's not exactly a trivial matter.

If you hadn't hacked off this IMPORTANT part of the post where I said: "Does that PROVE it is correct? No. All of the above is true, but there is also strong evidence AGAINST it." you wouldn't be asking that question. This is one of the MANY reasons I don't EASILY commit to a scenario. People make comments like this just to accuse you of missing something. I SAID there was STRONG EVIDENCE against it. Did you EVEN read the post????

Yes, of course I read your post. I'm sorry that what I asked upset you. At the time I read your "strong evidence against it" comment, I didn't know what you were referring to. And by the time the cover-up issue popped into my head, I had forgotten about your "strong evidence against it" comment. It hadn't sunk in. I'm only human after all.

[Sandy Larsen]

Did you look at the bullet holes in the back of the shirt and jacket? That is a typical entry or exit hole unless the bullet has fragmented or tumbling. The only way a bullet could create a slit is by tumbling.

I don't know if you saw my post, but I explained in it why I believe a (non-tumbling) bullet can create a slit-like hole in fabric. And I am comfortable with the idea that the holes/slits in JFK's shirt could have been created by a projectile that is not as big or wide as the slits.

In this case a bullet entry that created a slit in the shirt could not possibly create a neat round hole in the flesh. If it is an exit wound it was not tumbling as it passed through the flesh yet immediately began a RAPID tumble after encountering...cloth? Have you investigated how much velocity a bullet will lose penetrating 7 layers of skin? I just can't accept that for a bullet/fragment or bone. If you can find an example where an exiting or entering bullet left a round hole in the body and a slit in the shirt, I would REALLY like to see it.

Here you go:

Here's another:

.

Sandy said:

Nevertheless, this comment by Mantik is irrelevant in our case because we have already eliminated the bullet scenario.

*I* have eliminated the bullet scenario based on the spectrographic analysis. That is good hard science with decades of provenance.

Your list includes the idea that bio-matter would allow the bullet to exit without bullet wipe, so I do not understand why *you* are saying you have eliminated the bullet scenario.

I told you I was eliminating it, and I did. See post 487 on page 33.

You also believe that there are two round holes in the shirt and don't believe Mantik who actually held the shirt, and says there is no material missing. How do you make a 1/4" hole through a shirt without removing any material?

I've seen estimates on the size of the throat wound as small as 2 mm. I don't know that it was really 1/4 inch. Nevertheless, I certainly can make a 1/4 inch hole in fabric without removing any material. (I think you must not have seen my post on why I believe a hole in fabric can have a different shape than a hole in flesh. It's all explained there).

You are going to carefully study a poor quality B&W photo and make a better determination that Mantik could using the ACTUAL shirt?

First, earlier today I posted a good quality photo of the holes. Did you see it? Second, I trust photos more than I do a person who sees something in person but doesn't take measurements or study it.

Mantik's is not irrelevant as to what caused the slit.

He spoke of a bullet. It could have been a narrow fragment of bone. Not the same thing.

With no material missing it is a virtual certainty that they are 'knife' cuts. Not bullets or the bone fragments you still have on your list.

I disagree in the case of a bone fragment.

Dr. David Mantik: "and the lacerations in the shirt do look like the work of a scalpel"

I believe that can be the case only if the shirt was washed. Or if someone intentionally made the holes look more ragged. Those holes are not simple cuts. I think Dr. Mantik is showing some bias in this statement.

You are trumping Mantik's direct observation of the shirt by observing a poor quality B&W photo? And you have decided Mantik's observation is BIASED?

A simple scalpel slice doesn't cause the fraying I see.

I'm emphasizing what may be assumptions, guesses, or exaggerations on his part. (I'm doing this because as I read it, some of it didn't ring true).

Assumptions, guesses, or exaggerations? And on what basis do they not "ring true"? Be specific and cite each example AND the reason for these accusations.

Do you believe that the nurses said they cut those holes with a scalpel? That's what Mantik said. And please note, I didn't say he is wrong, I said he MAY be wrong.

I based my criticisms largely on what I have learned from you. And I admit right now that I may have misremembered or misunderstood some things.

Wow! I don't agree with a single word you've said in this post!

I figured it was bound to come to this. Because I could see, no matter what, you just couldn't accept the possibility that those holes/slits could be projectile holes. I can and do accept that possibility.

As for what Mantik wrote, I call it as I see it and I show nobody any favor. I'm sure he's great at what he does, but this is not what he does. He's just a man stating his opinion on a issue that he didn't study. He might be right, he might be wrong, just as with anybody else with an opinion.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Robert said: Ashton has shown the nick in the front of the tie because it suits his purpose to do so.

True. BUT...

*PLONK*

No, I didn't mean "true" to that sentence, Ashton. I meant "true" the sentence prior to that, which I highlight here in red:

You could put the nick in the tie anywhere you wished; back, front or on either side, simply by altering the place you started tying the tie. Ashton has shown the nick in the front of the tie because it suits his purpose to do so.

You can see that to be the case in everything I write. I never thought you did anything to suit your purpose. I regret that I didn't see that my reply was ambiguous before posting it.

Someone brought this post to my attention so I now don't have you on "Ignore." As for this, that you did choose to say "true" to:

You could put the nick in the tie anywhere you wished; back, front or on either side, simply by altering the place you started tying the tie

Well, it's certainly "true" that someone who was either unspeakably irresponsible or who had a disinformation agenda could "put the nick in the tie anywhere" they wished, but in my re-creation, I put it where TWO other photos of the tie with the knot tied indicate that the nick was located on the knot. In doing so, I put the re-creation onto a photo that has the tie knot in situ—which is unprecedented in 53 years of analysis—and I mapped it more accurately than anyone ever has done in 53 years.

So, no, the statement you quoted that's in red above isn't "true" in any relevant sense whatsoever. The statement is merely a part of a veritable blizzard of posts attempting to discredit the re-creation I painstakingly did, but the re-creation is dead-on accurate in alignment with all other existing visual evidence of the nick in the tie.

Ashton

I was just agreeing that someone could do that, Ashton. Not you. If you were to read all my posts since then you would discover that I've been your number one advocate. I will add also, that when you posted that animated gif, I had no idea as to where the nick was supposed to go, other than "on the side." I had to find out which side. But even knowing that, I still didn't know if "left side" meant the left side of the front of the knot (as you have it) or the left side of the knot. "Around the corner," so to speak. The impression I've gotten on this thread (for which I may be to blame) was that the FBI said the nick was on the left side of the knot, not where you put it. Just today (or now, yesterday) I commented in a post that if we knew the FBI meant the left side of the front of the tie, this mystery would be readily solved.

Recently I have seen a photo that shows the nick where you put it. But we don't know if that was the original position, or the position after the knot was untied and re-tied post-assassination. And I don't know if what we see in the photo is what the FBI described.

[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.

Hey, you're the one with the pet theory pal. I have a list of potential theories, including yours for heavens sake.

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?

[Tom Neal]

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.

Hmmm... but did you take into account the fact that the real wound would have had to be covered up in the autopsy photos? And a gash made at a lower location? That's not exactly a trivial matter.

If you hadn't hacked off this IMPORTANT part of the post where I said: "Does that PROVE it is correct? No. All of the above is true, but there is also strong evidence AGAINST it." you wouldn't be asking that question. This is one of the MANY reasons I don't EASILY commit to a scenario. People make comments like this just to accuse you of missing something. I SAID there was STRONG EVIDENCE against it. Did you EVEN read the post????

Yes, of course I read your post. I'm sorry that what I asked upset you. At the time I read your "strong evidence against it" comment, I didn't know what you were referring to. And by the time the cover-up issue popped into my head, I had forgotten about your "strong evidence against it" comment. It hadn't sunk in. I'm only human after all.

That's you're go to excuse "you're only human." Yes, you're human alright. One of the more careless humans that posts here without thinking.

[Tom Neal]

Sandy Larsen said: "I trust photos more than I do a person who sees something in person but doesn't take measurements or study it."

And that is why your assertions are useless. You see two LARGE holes in a bad photo, and yes I've seen that photo for years, it is another high-contrast B&W photo in which black blood stains appear to be dark holes. You have know altered these large holes into 2mm holes to fit your theory. Of course all scientists reject first-person examination of evidence in favor of poor photographs. That IS a poor photograph. IF it isn't tell how many loose threads you see and give their precise location. How many shadows are actually bloodstains and vice versa?

You are of course basing this on statements from Mantik that he took NO measurements at any time? Presumably this is another one of your unfailing assumptions. Of course without measurements Mantik can't determine that there is no fabric missing.

You posted two pictures with OBVIOUS holes in the middle of slit fabric, and that is your PROOF that a bullet can make a slit WITHOUT a hole.

Sandy Larsen said: "I figured it was bound to come to this. Because I could see, no matter what, you just couldn't accept the possibility that those holes/slits could be projectile holes. I can and do accept that possibility."

And you can't accept the possibility that there ARE NO holes. Pot calls kettle black. I accept "no holes" and reject "holes". You accept "hole" and reject "no holes." I accept the former and you accept the latter. In your universe, you are a bigger person than I, because you "can accept" the "holes" theory. Now there's logic fit to make Spock cry.

Ashton has made the same complaint that I have - you are attaching my name to a statement that you misquote when as Ashton said you could have cut and pasted. Like Ashton you present what I stated was a POSSIBLE theory because it had LARGE PROBLEMS as MY theory.

I haven't bothered to proof read this post to you. Any mistakes I made are perfectly acceptable to you, because I too am only human. So for once post no complaints!!!

Edited February 4, 2016 by Tom Neal