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

[Ashton Gray]

Robert,

I believe that Kennedy's knot is a "four-in-hand" knot, not a Windsor. The Windsor requires more wraps and thus is a wider knot. The four-in-hand knot is slender, which seems to be the case with Kennedy's knot.

It is. I covered all that on the first page of this thread. By the way, Sandy: I've found that it's pointless trying to have anything resembling a rational discussion with people who don't mind altering facts—or just making them up—to fit their pet theories. Don't let me stop you from trying, though...

I use the four-in-hand myself. I checked and the front can easily slide down like Kennedy's appears to in the photo.

Yes, it certainly can, which I covered on the first page of this thread.

Ashton

[Robert Prudhomme]

I thought you would show up eventually, Ashton.

You can keep the snide remarks about "altering facts" to yourself, if you don't mind. This is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Anywhere you look on JFK's tie, you will see the icons are rectangular or ovoid, and the icons are all longer lengthwise than they are crosswise.

"I think the fabric wasn't stretched uniformly during the printing process. And that that resulted in the icon elongation you noted and the non-uniformity of icon size and location I noted."

Okay, Sandy, then find me a section of the tie where a row of 5 icons lengthwise isn't considerably longer than 5 icons crosswise.

Hint: I've already tried this, and it can't be found.

[Sandy Larsen]

I thought you would show up eventually, Ashton.

You can keep the snide remarks about "altering facts" to yourself, if you don't mind. This is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Anywhere you look on JFK's tie, you will see the icons are rectangular or ovoid, and the icons are all longer lengthwise than they are crosswise.

"I think the fabric wasn't stretched uniformly during the printing process. And that that resulted in the icon elongation you noted and the non-uniformity of icon size and location I noted."

Okay, Sandy, then find me a section of the tie where a row of 5 icons lengthwise isn't considerably longer than 5 icons crosswise.

Hint: I've already tried this, and it can't be found.

Most of the circle-shaped icons on the knot look a lot more like circles than ovals. Whereas the icons on the part of the tie hanging down are more oval shaped.

Admittedly, it could be an aspect ratio thing with my monitor.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

Sorry, Sandy, the icons still measure longer, in a group of 5, lengthwise than they do crosswise, and the top of the tie knot is an impossibility, and you know it is.

If you would like to prove me wrong, by all means, do a physical demonstration using the sample photos of this tie.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sorry, Sandy, the icons still measure longer, in a group of 5, lengthwise than they do crosswise, and the top of the tie knot is an impossibility, and you know it is.

I know no such thing.

If you would like to prove me wrong, by all means, do a physical demonstration using the sample photos of this tie.

Look... five icons, and no slip-down of the knot face. (You need to zoom way in.)

[Robert Prudhomme]

I don't have the means to zoom in on that photo. Why not post a zoomed in closeup of this photo for us?

[Ashton Gray]

Sandy, you won't have to bother trying to post a zoomed in closeup of that low-res, pixelated image. The image I originally posted of JFK at Love Field is high enough resolution and has all the information needed for those who have eyes to see and even a modest modicum of intelligence—and who aren't blinded by their own biases. Below is that image blown up to 800 percent. It has not been retouched in any way. The levels have been adjusted simply to make features more prominent and easily visible.

There clearly, inarguably, OBVIOUSLY is a curved horizontal EDGE OF THE TIE KNOT AT THE TOP, which I have indicated by making an animated GIF with a white line, so that perhaps even those who have gone stone cold blind from living in a fantasy "theory" for too long might be able to find with both hands. Here it is:

It should be obvious even to the most prejudiced and obtuse (but I repeat myself) that the two icons ABOVE that obvious line of separation CANNOT POSSIBLY be a continuation of either vertical line of five icons BELOW that separation. They are nowhere near the same size, nor aligned with those below, nor even GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION!

Those with a disinformation agenda can whine about it and twist the facts all they want, and throw as many tantrums as they want. Those who want the truth merely have to LOOK.

Ashton

[Sandy Larsen]

Look... five icons, and no slip-down of the knot face. (You need to zoom way in.)

First click the photo to see the larger version. Then, hold down the CTRL key and press the + and - keys to zoom in and out respectively.

Ashton: I wanted to show another photo of Kennedy wearing that tie that day. Because, if I understand correctly, Robert believes that the tie really does have six-icon (vertical) rows in the knot. I got lucky and found a photo where you can make out the icons. (You can't on most the photos.) And I got lucky because in this photo the front of the tie hasn't slid down.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

Sorry, Sandy, the icons still measure longer, in a group of 5, lengthwise than they do crosswise, and the top of the tie knot is an impossibility, and you know it is.

I know no such thing.

If you would like to prove me wrong, by all means, do a physical demonstration using the sample photos of this tie.

Look... five icons, and no slip-down of the knot face. (You need to zoom way in.)

Is that the best you can do, Sandy? You still have not explained why the top two icons are rectangular and ovoid in the same direction as all of the other icons in the rows below them.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Sandy, you won't have to bother trying to post a zoomed in closeup of that low-res, pixelated image. The image I originally posted of JFK at Love Field is high enough resolution and has all the information needed for those who have eyes to see and even a modest modicum of intelligence—and who aren't blinded by their own biases. Below is that image blown up to 800 percent. It has not been retouched in any way. The levels have been adjusted simply to make features more prominent and easily visible.

There clearly, inarguably, OBVIOUSLY is a curved horizontal EDGE OF THE TIE KNOT AT THE TOP, which I have indicated by making an animated GIF with a white line, so that perhaps even those who have gone stone cold blind from living in a fantasy "theory" for too long might be able to find with both hands. Here it is:

It should be obvious even to the most prejudiced and obtuse (but I repeat myself) that the two icons ABOVE that obvious line of separation CANNOT POSSIBLY be a continuation of either vertical line of five icons BELOW that separation. They are nowhere near the same size, nor aligned with those below, nor even GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION!

Those with a disinformation agenda can whine about it and twist the facts all they want, and throw as many tantrums as they want. Those who want the truth merely have to LOOK.

Ashton

Outside of possessing a big mouth that likes to throw out baseless insults, what do you have going for you, Ashton?

All of the icons in the two rows of five icons below your "line" are either rectangular or ovoid, and their long axes are horizontal across the tie knot. The two icons above these two rows are also aligned with their long axes going across the tie knot and, despite your childish rantings, they are the same size as the icons below them PLUS they are precisely in line with the rows below them.

"Those with a disinformation agenda...."????? Boy oh boy, is the pot ever calling the kettle black!

Edited September 10, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is a sample of the tie, and the reason Ashton and Sandy are completely out to lunch about the tie knot:

There is no escaping what I am about to tell you. As seen, the icons on the tie are rectangular and ovoid, and they are longer going lengthwise on the tie than they are crosswise.

Five icons also take up more space on the tie lengthwise than crosswise. Measured above, five icons measured:

Lengthwise = 117 millimeters

Crosswise = 77 millimeters

A difference of 40 mm or 33%.

If what Ashton and Sandy are telling you is true, the top two icons would be part of a section of tie going down behind the face of the tie knot. It would be a bizarre coincidence to have these two icons even come close to aligning with the rows below them and, even if they did, these two top icons would be 33% closer to each other than the icons below them, which they are most definitely not.

Sandy's only explanation for this is that it is a "coincidence". I guess that's what you say when you run out of logical arguments.

Ashton doesn't even attempt to explain the problem but, rather, carries on like a little girl.

Do not be taken in. Think for yourselves, people.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Michael Walton]

We can talk about the nicked/cut/torn tie from now until rainbow Jesus comes down and says, "You...over here. You...over there." But the facts of the matter related to this thread are this:

The Zapruder film shows Kennedy reacting to a shot in his throat, then his body bobs forward from the back shot. That's two shots. Keep in mind that this the same film where people elsewhere on this forum have said this film was shot at 48 FPS, 67% of the frames were removed (for what reason the person posting has no idea why), but some how, some way, the Bad Guys forgot to remove these crucial frames showing the two-shot sequence.

Mere minutes after the shooting, before the Bad Guys got to him and after having seen the body himself and worked on it, the Parkland doctor stated at the news conference that the throat wound was one of entry. This is the same doctor who had seen and treated dozens and dozens of gunshot wounds while working on other victims. Sorry but if I'm going to take the word of the guy who started this thread vs. the doctor who saw the wound, I'm going to take the doctor's.

The autopsy face sheet - the one with drawings on it and describing the wounds - is the closest thing we have to available evidence before the Bad Guys got to Humes and the others and told them what and what not to say. That sheet says there is a throat wound, a back wound, and a head shot. That's all. The craziness of this thread at the start of it, where the guy who started it says there was some kind of rear shot and the piece of bullet just flew through the body and came out of the throat, is goofy nonsense.

BP to AG - "...snide remarks..."

Bob - hey, "snide" is my word for you, remember, Bob? Stop stealing my words here. Haha, just teasing ya (wink-wink)

BP to SL(?) - "....I don't have the tools to zoom in..."

Bob - if you're a serious researcher of the case, maybe you should get some serious tools. You can get the complete Adobe Creative Suite for only (USD) $50 bucks a month. Perhaps by teaching yourself how to use these tools, you can then create diagrams and such for this forum. After you create your first one, I think you'll be amazed and more appreciative of how much effort others have put into the displays on this forum.

[James R Gordon]

Michael,

If it helps you here are quality versions of the Autopsy Face Sheets

http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/Autopsy%20Images/AutopsyDescriptionP1.png

http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/Autopsy%20Images/AutopsyDescriptionP2.png

[Ashton Gray]

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is a sample of the tie, and the reason Ashton and Sandy are completely out to lunch about the tie knot:

It's a damned shame that the National Archives only shows FIVE icons across the tie in the area where the nick was made in the knot, Robert. The only explanation I can think of is that some evildoer there snipped off a whole line of the icons before taking this photo—because if they didn't, your entire "theory" about the knot and the nick is based solely on an inability to know the difference between five and six.

Here's a tip: count the number of icons in a horizontal row there, and use the fingers of one hand to do it. If you get to "six" on one hand, well...

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ashton

How do you know the nick was in the tie knot?