A Few Thoughts on the Zapruder Film

[Don Jeffries]

Josiah,

I'm starting to get a complex- you seem to respond to everyone on this forum but me. I'm cordial with everyone here, and I cartainly haven't done anything to offend you. My question is a legitimate one. Why do you describe the evidence for an entry wound to the throat to be lacking, yet respond with a "don't know" regarding the possibility of an exit wound in the throat? No insinuations here about anything, but to me that is a very telling and inconsistent stance.

I'd love to hear an explanation.

[Bernice Moore]

Hi Don perhaps he hasn't one or is still thinking on it...he will eventually but please do not get a complex because he hasn't as yet..it's not worth it....take care best b..do carry on...

Edited January 7, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Cliff,

I wrote:

“What do you think Dr. Carrico meant when he testified (as opposed to having Dulles interpret his testimony) that

the wound was "Just about where your tie would be"?

To which you replied:

“That's not what he testified. Your clumsy parsing of words carries no weight.”

My mistake. I thought you were referring to this:

Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?

Dr. CARRICO - Yes, sir; just where the tie --

You have a bad habit of completing Dr. Carrico's thought, which IS a fabrication.

As to the former Carrico quote, what part of the word "about" don't you understand?

Are you claiming that "just about where your tie would be"is the same as "precisely

where your tie would be"?

And please note the structure of the latter quotation: "Yes, sir; just where the tie--"

People don't speak in semi-colons. I could just as readily read that statement,

"Yes, sir. Just where the tie--"

Apparently your entire defense of the SBT rests on you finishing Dr. Carrico's thought.

As I say, you have nothing.

Cliff,

I’ve not fabricated anything at all, and despite any bad habits I might have, completing Dr. Carrico’s thoughts is not one of them, at least not in the context that you’ve suggested (i.e. a “fabrication”).

What I asked you what you THOUGHT Dr. Carrico was going to say (i.e. how he was going to complete what he was saying) before he was cut off by Commissioner Dulles when he said “Yes, sir; just where the tie –“. I then asked, somewhat rhetorically I might add, if you thought Dr. Carrico was going to say (absurdly) “Just where the tie isn’t” or if you thought it was more likely that he was going to say “Just where the tie is”, especially given the fact that he had only as few sentences before stated that the wound was “Just where the tie is”?

As for your “People don't speak in semi-colons. I could just as readily read that statement, "Yes, sir. Just where the tie--", OK, and what’s your point? Certainly the transcriber’s hyphens indicates that Dr. Carrico was interrupted before he could finish his answer.

Todd

[Pat Speer]

I'm not exactly sure what this argument about "Just about where your tie would be" is about, or if it's of any importance whatsoever, but I noticed that Todd was linking to a website in which the WC testimony has been re-typed, and I've found some of these transcripts to be in error.

So I double-checked Carrico's testimony at the history matters site, where the WC's volumes have been scanned in and not re-typed, and have found that Carrico's recorded statement was indeed "Just about where your tie would be" and that Specter, on the next page says "you put your hand right above where your tie is", and Carrico says "Yes, sir, Just where the tie--".

Well, fellas, this is a bit vague. While Weisberg and others have always assumed the "above" was a reference to the vertical relationship, Carrico's "just where the tie" only makes sense if he's referring to a location occupied by the tie. In that context, then, Specter's "above" would seem to mean "on the surface overlaying", and not "at a point more vertical than" the tie. While this might sound strange, we should recall that in our earliest years we were told to put our hand OVER heart during the pledge of allegiance, and that this meant to put our hands "on the surface overlaying" our hearts, and not "at a point more vertical than" our hearts. This interpretation of Specter's words is reinforced by Carrico's clear claim the hole was below the Adam's Apple. It's hard to see how a hole below the Adam's Apple would be more than a few mm above the tie.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I'm not exactly sure what this argument about "Just about where your tie would be" is about, or if it's of any importance whatsoever, but I noticed that Todd was linking to a website in which the WC testimony has been re-typed, and I've found some of these transcripts to be in error.

So I double-checked Carrico's testimony at the history matters site, where the WC's volumes have been scanned in and not re-typed, and have found that Carrico's recorded statement was indeed "Just about where your tie would be" and that Specter, on the next page says "you put your hand right above where your tie is", and Carrico says "Yes, sir, Just where the tie--".

Well, fellas, this is a bit vague. While Weisberg and others have always assumed the "above" was a reference to the vertical relationship, Carrico's "just where the tie" only makes sense if he's referring to a location occupied by the tie. In that context, then, Specter's "above" would seem to mean "on the surface overlaying", and not "at a point more vertical than" the tie. While this might sound strange, we should recall that in our earliest years we were told to put our hand OVER heart during the pledge of allegiance, and that this meant to put our hands "on the surface overlaying" our hearts, and not "at a point more vertical than" our hearts. This interpretation of Specter's words is reinforced by Carrico's clear claim the hole was below the Adam's Apple. It's hard to see how a hole below the Adam's Apple would be more than a few mm above the tie.

Pat,

Thanks much for the info about the re-typing of the transcripts at that site and for checking that. Also, that’s a very interesting observation about the word “above” – definitely thinking outside the box.

I think the issue is quite clear – the throat wound, be it entry or exit, was below the upper edge of the collar.

It’s very important to remember that when he was first asked by Dulles where the throat wound was Dr. Carrico replied, "Just about where your tie would be." Certainly no part of the tie is above the collar.

Moreover, Dr. Carrico testified that the throat wound was in the “lower third of the neck, below...the Adams apple.” Dr. Perry testified the wound was “in the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple.” The upper margin of the shirt collar of a properly fitted dress shirt normally lies at the midpoint of, or at the lower edge of, the Adams Apple, with the rest of the shirt collar and the area immediately below it covering the lower half of the throat, exactly where Drs. Carrico and Perry place the wound. Photographs of President Kennedy taken in Fort Worth and at Love Field on November 22nd show that his shirt collar lay exactly in that position.

Additionally, Dr. Ronald C. Jones told the Warren Commission that the throat wound was located "just above the superasternal notch", the notch at the top of the sternum that for all practical purposes defines the inferior-most margin of the anterior neck (throat). During a December, 2003, appearance on CNN’s Larry King Live, Dr. Jones described the throat wound as “...a small hole in the midline of the neck, just below the Adam's apple...” and he pointed to and touched the center point of the knot of his tie, obviously below the collar line. Part 3 of my article has a photograph of him doing this.

Further, A comparison of the autopsy photographs (which show the tracheotomy incision) with films and photographs taken of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination (in Fort Worth, at Love Field, and in the motorcade) clearly show that the tracheotomy incision was located at a point on the President's throat that corresponds exactly with where the holes in the shirt collar and the nick in the tie knot would overlay. Given that the throat wound obviously had to exist somewhere within the borders of that tracheotomy incision, it only stands to reason that the throat wound was below the shirt collar and corresponds exactly to the location of the slits in the collar.

Finally we have the following from Dr. Carrico’s Oral History:

DR. CARRICO: “...We saw, uh, he had a little hole right...”

MR. PORTER: (interrupting) “Was that abo-an-another sort of controversial thing is - what - was it, above his, his collar line, or slightly below it?”

DR. CARRICO: “By, by the time I looked, Diane, the nurse had - had started taking his clothes off. Which - which was her job so I really didn’t - don’t know...”

MR. PORTER: (talking over) “You don’t know exactly where it was or not?”

DR. CARRICO: (continuing) "...whether it was through the collar or not but it was certainly at the collar line. It was just about right there, just to the right of the trachea and just a, certainly where his collar should have been.”

Todd

[Jack White]

This is irrelevant. Reade HORNE IV. The throat wound was ABOVE THE SHIRT COLLAR. Case closed.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

I think the issue is quite clear – the throat wound, be it entry or exit, was below the upper edge of the collar.

So in your opinion Todd which is it, an entrance wound or exit wound?

[Jack White]

I think the issue is quite clear – the throat wound, be it entry or exit, was below the upper edge of the collar.

So in your opinion Todd which is it, an entrance wound or exit wound?

Todd has not read HORNE IV.

[Cliff Varnell]

This is irrelevant. Reade HORNE IV. The throat wound was ABOVE THE SHIRT COLLAR. Case closed.

Jack

Let'em go, Jack!

This is pure comedy gold!

"Yes, sir" = "No"

"about where your tie is" = "exactly where your tie is"

"above" = "overlaying"

And what's truly hilarious is a lone nutter citing how a shirt is properly fit.

Hey Todd! A properly fit tucked in custom-made dress shirt tailored

for a suit with a "suppressed waist" (JFK's prefered cut) only has

THREE-QUARTERS OF AN INCH of available slack.

Excess slack around JFK's midriff could have ruined the lines of his Updated

American Silhouette cut jacket.

Your SBT needs more than 3 inches, Todd.

Pet-Theorist Pat Speer only requires 2 inches of non-existent slack.

Don't bother these guys with the facts, Jack!

Edited January 8, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

This is irrelevant. Reade HORNE IV. The throat wound was ABOVE THE SHIRT COLLAR. Case closed.

Jack

Jack, a few years back you posted an image showing why you believed the bullet hole in the neck was at the level of the shirt collar. What's changed?

[Pat Speer]

This is irrelevant. Reade HORNE IV. The throat wound was ABOVE THE SHIRT COLLAR. Case closed.

Jack

Let'em go, Jack!

This is pure comedy gold!

"Yes, sir" = "No"

"about where the tie is" = "exactly where the tie is"

"above" = "overlaying"

And what's truly hilarious is a lone nutter citing how a shirt is properly fit.

Hey Todd! A properly fit tucked in custom-made dress shirt tailored

for a suit with a "suppressed waist" (JFK's prefered cut) only has

THREE-QUARTERS OF AN INCH of available slack.

Excess slack around JFK's midriff could have ruined the lines of his Updated

American Silhouette cut jacket.

Your SBT needs more than 3 inches, Todd.

Pet-Theorist Pat Speer only requires 2 inches of non-existent slack.

Don't bother these guys with the facts, Jack!

I wasn't kidding, Cliff. I hadn't read much of this thread beyond the argument over the words. Are you really saying that the hole in the neck was higher than knot on the tie? If so, please show how this could be given the location of the wound shown on the autopsy photos. Or are you insisting they are all fake?

You are aware, I take it, that the whole argument about the wound being above the tie was started by Weisberg at a time when no one in the research community had seen the photos... and that this argument is currently of little value given that the HSCA FPP has conceded that the back wound was lower than the throat wound...

[Cliff Varnell]

Everyone who observed and described the throat wound as an

entrance suffered a similar erroneous perception.

Everyone who observed and described the back wound low (T3)

suffered a similar erroneous perception.

Everyone who observed and described the occipital-parietal exit

wound suffered a similar erroneous perception.

That's what, 50? 60? 70? people involved in mass erroneous perception?

Let's call this for what it is, gentle reader: Witness Bashing

[Craig Lamson]

This is irrelevant. Reade HORNE IV. The throat wound was ABOVE THE SHIRT COLLAR. Case closed.

Jack

Let'em go, Jack!

This is pure comedy gold!

"Yes, sir" = "No"

"about where your tie is" = "exactly where your tie is"

"above" = "overlaying"

And what's truly hilarious is a lone nutter citing how a shirt is properly fit.

Hey Todd! A properly fit tucked in custom-made dress shirt tailored

for a suit with a "suppressed waist" (JFK's prefered cut) only has

THREE-QUARTERS OF AN INCH of available slack.

Excess slack around JFK's midriff could have ruined the lines of his Updated

American Silhouette cut jacket.

Your SBT needs more than 3 inches, Todd.

Pet-Theorist Pat Speer only requires 2 inches of non-existent slack.

Don't bother these guys with the facts, Jack!

Facts eh. Like that really pesky and quite large fold of fabric in Betzner....

[Cliff Varnell]

Everyone who observed and described the throat wound as an

entrance suffered a similar erroneous perception.

Everyone who observed and described the back wound low (T3)

suffered a similar erroneous perception.

Everyone who observed and described the occipital-parietal exit

wound suffered a similar erroneous perception.

That's what, 50? 60? 70? people involved in mass erroneous perception?

Let's call this for what it is, gentle reader: Witness Bashing

I no longer belong in the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community.

I've formed the 11/22 Witness Appreciation Guild, based on the following

convictions:

95+% of the consensus witness testimony at Dealey/Parkland/Bethesda is credible.

95+% of the Dealey Plaza photo/film evidence is authentic.

The properly prepared and collected medical evidence trumps the

improperly prepared and collected medical evidence.

11/22 W.A.G. will obviously be a solo gig.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Facts eh. Like that really pesky and quite large fold of fabric in Betzner....

Yes! The the fold that is left side up, right side down in Betzner 3:

Left side up, right side down: \

Here's how you describe the fold and its shadow:

Yes the bottom, left side of the shadow IS diagonal.

So we have by your own analysis of Betzner a diagonal fold that is

at the bottom left of the shadow.

It is readily observed that the fold in Betzner is a left-side up, right-side down

fold like this: \

Craig, there are four (4) ways you can put a left-end up diagonal fold ( \)

in clothing fabric.

That's a fold that goes like this: \

That's the fold you noticed in Betzner.

1) Pulling/stretching the fabric UP, in which case the \ will be on the right.

2) Pulling/stretching the fabric DOWN, in which case the \ will be on the left.

3) Bunching/easing the fabric UP and to the RIGHT.

4) Bunching/easing the fabric DOWN and to the LEFT.

No one pulled on JFK's jacket. The fabric was not stretched in the limo.

Just the opposite. His jacket eased as he casually sat and waved.

So we can eliminate 1) and 2) in the case of JFK.

As photo expert extrodinaire Craig Lamson has observed in the Betzner photo,

emphasis added:

Yes the bottom, left side of the shadow IS diagonal.

That diagonal was created when JFK changed his posture circa Z173, turned his

head to the right and started to wave his right hand. This posture shift pushed

the fraction-of-an-inch horizontal fold we see in Croft into the "bottom, left" diagonal

fold we see in Betzner.

Thank you for your contribution, Craig.