Throat Wound

[Antti Hynonen]

Ashton Gray Posted Yesterday, 03:03 PM

Hi there Antti.

I really, really appreciate your posting testimonial "evidence" from the official doctor of Rockefeller's little group. Boy: do I feel better already!

Let's see now what this authority you're calling on has to say. Today you wrote:

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Jan 9 2007, 07:54 AM)

"Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,

signed May 9, 1975, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library."

Wait, wait! I have to catch my breath. Rockefeller and Ford endorsements. Okay. Okay. Go ahead...

QUOTE

In his report, Dr. Lindenberg wrote that, "In the front of [JFK's]shirt the bullet produced 1.2cm vertical slits in the overlapping

parts of the collar just below the collar button. The stumps of torn

fibers of the material point to the outside."30 In 1964, J. Edgar

Hoover had advised the Warren Commission that the FBI lab had found

the same thing: "The hole in the front of the shirt was a ragged,

slit-like hole and the ends of the torn threads around the hole were

bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a

projectile."31

(emphasis mine)

Uh-huh. Well, you won't mind if I repeat a section and add some emphasis of my own, will you?

Here's the good Rockefeller-approved doctor in a reprise:

"The stumps of torn fibers of the material point to the outside....the ends of the torn threads around the hole were

bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a projectile."

Now, stroking me grey beard, I'm trying to recall what you said just a page earlier in this thread. Hmmm. Yes, it's coming to me now...

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Jan 5 2007, 04:23 AM)

Not much to debate in my opinion. Kennedy had a wound in his neck, below the adam's apple, upon arrival at Parkland. This fact is based on the early descriptions of this wound by Parkland staff, it was most likely a bullet wound (entry wound).

Well, darn, Antti, if you're going to argue against yourself, there's not much for me to do but just watch and clap along.

Of course, I could post the conflicting data that says that the "slits" ("nicks," whatever) were not consistent with any bullet damage, but since you're arguing against yourself, maybe you'd like to go ahead and do that, too?

I'll wait and see, and if not I'll help you out. (Of course, I'm not sure that my "authority" will carry as much weight as someone blessed by Rockefeller. But I'll try!)

Ashton

Thank you for your reply Ashton. Don't get me wrong. I still believe the evidence is stronger for an entry from the front, and have not changed my mind. The more important point in my posting and quotes from yesterday was to show that at least some "official" entity (FBI, Rockefeller commission) had studied the evidence and concluded that both the tie and the shirt had in fact suffered damage (holes) which in all likelihood stems from a bullet (in my opinion a shot to the throat).

Of course these entities will do their best to distort and manipulate the evidence to ensure LHO is guilty, firing from the TSBD, they'd never agree to a frontal shot. The statement by these parties: "The stumps of torn fibers of the material point to the outside....the ends of the torn threads around the hole were

bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a projectile." was in my opinion a pretty lame attempt at showing where the bullet came from. The Zapruder film alone shows JFK reacting to something in his throat. I keep repeating myself, but when do you see someone grabbing for the exit wound of a "through-and through" wound? In my view the Zapruder film and the Parkland witnesses evidence is enough to show a frontal shot to the throat. What happened with the autopsy and analysis of the wounds thereafter, is rather questionable.

Please do post the contradictory evidence, I might change my mind! Evidence pointing to the opposite direction of the bullet would be quite a welcomed addition to the debate.

Summa summarum: holes were found in both the tie and shirt at the neck, corresponding with the (entry) bullet wound seen by Dr. Carrico and a handful of others at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/1963.

By the way, I do greatly appreciate your participation in this Forum and do believe you are a great asset to us all here.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Ashton Gray]

Thank you for your reply Ashton. Don't get me wrong. I still believe the evidence is stronger for an entry from the front, and have not changed my mind.

Thank you for your reply, too. And I don't know if this will surprise you, but I'm not trying to get anyone to change his mind. I've merely been stating my own observations (sprinkled with some opinions and random stabs at humor).

The more important point in my posting and quotes from yesterday was to show that at least some "official" entity (FBI, Rockefeller commission) had studied the evidence and concluded that both the tie and the shirt had in fact suffered damage (holes) which in all likelihood stems from a bullet (in my opinion a shot to the throat).

Of course these entities will do their best to distort and manipulate the evidence to ensure LHO is guilty, firing from the TSBD, they'd never agree to a frontal shot. The statement by these parties: "The stumps of torn fibers of the material point to the outside....the ends of the torn threads around the hole were bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a projectile." was in my opinion a pretty lame attempt at showing where the bullet came from.

Then the problem as I see it, Antti, is that you've just impeached your own witness. What you've just said—and I am not trying to reword you, I'm just stating the only possible understanding that I can arrive at—is that he's a payroll government xxxx who will say anything, true or not, to support a cover-up.

So given that, I pose this to you: what if the entire claim of any bullet wound to the throat at all is, itself, part of the cover-up?

I only ask you to consider that carefully.

The Zapruder film alone shows JFK reacting to something in his throat.

Well, I'll have to disagree. I see JFK clearly, after his initial arms-up reaction, pointing down to his chest. Not once to I see him grab at his throat, or attempt to pull away his collar, or gasp frantically for breath, or perform any single act that I possibly can associate in any way with someone who has had his trachea pierced by a bullet.

SS Agent Kellerman swears in testimony that he heard JFK say, "My God, I've been hit" in what he characterizes as an unmistakable Boston accent.

Look at the image of the shirt I posted above. Do you—you—see, with your eyes, any indication whatsoever of any bullet having passed through that shirt collar anywhere?

And I still am not asking you to change your mind. I'm merely asking you to set aside—even for a moment—any preconceived idea that there was a bullet wound in the man's throat, and simply look at the evidence without first filtering it through an unshakable conviction that there was a bullet in the throat.

Because I hate to be the bearer of these tidings, but there's an unsettling but nonetheless awfully true thought you might not otherwise want to think all the way through: the sole source of the very widespread unshakable conviction that there was a bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat is the Warren Commission.

By the way, I do greatly appreciate your participation in this Forum and do believe you are a great asset to us all here.

Awww, you're just trying to get me to say it was a bullet wound!

Thank you; very kind of you to say so, and the feeling certainly is mutual.

Ashton

Edited January 10, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Antti Hynonen]

QUOTE

The more important point in my posting and quotes from yesterday was to show that at least some "official" entity (FBI, Rockefeller commission) had studied the evidence and concluded that both the tie and the shirt had in fact suffered damage (holes) which in all likelihood stems from a bullet (in my opinion a shot to the throat).

Of course these entities will do their best to distort and manipulate the evidence to ensure LHO is guilty, firing from the TSBD, they'd never agree to a frontal shot. The statement by these parties: "The stumps of torn fibers of the material point to the outside....the ends of the torn threads around the hole were bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a projectile." was in my opinion a pretty lame attempt at showing where the bullet came from.

Then the problem as I see it, Antti, is that you've just impeached your own witness. What you've just said—and I am not trying to reword you, I'm just stating the only possible understanding that I can arrive at—is that he's a payroll government xxxx who will say anything, true or not, to support a cover-up.

So given that, I pose this to you: what if the entire claim of any bullet wound to the throat at all is, itself, part of the cover-up?

I only ask you to consider that carefully.

Then the problem as I see it, Antti, is that you've just impeached your own witness.

Yes, I know, I'd make a lousy lawyer.

So given that, I pose this to you: what if the entire claim of any bullet wound to the throat at all is, itself, part of the cover-up?

Sir, you pose a very valid and appropriate question, (the general tone of which is) applicable to many issues within the case. The biggest problem I have with this is that I can not fathom a scenario where the Parkland witnesses are in on a conspiracy. Furthermore, I can not believe that someone would deliberately poke the dying President in the throat.

Well, I'll have to disagree. I see JFK clearly, after his initial arms-up reaction, pointing down to his chest. Not once to I see him grab at his throat, or attempt to pull away his collar, or gasp frantically for breath, or perform any single act that I possibly can associate in any way with someone who has had his trachea pierced by a bullet.

SS Agent Kellerman swears in testimony that he heard JFK say, "My God, I've been hit" in what he characterizes as an unmistakable Boston accent.

Look at the image of the shirt I posted above. Do you—you—see, with your eyes, any indication whatsoever of any bullet having passed through that shirt collar anywhere?

And I still am not asking you to change your mind. I'm merely asking you to set aside—even for a moment—any preconceived idea that there was a bullet wound in the man's throat, and simply look at the evidence without first filtering it through an unshakable conviction that there was a bullet in the throat.

Because I hate to be the bearer of these tidings, but there's an unsettling but nonetheless awfully true thought you might not otherwise want to think all the way through: the sole source of the very widespread unshakable conviction that there was a bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat is the Warren Commission.

The shirt, no, I can not make out a hole in it, where one ought to be, doesn't mean there isn't one present though. I'd much prefer to examine it in hand.

I suppose it boils down to which witnesses you want to believe.

Awww, you're just trying to get me to say it was a bullet wound!

Thank you; very kind of you to say so, and the feeling certainly is mutual.

No sir, totally sincere. Thank you, looking forward to reading you in the near future.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Robin Unger]

The information below is from:

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:76-ue...t=clnk&cd=2

"Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,

signed May 9, 1975, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library."

"Excerpt of letter from Hoover to Warren Commissioner General

Counsel J. Lee Rankin reproduced by HSCA in Report of the Forensic

Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:90."

In his report, Dr. Lindenberg wrote that, "In the front of [JFK's]

shirt the bullet produced 1.2cm vertical slits in the overlapping

parts of the collar just below the collar button. The stumps of torn

fibers of the material point to the outside."30 In 1964, J. Edgar

Hoover had advised the Warren Commission that the FBI lab had found

the same thing: "The hole in the front of the shirt was a ragged,

slit-like hole and the ends of the torn threads around the hole were

bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a

projectile."31

(emphasis mine)

Quote Ashton Gray, Posted Today, 12:58 PM:

If one had, the literature would say: "There's the bullet hole." Quote off.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php?...e_-_JFK_Clothes

[Ashton Gray]

Double post vestige; real post below.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

The information below is from:

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:76-ue...t=clnk&cd=2

"Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,

signed May 9, 1975, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library."

"Excerpt of letter from Hoover to Warren Commissioner General

Counsel J. Lee Rankin reproduced by HSCA in Report of the Forensic

Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:90."

In his report, Dr. Lindenberg wrote that, "In the front of [JFK's]

shirt the bullet produced 1.2cm vertical slits in the overlapping

parts of the collar just below the collar button. The stumps of torn

fibers of the material point to the outside."30 In 1964, J. Edgar

Hoover had advised the Warren Commission that the FBI lab had found

the same thing: "The hole in the front of the shirt was a ragged,

slit-like hole and the ends of the torn threads around the hole were

bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a

projectile."31

(emphasis mine)

Quote Ashton Gray, Posted Today, 12:58 PM:

If one had, the literature would say: "There's the bullet hole." Quote off.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php?...e_-_JFK_Clothes

I believe you'll find that that's the back wound hole in the shirt, Robin.

But, yes: that is a very good illustration of what glaringly is missing from anywhere near the throat area of the shirt.

Thank you.

Ashton

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The information below is from:

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:76-ue...t=clnk&cd=2

"Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,

signed May 9, 1975, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library."

"Excerpt of letter from Hoover to Warren Commissioner General

Counsel J. Lee Rankin reproduced by HSCA in Report of the Forensic

Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:90."

In his report, Dr. Lindenberg wrote that, "In the front of [JFK's]

shirt the bullet produced 1.2cm vertical slits in the overlapping

parts of the collar just below the collar button. The stumps of torn

fibers of the material point to the outside."30 In 1964, J. Edgar

Hoover had advised the Warren Commission that the FBI lab had found

the same thing: "The hole in the front of the shirt was a ragged,

slit-like hole and the ends of the torn threads around the hole were

bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a

projectile."31

(emphasis mine)

Quote Ashton Gray, Posted Today, 12:58 PM:

If one had, the literature would say: "There's the bullet hole." Quote off.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php?...e_-_JFK_Clothes

Robin,

Please re-post the photo of the back of JFK's shirt in the new topic, and then perhaps some of the misunderstandings regarding clothing examination can be placed into perspective.

Tom

[Robin Unger]

The information below is from:

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:76-ue...t=clnk&cd=2

"Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,

signed May 9, 1975, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library."

"Excerpt of letter from Hoover to Warren Commissioner General

Counsel J. Lee Rankin reproduced by HSCA in Report of the Forensic

Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:90."

In his report, Dr. Lindenberg wrote that, "In the front of [JFK's]

shirt the bullet produced 1.2cm vertical slits in the overlapping

parts of the collar just below the collar button. The stumps of torn

fibers of the material point to the outside."30 In 1964, J. Edgar

Hoover had advised the Warren Commission that the FBI lab had found

the same thing: "The hole in the front of the shirt was a ragged,

slit-like hole and the ends of the torn threads around the hole were

bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a

projectile."31

(emphasis mine)

Quote Ashton Gray, Posted Today, 12:58 PM:

If one had, the literature would say: "There's the bullet hole." Quote off.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php?...e_-_JFK_Clothes

Robin,

Please re-post the photo of the back of JFK's shirt in the new topic, and then perhaps some of the misunderstandings regarding clothing examination can be placed into perspective.

Tom

[Nick Bartetzko]

Here you go, starting mid paragraph on page 377.

[Etc.]

This is the relevant text and I hope you and other members found this helpful.

Well, Nick...

I...

Well, I really, genuinely, and deeply appreciate all that typing—by both you and Weisberg.

It's one of the great tragedies of literature that after all the time invested in interviewing, Malcolm Perry wasn't allowed to wedge a single word of his own into all that Weisbergian paraphrasing other than "as they always are."

But at least that was quoted twice. That's very nice, and was a generosity on the part of Mr. Weisberg.

Ashton

Well, Ashton, I'm genuinely touched by your ......appreciation.....or is it lack thereof?? Glad I made the effort to quote Weisberg. IMHO, in spite of the excess verbiage, Weisberg did come up with some very valuable information. Still makes for easier reading than the WC. BTW, your research is much appreciated and sometimes your writing style as well.

Nick

[Ashton Gray]

Here you go, starting mid paragraph on page 377.

[Etc.]

This is the relevant text and I hope you and other members found this helpful.

Well, Nick...

I...

Well, I really, genuinely, and deeply appreciate all that typing—by both you and Weisberg.

It's one of the great tragedies of literature that after all the time invested in interviewing, Malcolm Perry wasn't allowed to wedge a single word of his own into all that Weisbergian paraphrasing other than "as they always are."

But at least that was quoted twice. That's very nice, and was a generosity on the part of Mr. Weisberg.

Ashton

Well, Ashton, I'm genuinely touched by your ......appreciation.....or is it lack thereof??

Nick, was I that transparent? I think my report card is going to say "Needs work on social skills."

IMHO, in spite of the excess verbiage, Weisberg did come up with some very valuable information.

Well, I wasn't being at all facetious when I said I really did appreciate your effort, because I do, but value is where you find it, and in my own research efforts I generally use a steamshovel to sweep interpretations, paraphrasings, hearsay, philosophical musings, opinions, and conclusions into the dumpster by the cubic ton. I try wherever possible to go to primary sources. Where and if I have to turn to other sources, I have a rule of two to compare, preferably three—or dumpster bound.

It's a brutal method of research and not for everyone. Also isn't worth a damn for a leisurely rainy-day read.

BTW, your research is much appreciated and sometimes your writing style as well.

Touché.

Ashton

[Nick Bartetzko]

Here you go, starting mid paragraph on page 377.

[Etc.]

This is the relevant text and I hope you and other members found this helpful.

Well, Nick...

I...

Well, I really, genuinely, and deeply appreciate all that typing—by both you and Weisberg.

It's one of the great tragedies of literature that after all the time invested in interviewing, Malcolm Perry wasn't allowed to wedge a single word of his own into all that Weisbergian paraphrasing other than "as they always are."

But at least that was quoted twice. That's very nice, and was a generosity on the part of Mr. Weisberg.

Ashton

Well, Ashton, I'm genuinely touched by your ......appreciation.....or is it lack thereof??

Nick, was I that transparent? I think my report card is going to say "Needs work on social skills."

IMHO, in spite of the excess verbiage, Weisberg did come up with some very valuable information.

Well, I wasn't being at all facetious when I said I really did appreciate your effort, because I do, but value is where you find it, and in my own research efforts I generally use a steamshovel to sweep interpretations, paraphrasings, hearsay, philosophical musings, opinions, and conclusions into the dumpster by the cubic ton. I try wherever possible to go to primary sources. Where and if I have to turn to other sources, I have a rule of two to compare, preferably three—or dumpster bound.

It's a brutal method of research and not for everyone. Also isn't worth a damn for a leisurely rainy-day read.

BTW, your research is much appreciated and sometimes your writing style as well.

Touché.

Ashton

Ashton

Well.....just maybe......sometimes your social skills could use a "bit of refining". Occasionally, I get a bit irked when I see a lack of civility in some of the posts...and that is not at all limited to your posts. I just don't see a need for harsh rhetoric toward others. You and I differ on the value of Weisberg's research and conclusions. FWIW (and likely not much to you), Weisberg does quote Carrico as saying the neck wound was above the level of the shirt (please don't ask me to spend the time to type it all). My interpretation of the Z film is JFK beginning to show distress either to a neck wound or the sound of gunshot(s) as he emerges from behind the sign. Immediately thereafter, it is obvious to me that he is struck in the back from a relatively flat trajectory shot as he appears to be driven forward. If we assume that Connally's back wound is close to that point, he appears to be driven more downward by impact, reflecting a different shooter trajectory and location.

I look forward to more of your posts.

Regards,

Nick

[Ashton Gray]

I'm posting this anim below regarding the throat wound and then I'm done with this topic. To anyone who I haven't responded to and should have, I apologize. No slight is intended. I'm just done with this subject.

I've also posted this anim in the Why was there a back wound topic, because it has relevance to my original premise in the first post in that thread: that the shot to the back was inflicted in order to provide a "reasonable" or "plausible explanation" for a wound to the throat that would be seen at Parkland Hospital (only), which I have said was not, and could not be, a bullet or projectile wound at all.

The anim starts with a silhouetted (cut out of its original background) left profile image of JFK. It is superimposed over the left profile autopsy photo of JFK.

A red-orange outline of JFK's left ear appears, then the image switches to the autopsy photo (with the suit coat, shirt and tie left in place) to demonstrate how the images were matched as closely as possible in size and orientation using the left ear and the Adam's Apple as the two primary references.

That switches back and forth to establish the relationship, then an arrow appears showing the location of the tracheotomy opening, which was incised directly through the throat wound. As can immediately be seen, it is impossible beyond any shadow of a doubt for any projectile of any description to have entered John F. Kennedy's throat at the indicated location without piercing the tie and the shirt.

In the next image the suit coat, tie, and shirt are removed to show the exact location of the so-called trachaeotomy opening. The bottom of the autopsy image is the exact place the only available image is cropped and there was nothing I could do about it, but it unquestionably provides the top line of the opening and shows the midline of the opening, where the cut went through the wound.

That switches back and forth with the suit coat, shirt, and tie on and off.

Finally, it switches to an image showing where JFK's shirt collar and tie would have had to be being worn for there to be any chance of a projectile of any description entering the indicated wound location over the top of the collar. If it weren't such a tragedy, it would be downright funny.

But it isn't funny. It's premeditated murder of the President of the United States, with malice aforethought.

And it isn't funny at all how far people have gone to sell you the fraud and the hoax that John F. Kennedy was shot in the throat in Dealey Plaza. It isn't funny at all how many millions upon millions of tax dollars were invested in selling you this hoax and this fraud. It isn't funny at all the millions of dollars of blood money that have been made off of peddling this lie.

And it is a lie. It is a vicious lie. It is a lie designed specifically and solely to protect the perpetrators. It has done so for over 40 years.

If you want to go on listening to and mypically and microscopically studying and believing the lies, and believing in the liars who have lied to you on this, be my guest, and Godspeed to wherever you end up.

I have done all I can to demonstrate the impossibility of this ridiculous, malicious, murderous "throat shot" hoax in an effort only to arrive at the truth. I hope this helps you get there.

Ashton Gray

Edited January 12, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Were it that I were a "real" researcher (as opposed to an armchair question asker/perpetuator of confusion), then in all probability I would go and get me a Carcano Rifle and bullets and create a 6.5mm EXIT WOUND.

Then, I would probably take the time to locate; speak with; and document what those who saw JFK's anterior throat wound had to say on the subject matter.

And, irrelevant as to whether or not they would comment, at least I would know, in my own mind, exactly what a 6.5mm exit wound, which encountered absolutely no bone, looked like, and could thereafter offer some semblance of authority on the subject matter.

After all, that is why they call it "research"!

1. careful or diligent search

2. studious inquiry or examination aimed at the discovery and interpretation of new knowledge

3. the collecting of information about a particular subject

[Ron Ecker]

Carrico was the first doctor to see JFK in the hospital. Here is the pertinent part of his WC testimony (v. 3 pp. 361-362):

Carrico: (The wound was) located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adam’s apple.

Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?

Carrico: Just about where your tie would be. . . . All we knew this was a small wound here.

Dulles: And you put your hand right above where your tie is?

Carrico: Yes, sir.

IOW Carrico demonstrated with his hand for the WC that the wound was "right above where your tie is."

Carrico recalled and elaborated on this for Weisberg (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376; quoted in Never Again, pp. 241-242):

Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar (italics in original). Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying ‘No.’ I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report. . . . He saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting.

I consider Carrico to be a very credible witness, I do not believe he was a conspirator, and I believe based on his certainty about what he saw and testified to that the throat wound was ABOVE THE COLLAR. So poof, there is no mystery as to why no hole in the collar, tie, or front of the shirt.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Cliff Varnell]

Ron, Carrico also noted that Jackie and the Secret Service guys were

in TR1 when he got there.

I appreciate your input, thanks.

Carrico was the first doctor to see JFK in the hospital. Here is the pertinent part of his WC testimony (v. 3 pp. 361-362):

Carrico: (The wound was) located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adam’s apple.

Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?

Carrico: Just about where your tie would be. . . . All we knew this was a small wound here.

Dulles: And you put your hand right above where your tie is?

Carrico: Yes, sir.

IOW Carrico demonstrated with his hand for the WC that the wound was "right above where your tie is."

Carrico recalled and elaborated on this for Weisberg (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376; quoted in Never Again, pp. 241-242):

Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar (italics in original). Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying ‘No.’ I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report. . . . He saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting.

I consider Carrico to be a very credible witness, I do not believe he was a conspirator, and I believe based on his certainty about what he saw and testified to that the throat wound was ABOVE THE COLLAR. So poof, there is no mystery as to why no hole in the collar, tie, or front of the shirt.