Jump to content
The Education Forum

Clothing Examination--JFK's Shirt


Recommended Posts

To cut directly to the chase of how I have interpreted Tom's writings:

CE399 was not magic by any sense. It was fired (may have even short fired, thus the "firecracker" comment from many witnesses -- my own comment, not deduced from Tom's writing), hit something (tree limb) which deposited sap, reduced rifling-induced spin, reduced velocity substantially, deformed its shape, then tumbled/knuckle-balled through JFK's jacket, through the shirt, and into his back ass-end first. The entry of a non-pointed object at lower velocity "pushed" (ripped) fabric from the shirt into the wound.

The depth of entry of the projectile was shallow, and in a downward direction, exactly as the doctors described it in their attempt to probe the wound. It probably fell out sometime during the Parkland events. CE399 was never acquainted with JBC or even with JFK's necktie...

The result of the back wound is seen as JFK emerges from behind the sign in the z-film.

However, Tom, you're a three-shot, three-hit, one gunman theorist, with hit #3 coming at the Altgens location, post Z313. When was JBC initially struck, and what the heck is he doing between Z212 and Z313?

Most certainly close enough for credit!

And, since none of us are actually more qualified than Robert Frazier, (who certainly knows more than he is telling) and neither do we have access to all that he did, then one sometimes has to just accept what he has to say.

When was JBC initially struck,

JBC was initially struck in the wrist by a fragment from the head shot at Z313. Prior to this, he had not been struck by any shot.

what the heck is he doing between Z212 and Z313?

When not engaged in attempting to get the car door open to get out of the car, he is engaged in: "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck"--------then it must be a__________.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tom, you've got te base of the bullet facing up. It has to flip to be a punch. Also which is up on the uncut shirt images on the last page. One is rotated 180degrees to the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who never played the "peg" games.

Interesting. Seems to validate the notion that the cylindrical deformation occurred before the wound. Unless, of course, the shape of the entry wound was influenced by the angle of entry (although it does not seem to be).

Now -- back to some of the JBC question...

I've been reading the book that contains Nellie Connally's writings from the time of the assassination. "From Love Field" is the title.

In this book, she sticks very much to the "LHO did it alone" party line, but ALSO sticks vehemently to the same thing her husband said; First shot hit Kennedy, Second shot hit JBC, Third shot hit Kennedy. She also implies that later, JBC did some investigating on his own. She refers to him looking at some 'classified' documents, and concluding that Oswald acted alone. I wish she would have written more about what this "private investigation" was, and what the documents were. But I digress.

Nellie Connally writes,

"...then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. it came from the back. I turned and looked toward the President just in time to see his hands fly up to his neck and see him sink down in the seat. There was no utterance of any kind from him. There was no grimace and I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise was. I felt it was a gunshot and I had a horrifying feeling that the President had not only been shot but could be dead. Quickly, there was second shot, John had turned to the right at the first shot to look back and then whirled to the left to get another look to see if he could see the President, he could not so he realized the President had been shot. John said, 'No, No, No,' was hit himself by the second shot and said, 'My God, they're going to kill us all,' wheeled back to the right, crumpling his shoulders to his knees in the most helpless and pitiful position a tall man could be in. I reached over and pulled him to me and tried to get us both down in the car. Then came the third shot. With John in my arms, and still trying to stay down, I did not see the third shot hit, but I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot."

Her description, from the diary, seems to be consistent with the events between Z225 and Z313...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, you've got te base of the bullet facing up. It has to flip to be a punch. Also which is up on the uncut shirt images on the last page. One is rotated 180degrees to the other.

It has to flip to be a punch

Flip it and one comes out with the exact same image!

Did not want to confuse with "reverse image" photography. Since the WC and HSCA have already used up the quota of this little confusing stunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who never played the "peg" games.

Interesting. Seems to validate the notion that the cylindrical deformation occurred before the wound. Unless, of course, the shape of the entry wound was influenced by the angle of entry (although it does not seem to be).

Now -- back to some of the JBC question...

I've been reading the book that contains Nellie Connally's writings from the time of the assassination. "From Love Field" is the title.

In this book, she sticks very much to the "LHO did it alone" party line, but ALSO sticks vehemently to the same thing her husband said; First shot hit Kennedy, Second shot hit JBC, Third shot hit Kennedy. She also implies that later, JBC did some investigating on his own. She refers to him looking at some 'classified' documents, and concluding that Oswald acted alone. I wish she would have written more about what this "private investigation" was, and what the documents were. But I digress.

Nellie Connally writes,

"...then I heard a loud, terrifying noise. it came from the back. I turned and looked toward the President just in time to see his hands fly up to his neck and see him sink down in the seat. There was no utterance of any kind from him. There was no grimace and I had no sure knowledge as to what the noise was. I felt it was a gunshot and I had a horrifying feeling that the President had not only been shot but could be dead. Quickly, there was second shot, John had turned to the right at the first shot to look back and then whirled to the left to get another look to see if he could see the President, he could not so he realized the President had been shot. John said, 'No, No, No,' was hit himself by the second shot and said, 'My God, they're going to kill us all,' wheeled back to the right, crumpling his shoulders to his knees in the most helpless and pitiful position a tall man could be in. I reached over and pulled him to me and tried to get us both down in the car. Then came the third shot. With John in my arms, and still trying to stay down, I did not see the third shot hit, but I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot."

Her description, from the diary, seems to be consistent with the events between Z225 and Z313...

Interesting. Seems to validate the notion that the cylindrical deformation occurred before the wound. Unless, of course, the shape of the entry wound was influenced by the angle of entry (although it does not seem to be).

Correct! The wound should have been a small entry which was somewhat elongated vertically, with an abrasion collar at the uppermost edge/top of the wound.

NOT a wound which was elongated horizontally!

Her description, from the diary, seems to be consistent with the events between Z225 and Z313...

Actually! Her description is exactly consistant with the facts.

JBC was hit in the wrist by a fragment from the headshot to JFK at Z313. Therefore, he was most certainly hit, and most certainly could have been yelling.

AFTER JBC was laying horizontal across the jump seats, exposing his shoulder in the open area between the jump seats, this is the shot down in front of James Altgens position at stationing 4+95 in which the bullet penetrated through the coat of JFK at the edge of the collar, struck in the edge of the hairline and tunneled "up" through the soft flesh of the neck of JFK to strike in the vicinity of the EOP.

Thereafter passing through the mid-brain of JFK and exited in the frontal lobe, spraying Nellie and JBC with cerebral tissue as well as continueing on to strike JBC in the right shoulder as he lay across the open area of the jump seats in an almost horizontal position with his shoulder rolled slightly backward in the direct line of fire for the exiting bullet from the brain/skull of JFK.

This, the third/last/final shot is also what managed to complete the massive shattering and fragmentation of the skull of JFK, sending one piece of skull flying in the direction of James Altgens as well as creating radiating fractures in the EOP region of the Skull as a result of impact to an already weakened/compromised skull as a result of the Z313 headshot impact.

All of which has to do with the third shot/aka "Magic Bullet"-------The one which until now, had completely disappeared.

"Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear"!

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured it would be pretty much the same.

What about the shirt. I'm trying to check the damage and am confused about the orientation of the pre cut shirt damage which is very poor quality compared to the cleaned ironed and cut one. Isn't there a better precut shirt hole (color) photo available?

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured it would be pretty much the same.

What about the shirt. I'm trying to check the damage and am confused about the orientation of the pre cut shirt damage which is very poor quality compared to the cleaned ironed and cut one. Isn't there a better precut shirt hole (color) photo available?

What about the shirt. I'm trying to check the damage and am confused about the orientation of the pre cut shirt damage which is very poor quality compared to the cleaned ironed and cut one. Isn't there a better precut shirt hole (color) photo available?

Trying to get to that question as well. Unfortunately, my scanner, not unlike my brain, is quite old and frequently has memory problems as to what it is supposed to do.

As regards the quality of the enlarged entry hole in the shirt, nope, what you see is what you get.

I am going to repost the enlarged hole, which by the way I did "flip" to match the HSCA photo.

One has to watch closely on the WC & HSCA photo's as there are many in which the image is flipped and others which are printed in reverse image.

Were this only a very rare happening then one could claim simple negligence.

However, knowing most of the other little tricks which were utilized to confuse, rest assured that this may also be by design.

The attached photo is as if one was looking directly at the back of JFK's shirt.

As can be seen, the location of the vertical lines in the shirt are on the opposite side as seen in the HSCA photo.

I "flipped" it in the previous posting in order to avoid confusion, as many still have not even resolved how to evaluate the simple evidence, let alone get into "Flipped" and/or reverse image photo's.

The HSCA photo is the one with the problem.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/d/d...vid_CE394-4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, if you look at the full shirt it's the red stripe that runs through the hole. And the hole is on its left. Follow the red stripe from the lower part of the shirt where it's clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, if you look at the full shirt it's the red stripe that runs through the hole. And the hole is on its left. Follow the red stripe from the lower part of the shirt where it's clean.

John;

I am familiar with the color of the stripes on the shirt.

And I will again state!

Without personal physical examination of the shirt, one can not be certain as to which is right and which is left, as there are numerous items which have been published/printed in "reverse image".

The poor quality photo is from an original from the FBI Documents. Nevertheless, it can not be stated as fact that this photo is not the one that is reversed and that the NARA photo is correct.

The only thing that can be done is to recognize which side of the penetration actually went through lines in the shirt and thus orient the photo's accordingly in order to attempt to evaluate them.

And, since the NARA photo demonstrates the entrance hole AFTER FBI Agent Henry Heiberger had X-rayed the shirt hole, finding traces of metallic residue, and thereafter cutting the edges of the cloth away in order to examine the physical nature of the metal, then the NARA photo is also confusing to many as to it's shape and size.

In addition, the early photo also demonstrates a fold in the fabric which is in that area of damage where the hole incorporates the one grouping of lines in the shirt, thus making it difficult to exactly distinguish the outline of the hole along the bottom left (as looking at the original photo).

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/d/d...vid_CE394-4.jpg

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0026a.htm

And, since I truly do not even understand your question, all of the above is mute!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, if you look at the full shirt it's the red stripe that runs through the hole. And the hole is on its left. Follow the red stripe from the lower part of the shirt where it's clean.

John;

I am familiar with the color of the stripes on the shirt.

And I will again state!

Without personal physical examination of the shirt, one can not be certain as to which is right and which is left, as there are numerous items which have been published/printed in "reverse image".

The poor quality photo is from an original from the FBI Documents. Nevertheless, it can not be stated as fact that this photo is not the one that is reversed and that the NARA photo is correct.

The only thing that can be done is to recognize which side of the penetration actually went through lines in the shirt and thus orient the photo's accordingly in order to attempt to evaluate them.

And, since the NARA photo demonstrates the entrance hole AFTER FBI Agent Henry Heiberger had X-rayed the shirt hole, finding traces of metallic residue, and thereafter cutting the edges of the cloth away in order to examine the physical nature of the metal, then the NARA photo is also confusing to many as to it's shape and size.

In addition, the early photo also demonstrates a fold in the fabric which is in that area of damage where the hole incorporates the one grouping of lines in the shirt, thus making it difficult to exactly distinguish the outline of the hole along the bottom left (as looking at the original photo).

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/d/d...vid_CE394-4.jpg

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0026a.htm

And, since I truly do not even understand your question, all of the above is mute!

The above posting did not move to the head of the class, for whatever reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, at that site (Mary Farrell) is a photo of the back of the shirt with the red and black stripes sufficiently differentiated to be able to trace the one that goes through the hole. It's red. The FBI photo is correctly oriented, it's not mirrored. The poor quality one is wrong.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, at that site (Mary Farrell) is a photo of the back of the shirt with the red and black stripes sufficiently differentiated to be able to trace the one that goes through the hole. It's red. The FBI photo is correctly oriented, it's not mirrored. The poor quality one is wrong.

1. The poor quality one is the FBI one!

2. The Mary Farrell photo is the NARA/National Archives photo.

Having received photo's from the National Archives which were printed in "reverse image", personally, I can not say which photo, the FBI Enlargement or the NARA photo got reversed.

Both photo's demonstrate severe bleeding on the left shoulder and down the left side of the back of the shirt.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8...vid_CE394-3.jpg

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0026a.htm

The orientation of the shirt as well as the trimmed entrance hole, as it appears in the Mary Farrell/NARA photographs, appears to be the correct one, with the damaged shirt lines being on the right hand side of the entry. (as one looks at the back of the shirt)

Lastly, although the FBI photo which demonstrates the enlargment of the hole has the overall photo of the back of the shirt oriented the same as the NARA shirt photo, the accompanying enlargment of the entrance hole has the damaged vertical lines being on the left hand side of the hole as one looks at the back of the shirt.

Which, is why I also "flipped" this enlargment image.

It would thus appear that:

1. The Mary Farrell/NARA photo & Enlargement are correctly oriented.

2. The FBI shirt photo is correctly oriented.

3. The FBI enlargement of the hole, which accompanies the shirt photo, has been "flipped", as the vertically damaged lines in it appear on the left side of the entrance hole. (as one looks at the back of the shirt).

And, although extremely difficult to make out, this would appear to be the case, and is merely another example of some of the "reverse image" photographic work which adds to the confusion of evaluation of the evidence.

Nevertheless, the "rounded" top portion of the original entry matches virtually perfectly the rounded entry through the skin of JFK, as caused by the base of CE399 as it struck.

I am again posting the "flipped" image of the shirt entrance hole, which places the damaged vertical lines of the shirt in correlation with the side which the NARA damaged vertical lines are seen.

I have again posted my personal photo of what a normal 6.5mm Carcano bullet entrance through a shirt appears like.

Not difficult to either tell the difference, nor is it difficult to recognize and understand exactly why it is that a normal entrance wound does not obtain clothing fabric being "punched" out and carried down into the wound of entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. I understand we are in agreement there now. It mayseem petty in some way, but, with that cleared up one can approach the issue with more confidence.

I still would really like to study the weave of the fabric of the poor quality photo, which is near impossible as it is. If you come across a better clearer (color pref) image please find a way of scanning and posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...