+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: JFK's Tie Knot (/thread-14468.html)
JFK's Tie Knot - Bob Prudhomme - 06-09-2016
Drew Phipps Wrote:I think we've definitely "been had" as you phrase it, because, in the black and white FBI photo that labels that area a "nick", I see 6 of those little patterns in a row, immediately to the rick of the white mark the FBI labels the "nick." On the other hand, the tie photo with the visible bloodstain has but 5 icons (and no partials) in a row to either side of the "nick."
Also, I think that the color photo with 5 icons and a bloodstain has to come from the "forward facing" side of the tie. In all my ties, the "body-facing" side of the tie has a clear line down the middle (a seam) where the fabric of the tie has been folded to overlap and sewn together, which isn't visible of that close up photo. Bob is of course correct that close to the knot, the sideways end of the fabric are curled in toward each other.
I slowed down a little and took a closer look at your post. Excellent observation! Yes, there are definitely six icons seen on the tie section you posted a photo of, as opposed to the five icons wide photo of the nick seen here:
![[Image: jfk-dallas-shirttie1.jpg]](https://bamfstyle.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/jfk-dallas-shirttie1.jpg)
This complicates things a great deal, and I have no illusions there was anything accidental about this. I agree we have been had but, what were they trying to accomplish here? How could deleting one icon from the wide row of icons change anything?
JFK's Tie Knot - Drew Phipps - 06-09-2016
It's not that they have deleted a part of the image of his tie, it's that the picture could not truly be the part of the tie that the FBI originally claimed was "nicked" by the magic bullet. It's a fiction, or it's a different part of the tie, which then requires a separate explanation for the "nick" and what is, apparently, an accompanying bloodstain, on a part of the tie that would not have been facing the body and that also would have been covered from the outside by the collar of the shirt, or the fat half of the tie, and possibly the coat as well (depending on where that "nick" really is).
JFK's Tie Knot - Thomas Neal - 19-10-2016
The center photo with the "nick" is definitely the front of the tie as Drew states. In the non-cropped version the tie is not twisted at the 'top' but depicts a simple "u" shape, so it can only be the front of the tie. This light area is the only damage to the tie that I have found other than where it was cut for removal.
The FBI Lab report states that this "blood stain" is not blood, it is a lead smear. A sample of this lead was taken from the necktie by the FBI. The alleged "nick" is the area of the tie where the FBI sample was taken.
This section of the tie was part of the knot and therefore was curved. How did a projectile remove this much cloth from the outer layer of the tie without causing any damage to the white inner layer of cloth? If this is a "nick" caused by a projectile then where was the sample of the lead smear taken from the neck tie?
JFK's Tie Knot - Bob Prudhomme - 22-10-2016
Hi Tom
I had not heard of the FBI describing the blood stain as a "lead smear" before. Could you provide a link to the section of the FBI report that states this?
This, of course, would make the SBT an impossibility, as an intact and un-deformed FMJ bullet passing by the tie knot could only leave a copper alloy smear on the tie knot, as its lead core would be completely shielded by the copper alloy jacket.
JFK's Tie Knot - Thomas Neal - 22-10-2016
Hello Bob,
Do you believe the missing cloth from the outer layer of the tie is where the FBI sample was removed, or a nick from a projectile?
Aside from the above "missing cloth" and the scissor cut near the knot, are you aware of any other tie damage on either the front or the back?
JFK's Tie Knot - Bob Prudhomme - 25-10-2016
Thomas Neal Wrote:Hello Bob,Do you believe the missing cloth from the outer layer of the tie is where the FBI sample was removed, or a nick from a projectile?Aside from the above "missing cloth" and the scissor cut near the knot, are you aware of any other tie damage on either the front or the back?I'm more interested in the FBI's description of what we perceive to be a bloodstain as a "lead smear". Did they have any tests for metal traces to back this claim up?
JFK's Tie Knot - Thomas Neal - 25-10-2016
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Your previous statements regarding the "missing cloth" at the site of the "lead smear" *appear* to indicate that you believe this was caused by a projectile. If so, then the FBI Lab test is irrelevant unless you can point out a *different* site with some type of blood/lead/something where the sample was removed.Thomas Neal Wrote:Hello Bob,Do you believe the missing cloth from the outer layer of the tie is where the FBI sample was removed, or a nick from a projectile?Aside from the above "missing cloth" and the scissor cut near the knot, are you aware of any other tie damage on either the front or the back?I'm more interested in the FBI's description of what we perceive to be a bloodstain as a "lead smear". Did they have any tests for metal traces to back this claim up?
I have some additional stuff that I could post, but if you believe that "missing cloth" was removed by a projectile, then it would be a waste of my time to post it.
JFK's Tie Knot - Magda Hassan - 25-10-2016
Hi Neal, it might be of interest to others though. And just to have it on the record to refer to.
JFK's Tie Knot - Bob Prudhomme - 25-10-2016
Thomas Neal Wrote:Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Your previous statements regarding the "missing cloth" at the site of the "lead smear" *appear* to indicate that you believe this was caused by a projectile. If so, then the FBI Lab test is irrelevant unless you can point out a *different* site with some type of blood/lead/something where the sample was removed.Thomas Neal Wrote:Hello Bob,Do you believe the missing cloth from the outer layer of the tie is where the FBI sample was removed, or a nick from a projectile?Aside from the above "missing cloth" and the scissor cut near the knot, are you aware of any other tie damage on either the front or the back?I'm more interested in the FBI's description of what we perceive to be a bloodstain as a "lead smear". Did they have any tests for metal traces to back this claim up?
I have some additional stuff that I could post, but if you believe that "missing cloth" was removed by a projectile, then it would be a waste of my time to post it.
Tom
What I believe is irrelevant to the truth. If it can be proven the nick in the tie was the result of a sample being removed by the FBI or the result of a projectile grazing the tie, we will just have to live with that truth, one way or the other.
As I said, if you have information about the blood stain being a lead smear, I would be very interested in it.
JFK's Tie Knot - Thomas Neal - 25-10-2016
Magda Hassan Wrote:Hi Neal, it might be of interest to others though. And just to have it on the record to refer to.
Hi Hassan,
I'm trying to get Bob to answer my original question first - that is, what does *he* believe caused the necktie's "missing cloth" - which is the crux of my question AND the theme of the thread. I haven't responded to his request, because...
The info Bob is requesting was posted by me at a different site, and he has read that document. I have also mentioned the FBI's "lead smear" (from said document) to him numerous times in our recent dialog regarding his belief that the throat wound was an exit wound. e.g. Only a bullet fragment could leave lead on the tie. How could the tie have a lead deposit, yet no "wipe" is present on the slit(s) in the shirt? They had decades of experience falsifying evidence so *IF* the FBI "planted" the lead on the neck tie, why didn't they also plant it on the shirt?
Why he now claims the "lead smear" and the document is new to him, I can only guess...
From long experience I know not to ask Bob more than one question at a time, or let him sidetrack me with *new* questions in order to avoid answering the questions I've already asked. It's a simple question, and he surely must know the answer, yet he has chosen to ignore it. I choose to wait until he answers my question before I continue.
I do believe it's common knowledge, but since you've asked, when I have the time to find the document I will post it.
Tom