JFK's Tie Knot

[Bob Prudhomme]

You make a couple of valid points, Mr. Josephs, but no great surprise given the source. In respect to your first point, I also wonder if an actual bullet round tore it's way through the president's back, then suddenly pole-vaulted upwards of five inches somehow (they say magically), then through the back of the neck base all the way through to the front-flesh of the neck, then onward through the initial stages of shirt fabric, then onto the knotted tie surface in the rear, then all the way through to the front of the knotted tie, yet (rather than leave the tie ragged, heavily torn throughout) the surface bears a mere nick only...

In respect to the blood you've noted sir, a nurse on duty at Parkland medical also noted a small hole in the president's neck with blood oozing out slowly (her words, not mine).

Of course, the question that begs to be answered here is where is the bullet hole on the tie?

Even the president's front shirt material is void of a bullet hole, though it does bear a couple of small slits suggesting it was surgically cut, but, again, no distinct, unmistakable bullet hole in the tie or in front of the shirt akin to what we see in rear footage of both his jacket and shirt.

Actually, the whole point of my argument re: 5 vertical icons in the tie knot vs. 6 vertical icons centres around the nick being in the anatomical left vertical row of icons instead of the right vertical row. This would place the nick on the left outer edge of the tie knot, and allow a projectile to pass trough only the outer coloured layer of fabric.

Where the projectile came from is another question altogether, although I can assure you it was not the back wound.

Sharp attention to detail all around, Mr. Prudhomme. The introduction of your observations surrounding the vertical and horizontal layout inconsistencies upon the tie is indirectly cancelling the check on the alleged exploits of the so called magic bullet. Well done sir!

Shifting gears, in respect to the placement of the nick, your excellent point is well taken; however, what are the chances that the photo image we are viewing is possibly inverted? The reason I ask is during some reading earlier today while following your contributions over at the EF, a Parkland nurse in Trauma 1 noted that the throat wound lay more to the right side of the president's neck (essentially in agreement with your placement of the nick). Yet in the photo the nick aligns right instead of left.

What makes you so confident in your statement here, quote, "Where the projectile came from is another question altogether, although I can assure you it was not the back wound."? Does your confidence have anything to do with Dr. Humes' inability to find an actual exit path for the back wound? That would certainly explain why neither the tie nor the president's shirt has an actual exiting bullet hole. At the very least, IF an actual bullet had come in contact with the knotted tie there would be more extensive damage than a mere nick.

Say, Arlen, you got a sec'?

The anatomical right side of JFK's trachea had a tear in it (something hard to do with a 1/4" needle) and it was also noted by a Parkland doctor that JFK's throat wound was slightly offset to the right of his throat. As the Single Bullet Theory required the bullet leaving JFK's throat to then go forward and impact Connally's right armpit, a nick in the left side of JFK's tie presented a problem, for obvious reasons. If a projectile exited the right side of JFK's throat and then nicked the left side of his tie knot it was, as you pointed out, travelling on a right to left course that likely would go nowhere near Connally, let alone his right armpit.

Yes, my confidence stems partly from Humes being unable to find an exit for the back wound, but mainly because there is ample evidence placing the back wound at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, about 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal midline. As this diagram shows, this would place the bullet on a course for the top of the right lung, with only a very thin layer of intercostal muscle to slow it down.



There is ample evidence that JFK suffered a condition in his right lung known as a "tension pneumothorax". There is also evidence showing that the bullet that entered JFK's right lung disintegrated once it was inside the pleural cavity, in the same fashion as the bullet that disintegrated inside of his skull. Neither bullet was a full metal jacket bullet.

[Alan Ford]

You make a couple of valid points, Mr. Josephs, but no great surprise given the source. In respect to your first point, I also wonder if an actual bullet round tore it's way through the president's back, then suddenly pole-vaulted upwards of five inches somehow (they say magically), then through the back of the neck base all the way through to the front-flesh of the neck, then onward through the initial stages of shirt fabric, then onto the knotted tie surface in the rear, then all the way through to the front of the knotted tie, yet (rather than leave the tie ragged, heavily torn throughout) the surface bears a mere nick only...

In respect to the blood you've noted sir, a nurse on duty at Parkland medical also noted a small hole in the president's neck with blood oozing out slowly (her words, not mine).

Of course, the question that begs to be answered here is where is the bullet hole on the tie?

Even the president's front shirt material is void of a bullet hole, though it does bear a couple of small slits suggesting it was surgically cut, but, again, no distinct, unmistakable bullet hole in the tie or in front of the shirt akin to what we see in rear footage of both his jacket and shirt.

Actually, the whole point of my argument re: 5 vertical icons in the tie knot vs. 6 vertical icons centres around the nick being in the anatomical left vertical row of icons instead of the right vertical row. This would place the nick on the left outer edge of the tie knot, and allow a projectile to pass trough only the outer coloured layer of fabric.

Where the projectile came from is another question altogether, although I can assure you it was not the back wound.

Sharp attention to detail all around, Mr. Prudhomme. The introduction of your observations surrounding the vertical and horizontal layout inconsistencies upon the tie is indirectly cancelling the check on the alleged exploits of the so called magic bullet. Well done sir!

Shifting gears, in respect to the placement of the nick, your excellent point is well taken; however, what are the chances that the photo image we are viewing is possibly inverted? The reason I ask is during some reading earlier today while following your contributions over at the EF, a Parkland nurse in Trauma 1 noted that the throat wound lay more to the right side of the president's neck (essentially in agreement with your placement of the nick). Yet in the photo the nick aligns right instead of left.

What makes you so confident in your statement here, quote, "Where the projectile came from is another question altogether, although I can assure you it was not the back wound."? Does your confidence have anything to do with Dr. Humes' inability to find an actual exit path for the back wound? That would certainly explain why neither the tie nor the president's shirt has an actual exiting bullet hole. At the very least, IF an actual bullet had come in contact with the knotted tie there would be more extensive damage than a mere nick.

Say, Arlen, you got a sec'?

The anatomical right side of JFK's trachea had a tear in it (something hard to do with a 1/4" needle) and it was also noted by a Parkland doctor that JFK's throat wound was slightly offset to the right of his throat. As the Single Bullet Theory required the bullet leaving JFK's throat to then go forward and impact Connally's right armpit, a nick in the left side of JFK's tie presented a problem, for obvious reasons. If a projectile exited the right side of JFK's throat and then nicked the left side of his tie knot it was, as you pointed out, travelling on a right to left course that likely would go nowhere near Connally, let alone his right armpit.

Yes, my confidence stems partly from Humes being unable to find an exit for the back wound, but mainly because there is ample evidence placing the back wound at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, about 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal midline. As this diagram shows, this would place the bullet on a course for the top of the right lung, with only a very thin layer of intercostal muscle to slow it down.



There is ample evidence that JFK suffered a condition in his right lung known as a "tension pneumothorax". There is also evidence showing that the bullet that entered JFK's right lung disintegrated once it was inside the pleural cavity, in the same fashion as the bullet that disintegrated inside of his skull. Neither bullet was a full metal jacket bullet.

Quite a brilliant presentation there, Mr. Prudhomme, appreciate the visual aid image as well. We've been had.

[David Josephs]

Bob....

Can you explain how it is you can use the results of THAT autopsy to conclude anything?

The track was never dissected or examined from either side
The hole they described was amzaingly small at only a few mm's
It was at a spot below the level of the shirt collar so if it came from the front it had to go thru that area...
unless Rankin's comment about what is shown in the FIRST autopsy report which they are looking at yet never made it to the final "version"

If there are at least 2 if not three different versions of the autopsy - with them offering a 1500cc weight for a brain half gone - I find the best we can do is illustrate what we have in evidence and then decide if that matches the Parkland/Dealeay scenario. We know his description of the head wounds are not consistent with what we have in evidence prior to Bethesda...



Mr. Rankin:
Then theres a great range of material in regards to the wound and theautopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of theneck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the presenttime.

We have[B] an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragmentcame out the front of the neck, but [/B]with the elevation the shot must have comefrom, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture ofwhere the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below theshoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where thepicture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, andthe bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, thatparticular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

[Bob Prudhomme]

Bob....

Can you explain how it is you can use the results of THAT autopsy to conclude anything?

The track was never dissected or examined from either side
The hole they described was amzaingly small at only a few mm's
It was at a spot below the level of the shirt collar so if it came from the front it had to go thru that area...
unless Rankin's comment about what is shown in the FIRST autopsy report which they are looking at yet never made it to the final "version"

If there are at least 2 if not three different versions of the autopsy - with them offering a 1500cc weight for a brain half gone - I find the best we can do is illustrate what we have in evidence and then decide if that matches the Parkland/Dealeay scenario. We know his description of the head wounds are not consistent with what we have in evidence prior to Bethesda...



Mr. Rankin:
Then theres a great range of material in regards to the wound and theautopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of theneck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the presenttime.

We have[B] an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragmentcame out the front of the neck, but [/B]with the elevation the shot must have comefrom, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture ofwhere the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below theshoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where thepicture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, andthe bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, thatparticular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

David

The throat wound had nothing to do with the back wound, and attempting to dissect that track would have shown nothing, other than it was physically impossible to go in a straight line from where they located the back wound, in the back of the neck, to the throat wound without going through the vertebrae of the neck.

Some of the best information of what actually occurred at the autopsy can be found in the HSCA interviews, from the late 70's, of the people watching the autopsy. It is no wonder these interviews were essentially suppressed and lied about by the US Government, until they were forcibly released in the early 90's.

A non-medical officer by the name of Lieutenant Richard Lipsey was among those observing the autopsy, and one can only assume he was able to hear what was being discussed by Humes, Finck and Boswell, given the detail of the information he related in his HSCA interview.

Lipsey stated that the greatest amount of time during the autopsy was spent exploring the chest and abdominal cavities, and their organs, for a bullet or fragments of a bullet. According to Lipsey, it seemed to be accepted that a bullet had entered the back and "ranged downward", without exiting. This can be corroborated by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, also present at the autopsy, contacting their superiors to find out if there was a type of bullet that would disintegrate completely in a wound.

If it was believed the bullet entering the back either exited the throat or only penetrated an inch into the back, why the extensive search in the chest and abdominal organs for bullet fragments? Why would Sibert and O'Neill inquire about a "disintegrating" bullet?

Lipsey goes on to relate that it seemed to be accepted that the throat wound was the result of a fragment from a bullet that struck quite low in the back of JFK's skull; either penetrating the back and the floor of the skull, or grazing the base of the skull as it struck a tangential blow. This last is corroborated by the HSCA interview of Jerrol Custer, the x-ray tech who took all of the x-rays of JFK at Bethesda. In his interview, he relates that he did not recognize the official x-ray of JFK's neck, and that the x-ray he saw showed many metal fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

If you look at this diagram below, you can see how all of this might line up.




The larynx can be seen below the jawbone. The trachea (windpipe) begins at the base of the larynx, and can be identified by its "rings". JFK's throat wound was reported to be at the level of the 3rd tracheal ring, and this can be counted by starting at the larynx and counting downward. The seven cervical vertebrae are easily seen, although C1 is a bit hard to see. To find C3/C4, it is easier to start from the bottom vertebra, C7, and count upwards.

Now that we know where all of the parts are located, it is a simple matter to lay a straight edge over everything, beginning at the outside base of the skull. It should be quite obvious that a bullet striking a ricocheting tangential blow at the base of the skull had a very good chancing of impacting the spine at C3/C4, and of sending a fragment forward to exit at the throat below the larynx.

[David Josephs]

I hope I never gave the impression that I believe a bullet went thru JFK's back and throat...

What I'm saying is the location of the hole and open wound is below the collar level.

The other thing is that the half circle wound is to the right - anatomically - of JFK's adam's apple

Any damage on the front of JFK had to be explained by shots from the rear (and Bob - Lipsey also claims there was a decoy ambulance for the casket which arrived at the front... Lipsey and Wehl arrived by helicopter which Lispey claims carried JFK's body.)

This is from MD87 in the ARRB -notes on his HSCA interview. As you say Bob... reading thru this makes it appear to me he is witnessing a different autopsy.

We next asked Lipsey to recap his description of
the wounds. He described these. as follows:
(1) one bullet entered the back of the head
and exited resulting in part of the face and
head being blown away;
(2) another bullet entered at the top of the
neck (rear) which exited in the front portion
of the neck; and
(3) another bullet entered at the bottom of the
neck (rear) or high in the back which did not
exit. (DJ: this is the O'Connor bullet found in the intercostal muscles right side of his back)

Lipsey added that if you viewed JFK from the left
side you couldn't notice any damage; from the right side,
however, part of his head was blown away.

Lipsey says he feels he knows "for a fact" that
someone shot JTK three times and that these bullets came
from behind. He states he definitely remembers the doctors
commenting that the bullets came from the same spot anddirection
and that they were "absolutely, unequivocally"convinced
that he had been shot three times


I have no doubt that these Doctors were "absolutely, unequivocally" convinced on fear of court-martial.
How can we take him at his word when he can only remember 1 other military man in that room when we know there was LeMay, Wehle, Kinney, Galloway, & Burkely at the very least.
[size=12]Telling the story is not easy for Lipsey. In fact, until 1978, it was forbidden. The night of the autopsy, a State Department official ordered him to sign a confidentiality agreement under the Official Secrets Act. He was not to reveal any detail about what he saw or heard at the autopsy for 15 years, not even to his spouse, Susan, whom he married 13 months after the assassination. He kept a confessional-like seal on details of the autopsy until Jan. 18, 1978, when a pair of congressional investigators from the House Select Committee on Assassinations showed up at his office to take his sworn deposition.


And when do you supposed the switch took place to get JFK into a decoy Ambulance in a decoy casket? Humes claims finally that JFK arrived around 6:30 and he sees him by 7pm... a full hour before the official start of the autopsy.
Q. Dr. Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy?
A. I didn't look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I would guess it was 6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately.
[/SIZE]

Bob - Lipsey claims to be there when the casket is opened relaying his difficulty removing his CLOTHES due to rigor... Sheets and pillow cases removed from the body is not the same as how Lipsey describes it. Furthermore, not a soul mentions Lipsey is there when any of this occurs.


Boswell: Then the wrappings, the President arrived wrapped in sheets and a pillowcase around his head, and different stories were published about that.

After Lipsey helped lay the corpse on the tableand undress it, a task made more difficult by rigor mortis, the young officertook his seat in the middle of the first of two rows of chairs located behind abrass rail. The body was X-rayed. As he sat focused on the corpse, therewasand there remainsabsolute certainty about who was on that table.


"One of the bullets took out much of Kennedy'supper right face, but if you saw him from the left side he looked like normal,"Lipsey says.

I'm sorry Bob but Lipsey as a source without corroboration is hard for me to accept as reliable.
DJ

[Drew Phipps]

Bob: I know you're aware of Donaghue/Meninger's theory (Mortal Error/Smoking Gun) that JFK was reacting to being struck by a fragment of a bullet that ricocheted off the pavement and hit the back of his head. Are you in agreement, therefore, that such a bullet fragment would have the kinetic energy to strike the pavement, strike the skull, and then still have the kinetic energy to cut the trachea?

PS Mortal Error theory requires the magic bullet scenario in order to account for everything... So if Bob's idea pans out, its further discredit to the Mortal Error scenario.

[Michael Cross]

"One of the bullets took out much of Kennedy'supper right face, but if you saw him from the left side he looked like normal,"Lipsey says.

I'm sorry Bob but Lipsey as a source without corroboration is hard for me to accept as reliable.
DJ

Agreed. But the autopsy photos from the top of the head look like JFK's right cheek has been drawn in with pencil. There's also a ghost light outline into the background . . . which makes me wonder about Lipsey's statement.

Just my musings. No proof.

[Alan Ford]

Good afternoon, Mr. Prudhomme

Mr. Cross makes an interesting point about Lipsey, further buttressing Mr. Josephs' lukewarm reception about his credibility. Since you appear busy with drafting a response to Mr. Josephs' initial question and now the one also posed by Mr. Phipps, my question will be brief, and no need for a response until such time allows. My question--given your prior experience in law-enforcement and hopefully with ballistics--is this:

<---Unmistakable bullet hole plus(+) another unmistakable bullet hole should equate into more than the presence of a mere nick upon the tie?

Or, just because the president's jacket & shirt have unmistakable bullet holes rather than mere nicks, the bullet hole obviously missing in the tie means:

A) Ford (Gerald) and Specter (Arlen) tilted the evidence
B) There was no "magical" bullet
C) All of the above
D) The tie's fabric was reinforced w/steel within the tie-knot itself thus only a mere nick instead of extensive damage inflicted (but not so steel reinforced that it would bring any disfigurement to the planted, err, pristine bullet traveling through and found much later on the stretcher at Parkland?))

I am having a hard time believing a bullet struck the tie-knot given it's non extensive ragged condition. Short of tying a few of my own ties and shooting at them down by the quarry, in your professional opinion, Could the same bullet that tore through the president's jacket and shirt, leaving unmistakable bullet holes in its wake suddenly leave a tie virtually undamaged as it tore through the fabric?

*images sourced via ratical.org

[David Josephs]

"One of the bullets took out much of Kennedy'supper right face, but if you saw him from the left side he looked like normal,"Lipsey says.

I'm sorry Bob but Lipsey as a source without corroboration is hard for me to accept as reliable.
DJ

Agreed. But the autopsy photos from the top of the head look like JFK's right cheek has been drawn in with pencil. There's also a ghost light outline into the background . . . which makes me wonder about Lipsey's statement.

Just my musings. No proof.

Hey Michael... here is that image I was talking to you about. The backward extension of his head elongating his neck and making it appear that a T3 entrance would exit his throat is another batch of voodoo science





If this doesn't illustrate why Ryberg and Ford did what they did - nothing else can. The backwound is lower than the throat wound. Physics doesn't work that way




I'm of the opinion that what we see here on the xray is after Humes (or whoever) destroys JFK's skull thereby hiding any evidence of direction or entry.






Boswell's wonderful drawing and its explanation gives us an idea of how badly his skull was broken up at Bethesda or enroute.


The Vomer bone in his nose was crushed... the fracture he describes is thru the bottom of the skull, not the top as the faked xrays show.

It's hard top imagine anything holding his face up in that bottom left image - Boswell's notes are most revealing in that what was a hole in one area of the head becomes an area of missing bone incredibly large.

10x17cm is 4x6.7 INCHES missing from the top and right side of his head... There is nothing prior to Bethesda that would suggest that much damage... http://www.ctka.net/2014-mantik/essay/Harper1.html is a wonderful analysis by Dr. Mantik and a must read for anyone serious about this aspect of the case...


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm Q. Where it says 10 by 17 missing, would that be referringto 10 centimeters by 17 centimeters?
A. Right.
Q. Right above the 10, there's a space where there's amarking that appears to say 19 centimeters or 19 cm. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What does that refer to?
A. That's the--when the scalp is reflected,

Page 65
the space measured 19 centimeters at that level up there,just back behind the frontal bone.
Q. Was there any laceration in the scalp that extendedapproximately 19 centimeters?
A. No. The scalp had to be reflected for part of that area,but there was an incised wound up there that extended into the right eye socketand then back across his temporal and frontal bone.
Q. So the 19 centimeters does not refer then to the lengthof the laceration--
A. No.
Q. --in the scalp?
A. That was just the area of the space up there at thatlevel.
Q. Now, was that--I'm sorry I'm not understanding, but wasthat some kind of a fissure or a break in the bone that was 19 centimeters?
A. The bone was all fragmented for that distance, 19centimeters across the frontal bone.
Q. Going up further on the diagram, there appears to be a"3 cm" right over what appears to me to be the left eye. Is thatcorrect? First,

Page 66
does that say "3 cm"?
A. Yes. And that's not my writing. Either Jim or--and thatdoesn't look like his writing, so that may be Pierre. That apparently is thevomer bone, which is crushed and drawn up there. I don't believe that this isin the frontal bone.
Q. When you say "this," you're pointing to therectangular shape?
A. To the little oblong 3-centimeter specimen there.
Q. Do you know what the 3 centimeters is referring to there?
A. I'm sure it must be--now, that is mine, that 3centimeters is my writing, and that must be the length of the piece of bonethere.
Q. Does that signify a cracked bone or--
A. Crushed, yeah.
Q. Crushed?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Could you explain why, at least to me as a lay person, itappears that there is a rectangular drawing near what I would presume to be thearea of

Page 67
the right--or the left orbit and it seems to be circular inthe right orbit? Is there some explanation for that that you know of?
A. Well, I remember that the fracture through the boneextended from the frontal bone and through the floor of the orbit. Why that isround and this one is square over here, I don't know.
Q. In the center of the circle on the right orbit, itappears that there is a hook-shaped line that crosses through the center of thecircle and then goes on to the front of that. Do you see that circle?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that signify a crack in the floor of the orbit? Isthat the purpose of that line?
A. Yes.

[Martin White]

I seem to recall that Harold Weisberg's position was that a nurse cut the tie with a scalpel at Parkland.