05-02-2016, 08:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2016, 09:28 PM by Drew Phipps.)
Now that I've had a look at the full picture of the tie in the Archives, it is apparent to me that the torn area is too far toward the tail end of the tie to be the top of the knot, or any part of the knot. In a Windsor knot, or double Windsor knot, the last "bend" of the tie material (as it passes over the top and then thru the horizontal bit of tie that holds it in) is closer to the fat front end of the tie, than the rest of the knot. If the nick was the top of the knot, or even the front of the knot, when you undo the knot, the nick would be closer to the fat front than halfway for sure. The tail end of the tie in the Archives, on the contrary, has the nick in it.
The tail end of the tie passes almost straight thru the knot. It is the axis around which the fat side of the tie is woven to create the knot. If the nick/bloodstain is where the Archives photo seems to indicate, then it appears that the nick is roughly where the narrow end of the tie would enter a Windsor knot. I note that the tie has been cut clean into 2 pieces, which perhaps lends support for the nick being a part of that cutting activity.
Here's what I'm wondering. Why would you cut the narrow end of the tie below the knot? You'd still have to pull part of the narrow end of the tie through the bulk of the knot to remove it, possibly still having to apply force to the back of the patient's neck to get the job done. Why not loosen the tie (enough to avoid cutting the patient) and slice it ABOVE the knot, making the removal of the whole thing easier?
If CE394 was sliced in two above the knot, then that nick/bloodstain is truly in the wrong place (by 3-4 inches) to be a part of the neck wound. IF CE394 was sliced in two below the knot, and if the nick/bloodstain can't be INSIDE the knot (or else other parts of the tie would be damaged), then the nick would have to where the thin part of the tie emerges from the knot. To the right side (as you face JFK), which seems to me to be out of line to the proposed magic bullet path... and the projectile would have to travel through the shirt!
The tail end of the tie passes almost straight thru the knot. It is the axis around which the fat side of the tie is woven to create the knot. If the nick/bloodstain is where the Archives photo seems to indicate, then it appears that the nick is roughly where the narrow end of the tie would enter a Windsor knot. I note that the tie has been cut clean into 2 pieces, which perhaps lends support for the nick being a part of that cutting activity.
Here's what I'm wondering. Why would you cut the narrow end of the tie below the knot? You'd still have to pull part of the narrow end of the tie through the bulk of the knot to remove it, possibly still having to apply force to the back of the patient's neck to get the job done. Why not loosen the tie (enough to avoid cutting the patient) and slice it ABOVE the knot, making the removal of the whole thing easier?
If CE394 was sliced in two above the knot, then that nick/bloodstain is truly in the wrong place (by 3-4 inches) to be a part of the neck wound. IF CE394 was sliced in two below the knot, and if the nick/bloodstain can't be INSIDE the knot (or else other parts of the tie would be damaged), then the nick would have to where the thin part of the tie emerges from the knot. To the right side (as you face JFK), which seems to me to be out of line to the proposed magic bullet path... and the projectile would have to travel through the shirt!
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."