JFK's Tie Knot

[Bob Prudhomme]

I'm currently having a discussion at the Ed Forum, regarding JFK's tie and the nick in it made by a projectile of some type. Below is a photo of the tie, untied, as seen in the National Archives. We are looking at the part of the tie that made the front of the knot, making the nick horizontal and, presumably, on the anatomical left edge of the tie knot.



Note the pattern of round and square "icons" on the tie, and that the pattern above is five icons wide. Once the tie is tied, the horizontal rows of 5 icons, seen above, would become vertical rows of 5 icons on the tie knot.

Next is a gif of the tie knot, posted by a Mr. Ashton Gray at the Ed Forum, super imposed over a close up of the tie knot worn by JFK just prior to the assassination:



Note how the 5 horizontal icons, seen in the Archives photo, have become 5 vertical icons on the tie knot, and how the nick has strangely migrated to the front of the tie, all thanks to Photoshop. What would appear to some to be the top of the tie knot is, according to them, just a sloppily tied tie with the inner parts of the knot protruding above the tie knot. In fact, just to help me see things more clearly, one member posted this photo, with an accompanying red arrow to show me where the top of the tie knot is:



What I am about to show you is visual proof of evidence tampering; for what purpose, I have no idea, although I suspect it may have something to do with the SBT.

Here is a photo of JFK wearing the tie seen in the Archives photo, taken on 22/11/63 at Love Field, I believe:



Left click on this photo to enlarge it. On the face of the tie knot, you will see two vertical rows of round and square "icons" that should be a perfect match for the horizontal rows of icons seen in the Archives photo at the beginning. However, in this larger photo, it is plain to see the tie knot does not end where the red arrow points it out, but continues right up to the collar. If we count the icons, we can see there are 6 icons in each row, not the 5 icons per row seen in the Archives photo.

The Ed Forum members tell me I am mistaken. What do you think?

[Albert Doyle]

You're mistaken.


If you look closely the 6th row of icons is actually a separate row from the tie behind the front knot. The way you tie a tie is that front part goes back behind and comes up, around, and back down through the front part to make the knot. You are looking at that back loop part when you see that extra row.


This does raise an interesting point that according to the damage there should also be parts of the rest of that back loop that are also shot through and therefore visibly damaged.

[Bob Prudhomme]

You're mistaken.


If you look closely the 6th row of icons is actually a separate row from the tie behind the front knot. The way you tie a tie is that front part goes back behind and comes up, around, and back down through the front part to make the knot. You are looking at that back loop part when you see that extra row.


This does raise an interesting point that according to the damage there should also be parts of the rest of that back loop that are also shot through and therefore visibly damaged.

It comes as no surprise at all to me that you agree with these people, Albert.

Tell me, don't you think it strange that the two icons seen at the top of each row are a perfect match for the five icons seen below each of them, if they are on a separate part of the tie?

[Albert Doyle]

If you look closely they don't align. The Maltese Cross icon is slightly off-center to the row it is lined up with.


It is not surprising that a near alignment would occur because if you look at the pattern both the vertical and horizontal patterns are in an evenly-spaced grid.


But if you have good eyesight you can see the seam between the two different tie sections.


According to the damage there should be other parts of the tie that are damaged.

[Bob Prudhomme]

If you look closely they don't align. The Maltese Cross icon is slightly off-center to the row it is lined up with.


It is not surprising that a near alignment would occur because if you look at the pattern both the vertical and horizontal patterns are in an evenly-spaced grid.


But if you have good eyesight you can see the seam between the two different tie sections.


According to the damage there should be other parts of the tie that are damaged.

It's called fabric, Albert. Any distortion is a result of fabric stretching. And no, I do not see a "seam" between the two tie sections, no matter how much I enlarge it.

[Drew Phipps]

Bob: Isn't the small picture of the tie on his neck the same photo as the large picture? It's cropped, of course, and its lighter, but it looks exactly the same. How can you see the end of the knot in one place in one version of the picture and not see the end of the knot in the other version? I must say that the face part of the tie has 6 icons across, not 5. Perhaps a zoomed out photo of the tie from the archives could answer the question whether the tie is 5 icons wide at the knot area or 6 icons wide all down the tie.

I see. The tie is 7 icons wide down by the coat, so the tie is cut wider the further down you go, and the more of the pattern is visible.

One other thing: Didn't a nurse at Parkland say that the nick in the tie happened when they were surgically removing it?

[Alan Ford]

I'm currently having a discussion at the Ed Forum, regarding JFK's tie and the nick in it made by a projectile of some type. Below is a photo of the tie, untied, as seen in the National Archives. We are looking at the part of the tie that made the front of the knot, making the nick horizontal and, presumably, on the anatomical left edge of the tie knot.



Note the pattern of round and square "icons" on the tie, and that the pattern above is five icons wide. Once the tie is tied, the horizontal rows of 5 icons, seen above, would become vertical rows of 5 icons on the tie knot.

Next is a gif of the tie knot, posted by a Mr. Ashton Gray at the Ed Forum, super imposed over a close up of the tie knot worn by JFK just prior to the assassination:



Note how the 5 horizontal icons, seen in the Archives photo, have become 5 vertical icons on the tie knot, and how the nick has strangely migrated to the front of the tie, all thanks to Photoshop. What would appear to some to be the top of the tie knot is, according to them, just a sloppily tied tie with the inner parts of the knot protruding above the tie knot. In fact, just to help me see things more clearly, one member posted this photo, with an accompanying red arrow to show me where the top of the tie knot is:



What I am about to show you is visual proof of evidence tampering; for what purpose, I have no idea, although I suspect it may have something to do with the SBT.

Here is a photo of JFK wearing the tie seen in the Archives photo, taken on 22/11/63 at Love Field, I believe:



Left click on this photo to enlarge it. On the face of the tie knot, you will see two vertical rows of round and square "icons" that should be a perfect match for the horizontal rows of icons seen in the Archives photo at the beginning. However, in this larger photo, it is plain to see the tie knot does not end where the red arrow points it out, but continues right up to the collar. If we count the icons, we can see there are 6 icons in each row, not the 5 icons per row seen in the Archives photo.

The Ed Forum members tell me I am mistaken. What do you think?

Not sure where you are headed with this, Mr. Prudhomme, but in respect to the comparison you noted between the Archive image bearing only five (5) icons as compared to the six (6) icons you have noted, you are not mistaken. In fact, the further one looks downward upon the tie-material additional icons appear. I count as many as eight (8) on at least the last four (4) rows near the bottom of the material.

perhaps the differences in icon count may be because of the surgical removal of the tie, which I personally doubt, but an open mind in these matters better serves the truth long term, so, that said, I'd rather follow the evidence here wherever it may lead, but nice catch on noting the obvious difference in the icon count (just cannot visualize anyone surgically removing the tie knot while also removing icons).

[Alan Ford]

Where's the bullet hole? ---->



Didn't a bullet fired by a lone gunman rip through this tie?

Just like a bunch of lying treasonous cowards to shoot an unarmed man and then lie about it.

[Albert Doyle]

It's called fabric, Albert. Any distortion is a result of fabric stretching. And no, I do not see a "seam" between the two tie sections, no matter how much I enlarge it.

Ashton Gray's flash gif is accurate. The seam is where it is in his gif. I can see it clearly.

[Alan Ford]

It's called fabric, Albert. Any distortion is a result of fabric stretching. And no, I do not see a "seam" between the two tie sections, no matter how much I enlarge it.

Ashton Gray's flash gif is accurate. The seam is where it is in his gif. I can see it clearly.

Any chance you could share Mr. Gray's image here for closer examination?

Perhaps his image, under closer examination, has evidence of the noticeably missing bullet hole in the Archive's exhibit of the president's tie.