JFK's Shallow Back Wound and Knowledge of the Throat Wound at the Autopsy

[Tim Nickerson]

Let's address this nonsense from a different angle. For now let's put aside the crucial points that no photo or footage shows JFK's coat bunched enough to account for the location of the rear clothing holes, that the back-wound mark on the certified autopsy face sheet and the death certificate's placement of the back wound match the location of the rear clothing holes, that the back-wound location described (and in some cases drawn) by federal agents who saw the body matches the location of the rear clothing holes, etc. Let's just put those inconvenient facts aside and approach this issue from a different angle.

The bunch-up seen on Turtle Creek and elsewhere is rather significant. Perhaps as much as a couple of inches. Maybe a inch and a half. The jacket is bunched in the Croft photo but it's hard to tell just how much. I can't imagine that it would have dropped since Turtle Creek. Notations on the Facesheet place the wound 14 cms below the tip of the right mastoid process. You're saying that matched the holes in the clothing? How about the autopsy photo? Are we supposed to just disregard that?

First of all, not all clothing bunches overlap. Plenty of coat and shirt bunches simply bunch upward without overlapping or with only a partial overlap. But, of course, you are talking about a bunch that overlaps, and, yes, 1 inch of an overlapping bunch would use about 2 inches of fabric.

Second, let's assume that the modest overlapping bunch seen in Organ's graphic existed when the bullet struck JFK's back (never mind that Willis 5 shows no such bunch). And we'll leave aside the point that the bunch in his graphic is not big enough and not in the right location to explain the location of the rear hole in the coat, much less in the shirt. Never mind that problem.

Okay, the bunch in Organ's graphic is an overlapping bunch (as is the bunch in one of the other photos that he's posted). The photo in his graphic shows about 1 inch of coat bunched up in such a way that it is an overlapping bunch. Now, what would have happened if a bullet had struck that bunched part of the coat? Answer: You would have had three holes in the coat, two through the two overlapping layers of the bunch and another through the fabric that lay under the overlapping layers.

Surely this is such a self-evident point that it needs no further discussion. Even most young children can grasp this obvious fact. But, just in case you doubt this, go get a coat that you no longer want, create a bunch on the back of the coat similar to the one in Organ's graphic, and then take a nail and puncture the coat at the point of the bunch. I can positively assure you that you will see that when you flatten the coat, there will be three holes in it, two through the overlapping layers and one through the fabric that lay under the overlapping layers.

Moreover, a bullet that went through such a fanciful, impossible overlapping shirt bunch would have made three holes in the shirt, two through the overlapping layers and one through the fabric under the overlapping layers. If you doubt this self-evident point, go get an old shirt and perform the same experiment recommended for the coat. I can absolutely guarantee you that you will see three holes in the shirt after you penetrate the bunch and flatten the shirt.

To help you visualize this fact, just grab a piece of your shirt and pull it up in a bunch so that it overlaps the part of the shirt beneath it--the top part of the bunch has two layers, naturally, while the fabric that it overlaps has just one layer.

It seems like you guys just repeat each other's arguments without pausing to really think about them. Any objective thinking person will realize that it is preposterous to assume that JFK's tailor-made shirt could have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat, in both location and shape, especially given the fact that the shirt was buttoned and that JFK was sitting against most of the back of the shirt.

Similarly, even most young children can comprehend the self-evident fact that if a sharp object punches a hole through an overlapping bunch in a coat and shirt, there will be three holes in the coat and three holes in the shirt.

I can't believe that this would have to be pointed out to you but , neither Jerry nor I have the bullet passing through the bunched up portions of the clothing. 

And, holy smokes, please do explain how the back of the buttoned, tailor-made shirt, with JFK sitting back against most of it, would have bunched in such a way that it formed virtually the same shape as the coat bunch and formed directly under the coat bunch. That's just bonkers ludicrous.

Even tailor made shirts like Kennedy's do bunch up. The jacket is seen bunched up in photos. If you want to try to make a case that the shirt wasn't, then perhaps you should try your hand at standup comedy.

[Tim Nickerson]

Where is Caprio now that we need him?  He used to claim that because JFK wore expensive suits from Brooks Brothers that they would never "bunch" to rebut the evidence visible with his own eyes.  If a time machine were invented to allow some of these kooks to sit in Oswald's lap as he pulled the trigger, they would gouge their own eyes out to avoid acknowledging his guilt and proclaim his innocence while the shots were still ringing in their ears.

Caprio is on Facebook. He's posting in several groups under a fake identity.

[Tim Nickerson]

For now let's put aside the crucial points that no photo or footage shows JFK's coat bunched enough to account for the location of the rear clothing holes,

What would be the height in inches that JFK's coat would need to be bunched up in order for the hole in it to match up with the entry wound as seen in the autopsy photo(s) or as described on the Facesheet(14 cms below the tip of the rt. mastoid process)?

[Michael T. Griffith]

What would be the height in inches that JFK's coat would need to be bunched up in order for the hole in it to match up with the entry wound as seen in the autopsy photo(s) or as described on the Facesheet (14 cms below the tip of the rt. mastoid process)?

Just go look at the rear coat and shirt holes and then look where C6/C7 is on JFK's neck. Both of the clothing holes are over 5 inches below their respective collars. We have plenty of photos that show a side or rear view of JFK's coat and shirt collars on his neck. Anyone not blinded by bias can see that the coat alone would have had to bunch far, far higher/more than we see it bunched in any photo or footage taken during the motorcade.

[Tim Nickerson]

Just go look at the rear coat and shirt holes and then look where C6/C7 is on JFK's neck. Both of the clothing holes are over 5 inches below their respective collars. We have plenty of photos that show a side or rear view of JFK's coat and shirt collars on his neck. Anyone not blinded by bias can see that the coat alone would have had to bunch far, far higher/more than we see it bunched in any photo or footage taken during the motorcade.

You're not answering my question. I asked you to give me a number. You can give half inch or quarter of an inch graduations, like one and a half or two and a quarter. Just give me a number. What would be the height in inches that JFK's coat would need to be bunched up in order for the hole in it to match up with the entry wound as seen in the autopsy photo(s) or as described on the Facesheet (14 cms below the tip of the rt. mastoid process)?

[Tim Nickerson]

Been trying to figure that one out, Tim. Some CTs seem to think along these lines:

The throat wound was above the shirt collar and tie. These medical marvels believe the necktie knot wasn't scraped by a bullet, but rather Parkland nurses (get this) caused the nick on the tie-knot and the "slits" in the short collar by using sharp-pointed scissors to remove the clothing (I'm not kidding; they believe this). That allows them to have the throat wound higher than it really is.

So with the throat wound artificially higher, these CTs then project backward the angle to the window (the guy above in the Jefferies film-grab used 22° that he pulled out of his a-zz). From this, they "determine" where the "brainwashed WC apologist" back wound would have to enter. And it's through the "bunch" like Griffith contends.


The slope is about 20° to the horizon (about 17° through the body relative to street level). I'm not saying the SBT occurred at Z223-225; it could be a few frames earlier.

If you make a more full-profile outline of JFK's body in the Jefferies film, it would look like this,. I have added a 17° slope and nape creases.

"Can't you see the bunch on the rightward side of the jacket nape?"

I don't think that the shot occured after Z223. I say between Z222 and Z223. Maybe as early as Z221.

Nice compilation of photos and graphics, btw.

[Tim Nickerson]

Graphically, it's good to depict the SBT near Z225 because that's when both men come into view. The next-generation 3D artists will be able to make the darn highway sign transparent and go to the more viable-frame.



Alas, the next-generation 3D is here and they're screwing it up big-time. Nice hair, though.

I understand. But I don't worry about coming up with a graphical depiction. I leave that up to people like you. 

I'm just going by the reflex reactions of Kennedy and Connally. Although, Sturdivan believes that Kennedy's reaction wasn't a reflex one.