JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

NEW ARTICLE: JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible

(1/24) > >>

Michael T. Griffith:
I have web-published a new article titled "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible" on my JFK website. The article is about a 12-minute read. Half of the article consists of photos and diagrams. Here's the link to the article:

JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view

I show that JFK's tie alone refutes the SBT. There was no hole through the tie knot, nor through any other part of the tie. I present a number of photos of JFK just before and during the motorcade that prove JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of his collar. I note that these photos, along with the photo of the front shirt slits, prove that at least half of the knot would have been centered over the slits, which proves that any bullet exiting the slits could not have avoided tearing through the knot and could not have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface.

I also show that the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat refute the SBT. In the process, I address the ludicrous bunched-clothing theory that most WC apologists have offered to try to explain how a bullet that allegedly struck at the base of the neck could have made clothing holes that were more than 5 inches below the collar. I address two photos that WC defenders cite that they say prove JFK's shirt could have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat, never mind that in those photos JFK is not wearing a coat, is not sitting back against a seat, and has his arms on his legs!

I address other issues as well, including the autopsy face sheet, blood stains on the collar that contradict the SBT, confirmation that the Parkland nurses made the slits and nicked the tie knot while hurriedly removing JFK's clothing, Chuck Marler's experiments that refute the bunched-clothing theory, photographic evidence that refutes the bunched-clothing theory, the Sibert and O'Neill HSCA wound diagrams that place the back wound well below the throat wound, the death certificate's location for the back wound (T3), the HSCA's admission that there was no damage to the fabric lining below the nick in the tie knot and that the nick is only on the outer surface of the knot, the autopsy photo of the back wound, and Dr. Josiah Thompson's microscopic examination of the original color Willis Slide 5.

Lance Payette:
I'm sure it's a well-done article for what it is - essentially a CT legal brief - but this is what I call the Cliff Varnell Syndrome. Too many qualified experts have examined the evidence and reached different conclusions to use the term "IMPOSSIBLE." I'm not going to dive into an endless debate, but there are just too many variables to be using the term impossible. The emergency tracheotomy seems to me enough of a variable to make all speculation about the tie little more than a guessing game. As I always used to say to the medical and forensic pseudo-experts at the Ed Forum, if you're confident of the quality of your work, submit it to a peer-reviewed forensic journal.

I also see that you don't even mention JFK's brace, which seems a curious omission.

Lance Payette:
I would just add, and then I'll go away ...

Let's think about all the conspirators did: Two caskets, two autopsies, alter the body, fake x-rays, fake photos, lose the brain, fabricate CE 399, threaten and intimidate doctors, lie under oath, and so on and so forth.

But they did NOTHING with the clothes? How difficult would it have been to alter THEM? If nothing else, simply tear them a bit so they are of no evidential value and say it occurred during the frantic efforts at Parkland or at the laboratory. Isn't this the "Three Stooges at Step 5" thing again?

We also have the problem of a back entry and a throat entry that just happen to line up very closely but no bullet to go with either one - not a problem?

Having been through the peer-review process for law review articles, I can tell that you that sloppy thinking and obvious unanswered questions don't just slide through.

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 16, 2025, 02:19:46 PM ---I'm sure it's a well-done article for what it is - essentially a CT legal brief - but this is what I call the Cliff Varnell Syndrome. Too many qualified experts have examined the evidence and reached different conclusions to use the term "IMPOSSIBLE."
--- End quote ---

Name a single pro-WC expert who has explained how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or how it could have magically weaved around the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface. Name one. We both know you can't. JFK's clothing does indeed prove the SBT is impossible, but you just won't admit it.

You guys have been ducking this fact for decades, just like you keep ducking other major facts, such as the drastic conflict between the autopsy brain photos and the skull x-rays, the drastic conflict between the autopsy report and the skull x-rays and photos, the markedly different drafts of the autopsy report, the fragments on the rear outer table of the skull on the skull x-rays, etc., etc.


--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 16, 2025, 02:19:46 PM ---I'm not going to dive into an endless debate, but there are just too many variables to be using the term impossible. The emergency tracheotomy seems to me enough of a variable to be make all speculation about the tie little more than a guessing game.
--- End quote ---

A lame dodge and copout. There is no "guessing" or "speculation" here. We know where the slits were. We know where the tie knot was during the motorcade. We know where the nick on the knot was. We know the nick was superficial and that the fabric lining below the nick was undamaged. We know there was no hole through the tie in any part of the tie. We have photographic evidence that establishes all of these facts.

The problem is you simply can't bring yourself to face cold, hard physical evidence that destroys your version of the shooting.


--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 16, 2025, 02:19:46 PM ---As I always used to say to the medical and forensic pseudo-experts at the Ed Forum, if you're confident of the quality of your work, submit it to a peer-reviewed forensic journal.
--- End quote ---

Another lame dodge and copout. As I said before when you made this argument, you guys still reject the clear evidence that JFK was hit before Z190, even though Olson and Turner established this in an article published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, and even though their finding was confirmed by the HSCA's photographic experts.

Furthermore, you don't need to be a medical or forensic expert to readily and easily see that there is no way on this planet that a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot, and that there is no way such a bullet could have magically weaved around the knot like a guided missile and nicked the outer surface of the knot. You just need two functioning eyes, common sense, and objectivity.


--- Quote from: Lance Payette on September 16, 2025, 02:19:46 PM ---I also see that you don't even mention JFK's brace, which seems a curious omission.
--- End quote ---

A very curious argument. More reaching and straining. What does the back brace have to do with the throat wound, the clothing holes, and the tie, and the fact that there was no hole through the tie? The brace was nowhere near his back wound and was even farther from his throat wound. Explain to me how the back brace could possibly explain the fact that JFK's tie was centered in the middle of his collar band, that at least half of the tie knot was centered directly over the shirt slits, and that no hole was made through the tie knot or through any other part of the tie.

You guys are almost as bad as Flat Earthers or 9/11 Truthers or Moon-landing deniers. Like them, none of you can bring yourselves to face cold, hard physical evidence that destroys your theory. Your desperate excuses and evasions are just about as absurd as theirs are.

Ted Shields:
I dont see any proof. Just opinion.

But if it wasnt a single bullet from Oswalds rifle and there was another bullet - where did it come from?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page