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

[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]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

[Lance Payette]

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?

Even more to the point, where did it go? (Hint: CIA-issued melting ice bullet.  )

"NO WAY ON EARTH!!!" says Michael - again, CT hyperbole. If you want to be taken seriously, you can't just write CT legal briefs. You have to deal with reality, as per below. (Oh, I know, Frazier was on the CT payroll - which is presumably why Michael's article doesn't even mention him.)

Sorry to intrude. Over and out.

ARLEN SPECTER -- What did you note, if anything, with respect to the tie, Mr. Frazier?

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- When the tie was examined by me in the laboratory, I noted that the neck portion had been cut from one side of the knot. However, the knot remained in apparently its original condition. The only damage to the tie other than the fact that it had been cut, was a crease or nick in the left side of the tie when you consider the tie as being worn on a body. As you view the front of the tie, it would be on the right side. This nick would be located in a corresponding area to the area in the shirt collar just below the button.

[...]

MR. SPECTER -- Does the nick in the tie provide any indication of the direction of the missile?

MR. FRAZIER -- The nick is elongated horizontally, indicating a possible horizontal direction, but it does not indicate that the projectile which caused it was exiting or entering at that point. The fibers were not disturbed in a characteristic manner which would permit any conclusion in that connection.

MR. SPECTER -- Is the nick consistent with an exiting path?

MR. FRAZIER -- Oh, yes.

MR. SPECTER -- Is there any indication from the nature of the nick as to the nature of the projectile itself?

MR. FRAZIER -- No, sir.

MR. SPECTER -- Is the nick consistent with a 6.5 millimeter bullet having caused the nick?

MR. FRAZIER -- Yes. Any projectile could have caused the nick. In this connection, there was no metallic residue found on the tie, and for that matter there was no metallic residue found on the shirt at the holes in the front. However, there was in the back.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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?

He thinks Babushka Lady (who he says was really the CIA agent June Cobb) possibly used a gun camera. That "possibly" covers a lot of ground in conspiracy world.

My guess is he thinks it came from that gun. Well, "possibly".

[Michael T. Griffith]

I dont see any proof.

Because you don't want to see any proof. Because you are determined to believe in the SBT myth, no matter what, since otherwise you'd have to admit that more than one gunman fired at JFK, and you're not willing to do that.

Just opinion.

Oh, "just opinion"?! The photos showing JFK's tie knot during the motorcade are not "just opinion." The photo of the shirt slits is not "just opinion." The photos of the tie are not "just opinion." They are hard physical evidence.

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?

In other words: "Gee, I'm not going to let myself face the reality of the hard physical evidence of JFK's clothing because I'm going to theorize that if there had been a conspiracy, it would have been a conspiracy that was perfect and all-controlling, a conspiracy that overlooked nothing, that left no evidence behind, and that anticipated every potential problem. Yeah, who ever heard of a complex criminal operation that did not go according to plan and that failed to cover every trace of its actions?!"

This is the silliness you must embrace to justify your refusal to face the hard physical evidence of JFK's clothing.

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?

Seriously? This nonsense again? Never mind that the clothing proves that no bullet exited the throat and the shirt slits?

The wounds do not "line up very closely." Canning couldn't get them to line up. Baden had to assume JFK was leaning some 60 degrees forward to get them to line up. The Knott Lab SBT trajectory analysis, the most sophisticated ever done, proves they don't line up.

There was no direct path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine, as Dr. Nichols and Dr. Mantik have documented. That's why the WC had to move the back wound at least 1 inch to the right and at least 1 inch upward.

We now know that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely, definitively established at the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point--they and others around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, which is why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. The throat wound only suddenly became the exit point for the back wound after Oswald was killed and they knew there would be no trial.

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.

This is the kind of sophistry and posturing that come from desperately wanting to believe in a theory and being unwilling to face clear, obvious, self-evident physical evidence that destroys it.

Notice that you have not said one blessed word to try to explain the physical evidence under discussion--not a syllable. You've danced around and around and around it with strawman arguments and spurious claims. You know that you can't dispute the fact, obvious to all, that JFK's tie was centered between the collar band. You know you can't deny that at least half of the tie knot was centered directly over the shirt slits. You know you can't deny that no bullet exiting the slits could have missed the tie knot. You know you can't deny that no bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the knot and nicked the outer surface of the knot.

You know you can't deny these things because they are self-evident to anyone with two working eyes and a modicum of intelligence and common sense. So, rather than face these facts, you wave them aside and fall back on erroneous assumptions and strawman arguments that don't lay a finger on the physical evidence.