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

[Tommy Shanks]

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".

Precisely. Griffith and others have no explanation for where all these extra bullets came from and absconded off to other than waving the whole issue away by claiming that the evidence was instead tampered with or faked.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Precisely. Griffith and others have no explanation for where all these extra bullets came from and absconded off to other than waving the whole issue away by claiming that the evidence was instead tampered with or faked.

How does this evasive polemic explain the hard physical evidence of the tie, the shirt slits, and the rear clothing holes? Your argument amounts to saying,

"I'm not going to deal with the actual physical evidence itself because WC skeptics can't explain--to my satisfaction--where the extra bullets came from or what happened to them."

You're falling back on theory and assumption to avoid dealing with hard physical evidence that you can't explain, even though that physical evidence refutes your theory and assumption.

We both know you have no idea how a bullet exiting the throat and then the slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot, or how the bullet could have magically managed to nick the top surface of the knot without going through the knot. It is obvious to any rational, objective person that no bullet exiting the slits could have done these things. There's no way it could have missed the knot, and there's no way it could have navigated around the knot and nicked the knot's top surface, especially since the nick was not on the edge of the knot.

We all know this, but you guys won't admit it because doing so would require you to ditch the lone-gunman theory.

Incidentally, you might want to read my article "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view

Quote from Lance Payette on Today at 02:19:46 PM
I also see that you don't even mention JFK's brace, which seems a curious omission.

Actually, I do in fact mention JFK's back brace in the article, but not in relation to the tie or the shirt slits. I mention it when discussing Sibert's HSCA interview by noting that Sibert said he rejected the bunched-clothing theory because the back brace would have helped to prevent JFK's shirt from bunching substantially:

Sibert said he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched high enough to account
for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly
even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped
to hold the shirt in place (Sibert deposition, p. 162). (p. 16)

I guess you missed that when you skimmed through the article.

[Lance Payette]

Actually, I do in fact mention JFK's back brace in the article, but not in relation to the tie or the shirt slits. I mention it when discussing Sibert's HSCA interview by noting that Sibert said he rejected the bunched-clothing theory because the back brace would have helped to prevent JFK's shirt from bunching substantially:

Sibert said he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched high enough to account
for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly
even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped
to hold the shirt in place (Sibert deposition, p. 162). (p. 16)

I guess you missed that when you skimmed through the article.

Actually, the Google "find" feature missed it and continues to do so, but I do see it now. I simply say the brace is a variable that has to be factored in. It may cut the way Sibert suggests or it may not.

What happened, one wonders, to the theory, which I believe even you were promoting, that Dr. Carrico was the only real witness, he said the wound was "above the collar," and the slits were all caused by the nurses with a scalpel as they removed the shirt and tie? Supposedly Carrico acknowledged to Weisberg that the nurses had used a scalpel, Mantik and others said all the slits "aligned perfectly," and Mantik and Weisberg said the slits when examined were more indicative of a scalpel than a bullet. I have no dog in the fight, but how would this help the CT cause or damage the LN cause?

I found a much earlier article by CTer Jerry McKnight that was not unlike yours, followed by a respectful colloquy with LN advocate Todd Vaughan which fell far short of McKnight (or Vaughan, for that matter) claiming anything was "impossible." It's these exaggerated claims that any lawyer would tell you greatly undercut the force of your argument. There are simply too many variables and unknowns to be claiming this sort of certainty.

Even your fellow CTer John Orr (yes, I am now on his payroll, which at least adds to the paltry stipend I receive from Langley) agrees with the WC view that the exiting bullet nicked the tie. See page 11: http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JohnOrrReport.pdf. How does that factor into your analysis of impossibility? Is Orr as stupid as Lance and the others here? The HSCA likewise didn't seem to find the impossibility that you do.

FWIW to anyone who cares, here is an interesting photo of JFK's necktie (earlier on 11-22-63) on the left with the damaged knot superimposed on the right. I have no idea how accurate this is or isn't.

[Jack Nessan]

Actually, the Google "find" feature missed it and continues to do so, but I do see it now. I simply say the brace is a variable that has to be factored in. It may cut the way Sibert suggests or it may not.

What happened, one wonders, to the theory, which I believe even you were promoting, that Dr. Carrico was the only real witness, he said the wound was "above the collar," and the slits were all caused by the nurses with a scalpel as they removed the shirt and tie? Supposedly Carrico acknowledged to Weisberg that the nurses had used a scalpel, Mantik and others said all the slits "aligned perfectly," and Mantik and Weisberg said the slits when examined were more indicative of a scalpel than a bullet. I have no dog in the fight, but how would this help the CT cause or damage the LN cause?

I found a much earlier article by CTer Jerry McKnight that was not unlike yours, followed by a respectful colloquy with LN advocate Todd Vaughan which fell far short of McKnight (or Vaughan, for that matter) claiming anything was "impossible." It's these exaggerated claims that any lawyer would tell you greatly undercut the force of your argument. There are simply too many variables and unknowns to be claiming this sort of certainty.

Even your fellow CTer John Orr (yes, I am now on his payroll, which at least adds to the paltry stipend I receive from Langley) agrees with the WC view that the exiting bullet nicked the tie. See page 11: http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JohnOrrReport.pdf. How does that factor into your analysis of impossibility? Is Orr as stupid as Lance and the others here? The HSCA likewise didn't seem to find the impossibility that you do.

FWIW to anyone who cares, here is an interesting photo of JFK's necktie (earlier on 11-22-63) on the left with the damaged knot superimposed on the right. I have no idea how accurate this is or isn't.

LP-- “I have no dog in the fight”

Oh, but you do. We all do. Individuals like M Griffith are trying to rewrite history by claiming our government was overthrown that day. They believe a shadow government was installed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and is still running things today. He simply makes up what he needs to, in order to sell the narrative. Walking the tight rope between the opposing views accomplishes nothing. There are no partially correct answers. MG realizes this fact. It is why he is so unyielding about admitting the truth instead opting to create his own fantasy fact filled world.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Well, predictably, the labored, strained replies of SBT believers are a sight to behold.

This is not rocket science. We're not talking about speculation or theory, but about plainly observable facts. We have JFK's clothing. We have the photos that show where JFK's tie knot was positioned, the photo of the shirt slits, the photos that show there was no hole through JFK's tie, and the photo that shows the superficial nick on the outer surface of the knot. A child can comprehend the self-evident fact that no bullet exiting the slits could have missed the tie knot, much less magically weaved around the knot to nick the knot's outer surface.

Sometimes small things destroy convoluted theories. In this case, a theory that was conceived in desperation and was controversial and disputed from the outset has been destroyed by a tie, two small shirt slits, a small hole in the back of JFK's shirt, and a small hole in the back of JFK's coat. This destruction happened in the 1990s when Weisberg gained access to high-quality photos of the tie, but, as they have with so many other inconvenient facts, WC apologists have refused to admit it.

History is full of examples of carefully planned criminal schemes that were discovered because seemingly minor items of damning evidence were overlooked. Yet, we have WC true believers in this very thread making the silly argument that we can ignore the hard physical evidence of the clothing because any JFK murder plot would have been perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and would not have left behind any evidence that could expose it.

Of course, we should keep in mind that in 1964, the WC believed its unpublished records would remain sealed for 75 years. The FBI did not anticipate that researchers would file lawsuits that would eventually force the disclosure of high-quality photos of JFK's tie and of unpublished reports/paragraphs about the clothing evidence. 

We should also remember that early on the FBI published a misleading photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the middle of the knot (FBI Exhibit 60). When Weisberg tried to gain access to high-quality photos of the tie, the FBI fought him tooth and nail. Now we know why.

The JFK assassination plot began to unravel the split second that Connally was hit, which was not supposed to happen. Yet, even then, for weeks the FBI and the WC did their best to pretend that all of JFK's and Connally's wounds were caused by only three bullets.

But then along came the recognition of the timing problem and the Tague wounding. The FBI did their level best to ignore the Tague wounding but were finally forced to deal with it. The timing problem and then the Tague wounding forced Specter to concoct the SBT. We now know that even three WC members scoffed at the zany theory.