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

[Lance Payette]

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.

Nice try, but you have this exactly backwards. I have stated that forensic accident and crime scene reconstruction is full of improbabilities, inconsistencies and things that don't quite fit. It's to be expected.

YOU have these "seemingly minor items of damning evidence" being overlooked by conspirators who had two caskets and two autopsies, altered the body, faked x-rays, faked photos, destroyed the brain, fabricated CE 399, threatened and intimidated doctors, lied under oath, and engaged in a massive cover-up that sounds more like science fiction than real life. Indeed, YOU posit conspirators who are pretty much "all-knowing and all-powerful" - except when they conveniently (for CTers) turn into the Three Stooges again and again.

These damn near omnipotent conspirators FORGOT ABOUT THE HOLES IN THE CLOTHING while they were switching caskets, altering the body and whatnot!!! Is that plausible, given YOUR OWN scenario? With possibly the most obvious and easy to manipulate evidence - the clothing - the conspiratorial geniuses just had a massive brain fart and completely overlooked it, all the way from the FBI Lab to the National Archives? They left it right there in the open for CT geniuses like Michael T. Griffith and Cliff Varnell to recognize it was IMPOSSIBLE to square with the LN narrative (even though an awful lot of experts and even some of their fellow CTers disagree). Ya think? (Well, yes, you do - that's the scary part.)

I have no problem with the holes in the clothing raising questions. It's to be expected and casts no real doubt on the LN narrative. The more you and Cliff shout IMPOSSIBLE, the less credible you appear.

[David Von Pein]

IN 2017, SANDY LARSEN SAID:

I haven't yet encountered an LNer who gives a damn about the question, "HOW DID THE MAGIC BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But don't you have the exact same problem if the bullet ENTERED the throat (versus it EXITING the throat)?

Don't the CTers who think JFK's throat wound was an ENTRANCE wound still have to ask themselves the very same question you just asked me? I.E.,

"HOW DID THE BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"

How does the belief that the throat wound was a wound of entry make the above question go away for the conspiracy theorists? Do they think if the bullet entered the Adam's Apple area of JFK's throat, it somehow was able to miss the tie knot area entirely? But if it exited there, it had no choice but go through the tie knot and create a hole? Is that it?

Much More:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1244.html#JFK's-Necktie

[Michael T. Griffith]

IN 2017, SANDY LARSEN SAID:

I haven't yet encountered an LNer who gives a damn about the question, "HOW DID THE MAGIC BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But don't you have the exact same problem if the bullet ENTERED the throat (versus it EXITING the throat)?

Don't the CTers who think JFK's throat wound was an ENTRANCE wound still have to ask themselves the very same question you just asked me? I.E.,

"HOW DID THE BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"

How does the belief that the throat wound was a wound of entry make the above question go away for the conspiracy theorists? Do they think if the bullet entered the Adam's Apple area of JFK's throat, it somehow was able to miss the tie knot area entirely? But if it exited there, it had no choice but go through the tie knot and create a hole? Is that it?

Nope, not at all. You again show that your research is decades behind the information curve.

Your question is easy to answer: The throat wound was above the tie knot/collar, just as Dr. Carrico, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Goldstrich said it was. JFK's tie and shirt slits confirm this. They confirm that Carrico was correct and truthful when he told and showed Dulles, and later Weisberg, that the throat wound was above the tie. This explains why the Parkland doctors described damage behind the throat wound that was larger than the throat wound itself, a dead giveaway and textbook indicator that the wound was an entry wound. This is a great example of evidence powerfully coming together to form a clear picture.

Dr. Ronald Jones saw JFK's body before the clothes were removed. Interviewed for the 2023 Paramount documentary JFK: What the Doctors Saw, Dr. Jones said the throat wound was "visible" and that it was "just above where the shirt and tie was":

The first thing I noticed was a very small wound in his neck in the front. . . .
We could tell that the wound was in the front of the neck just above
where the shirt and tie was. So it was visible to you.
(18:12-18:19, 18:32-18:39)

Also, this was not the first time Jones said the throat wound was above the tie and visible before the clothing was removed. He said the same thing in an interview years earlier, in 2014:

“I noticed a small wound in the midline of the neck just above the
tie knot that was approximately a quarter of an inch or 6 mm in diameter.”
(“The President’s Been Shot and They Are Bringing Him to the Emergency Room,”
Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Volume 218, Issue 4, April 2014,
pp. 856-868, http://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(14)00108-2/abstract)

In the Paramount documentary, Dr. Joe D. Goldstrich, a fourth-year medical student at Parkland Hospital at the time, said he could see the neck wound when JFK's clothes were still on:

I do remember that very early on, even when his clothes were
still on, I saw the wound in his neck. (18:20-18:28)

He would not have been able to see the throat wound if it had been under/behind the tie knot and the front shirt slits.

Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:

Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir. (3 H 361-362)

When Carrico spoke with Harold Weisberg in 1975, he confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:

When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was
definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his
own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole.
He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole
was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242)

Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg, Post Mortem, pp. 375-376; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Matrix_for_Assassination/SC-wBAAAQBAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=true, pp. 95-96; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf, p. 14)

Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt, in his book Reasonable Doubt, notes that one of the nurses confirmed that nurses made the shirt slits when they hurriedly cut away JFK’s tie and shirt (p. 60).

Dr. Malcolm Perry diagnosed the throat wound as an entrance wound because it was small (3-5 mm in diameter), neat (no ragged edges), and punched-in, and because of the damage he saw beneath the throat wound. He believed the missile had entered the throat and then ranged downward into the chest.

Dr. Kemp Clark said that Dr. Perry discovered that the trachea was deviated, and that Perry believed the missile had ranged downward into the chest:

He discovered that the trachea was deviated so he felt that the
missile had entered the President's chest. (6 H 22)

Dr. Clark said that Dr. Perry also saw blood in the strap muscles of the neck and that Perry believed this was another indication that the bullet had entered the chest:

The part pertaining to the bullet entering the President's chest rests
on the reasons for the placing of the chest tubes which were being
inserted when I arrived. It was the assumption, based on the previously
described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the
strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have
entered the President's chest. (6 H 28)

Dr. Perry explained that in addition to the damage to the trachea and the blood in the strap muscles, he also found “free air and blood” in the “superior right mediastinum” (the upper-right part of the central compartment of the chest cavity), which further led him to believe the missile had entered the chest:

I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried
it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying
the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral
aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea
was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the
strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea.
At this point, I recall. Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter
into a vein in the left arm because he handed me a necessary
instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure.

The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed
tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was
free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum. Although I saw
no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free
blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right
hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for
seal drain age. At the time I did not know who did this, but I have
been informed that Dr. Baxter and Dr. Paul Peters inserted the chest
tube and connected it to underwater drainage. (6 H 10)

Dr. Perry also noted there was considerable bruising in “the right lateral portion of the neck” and also the right upper mediastinum:

Mr. Specter. What did you observe, if anything with respect to bruising
in the interior portion of the President's neck?

Dr. Perry. There was considerable hematoma in the right lateral portion
of the neck and the right superior mediastinum, as I noted. (6 H 11)

The fact that this damage was on the righthand side of the superior (upper) mediastinum is important because the nick on the tie knot was in the left half of the knot, an obviously impossible trajectory given the thickness of the knot and the fact that the knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band.

Mortician Tom Robinson told the HSCA that he believed the autopsy doctors found a bullet fragment in the chest (HSCA interview, 1/12/77, p. 10).

All of these facts enable us to more fully appreciate the ARRB disclosures about the back wound. We now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were absolutely, completely, and totally certain that the back wound had no exit point. They established this with prolonged probing, both with fingers and with surgical probes, and even removed the chest organs and positioned the body “every which way” to facilitate and observe the probing. Men standing near the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity and that there was no exit point.

This explains another fact that we now know thanks to ARRB disclosures: the first draft of the autopsy report said the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot.

[Jack Nessan]

Well, yes, in the broad sense I suppose. I think I've made abundantly clear that I think Michael is pretty much a CT crank who plays fast and loose with the truth for reasons known only to him. In some respects, CTers as over-the-top as Michael are the truth's best friend. If I were going to invent a disinformation agent, he'd look more like Michael than Posner.

I simply meant that my involvement with the JFKA really hasn't involved obsessing over this sort of stuff in this level of detail. I can acknowledge problematical aspects of the case - the SBT, CE 399, the necktie, etc. - without coming unglued because I am satisfied the LN narrative is fundamentally correct. With all of the somewhat problematical aspects, there are simply too many unknowns and variables in all of these supposed problem areas to use dogmatic terms like "impossible" and declare everyone who disagrees with you an uninformed dolt.

I do think it's interesting to play around with possible refinements to the LN narrative - a much earlier missed shot, Andrew's non-SBT three-shot scenario, your Phantom Shot, Orr's idea of a head shot fragment causing JBC's wrist wounds, perhaps the holes in the shirt and tie actually being scalpel cuts because the exit wound was above the collar.

Exactly what occurred is always going to remain something of a Rorschach test, but the LN meta-narrative remains solid.

Where we differ is the concept of the assassination being a Rorschach test. There is an answer, it has no variables, and it is provable. I know you believe in a LN scenario. Absolutely no doubt, but it is a problem that 70% of America believes the JFKA is a conspiracy. Not because they know anything about the JFKA, but because no coherent explanation has ever been put forward. Providing no answer will not change that at all.

The three-shot scenario is the problem. No evidence supports the three-shot scenario in its entirety. Don’t just insinuate what happened but actually prove what took place and there will no longer be 70% of America believing there was a conspiracy. The HSCA and WC both stated the witnesses inflated the number of shots due to media influence. That is not a passing footnote. That is a big piece of the puzzle.

 If 70% of America believes it is a conspiracy it is because the loudest noise comes from people like M Griffith making unfounded unproven outrageous claims. Who could believe that jacketed bullets at their max velocity can come to a screeching halt after only traveling several inches inside soft tissue? Not once but twice? 70% of America can believe that is even possible? MG certainly does.

Who also look like the crackpots in this are the LN’ers. Not because they are wrong, but because the three-shot scenario is so full of inconsistencies and holes that are too easy to point out. How can you have three shots where one shot has no proof at all of ever having occurred? A shot that is alternately described as an early missed shot, a really early missed shot, a shot in the middle in three different places, and a shot after the headshot, and finally a shot way after the headshot. Again, all with no proof it even ever existed. 

The oddest part of the whole JFKA discussion is just this one faulty belief. The two opposing views both rely on a shot that never happened as the lynch pin of their respective arguments.

 

[Lance Payette]

Where we differ is the concept of the assassination being a Rorschach test. There is an answer, it has no variables, and it is provable. I know you believe in a LN scenario. Absolutely no doubt, but it is a problem that 70% of America believes the JFKA is a conspiracy. Not because they know anything about the JFKA, but because no coherent explanation has ever been put forward. Providing no answer will not change that at all.

The three-shot scenario is the problem. No evidence supports the three-shot scenario in its entirety. Don’t just insinuate what happened but actually prove what took place and there will no longer be 70% of America believing there was a conspiracy. The HSCA and WC both stated the witnesses inflated the number of shots due to media influence. That is not a passing footnote. That is a big piece of the puzzle.

 If 70% of America believes it is a conspiracy it is because the loudest noise comes from people like M Griffith making unfounded unproven outrageous claims. Who could believe that jacketed bullets at their max velocity can come to a screeching halt after only traveling several inches inside soft tissue? Not once but twice? 70% of America can believe that is even possible? MG certainly does.

Who also look like the crackpots in this are the LN’ers. Not because they are wrong, but because the three-shot scenario is so full of inconsistencies and holes that are too easy to point out. How can you have three shots where one shot has no proof at all of ever having occurred? A shot that is alternately described as an early missed shot, a really early missed shot, a shot in the middle in three different places, and a shot after the headshot, and finally a shot way after the headshot. Again, all with no proof it even ever existed. 

The oddest part of the whole JFKA discussion is just this one faulty belief. The two opposing views both rely on a shot that never happened as the lynch pin of their respective arguments.

I think the vast majority of Americans under 60 or so really don't care squat about the JFKA. When I was a kid in, say, 1960, I wasn't even vaguely interested in conspiratorial theories about events in 1875 or 1900. As you say, the CT community has, with the assistance of the MSM, kept a pretty consistent conspiracy drumbeat going for 62 years. But I don't think the polls reflect any genuine interest or understanding - just more of a "Yeah, I've heard so many theories I guess there must have been some sort of conspiracy, yawn." The basic historical narrative is never going to change. The history books 100 years from now will say that LHO, acting alone, killed JFKA. Whether there were really two or three shots is, and will always be, irrelevant to most people - and increasingly so as the years go by. I agree that the two-shot theory is plausible and should receive more attention - just as I think other possible "improvements" to the LN Gospel are worth considering - but it's Inside Baseball stuff that isn't going to interest most people. As for people like Michael - well, he's pretty clearly recognized as the crank he is even over at the distinctly cranky Ed Forum. I doubt Michael has made a dent in anyone's thinking this side of Crankville.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Not only does JFK's clothing prove that no bullet exited the throat and the shirt slits, and that no bullet nicked the tie knot, but it also proves that Dr. Carrico and Dr. Jones were truthful and correct when they said the throat wound was above the tie knot. The clothing further proves that Dr. Perry was correct when he identified the throat wound as an entrance wound, and that the nurses were the ones who nicked the tie and made the shirt slits, just as Dr. Carrico indicated and just as one of the nurses confirmed to Henry Hurt.

In addition, this all comes together to explain why the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound itself, why the wound was small and punched-in, and why there was more blood on the outside of the collar band than on the inside.

Furthermore, this explains the fact that, as we now know, at the autopsy the autopsy doctors absolutely, positively, and conclusively established that the back wound had no exit point, why they and others around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and why the rear clothing holes were over 5 inches below the collar.

[Lance Payette]

Because I just love it when CTers get into an internecine cat fight, I have continued to monitor the identical thread that Michael started at the Ed Forum. Cliff Varnell, who is the godfather of the Impossible Clothing Argument, says "Forget the damn necktie, willya??? We don't need it!"

I had failed to appreciate the subtlety of Cliff's argument. I thought he was positing a CIA melting ice bullet for the frontal throat wound and a dud Carcano round falling out of the shallow back wound. Cliff wisely points out that the back wound wasn't THAT shallow and a Carcano bullet wouldn't have simply fallen out.

For the back wound - and perhaps the throat wound as well - Cliff now posits a "blood soluble" bullet as developed for the CIA at the Army Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick (MD) in connection with something called MKNAOMI, which you can read about here: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/178-10004-10087.pdf. (Any document with "shellfish toxin" and "hand-launchers loaded with dog incapacitant" in it is worth reading, no?)

Wow, huh? Bad guys with blood-soluble bullets at both the front and rear! I had previously thought Lin Soo Mknaomi was just a South Korean professional golfer on the LPGA Tour, but now I'm starting to come around to Cliff's way of thinking on this.