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

[Jerry Organ]

One inch of bunch actually uses up a little more than two inches of clothing. Two inches of bunch uses a little more than four inches of clothing.

On edit: I see that Jerry has already posted the graphic. Why have you ignored it? Do you not understand it?

Griffith is a Mormon. They're only allowed to use MS-DOS. He uses the cubit and has trouble working with inches.

[Michael T. Griffith]

One inch of bunch actually uses up a little more than two inches of clothing. Two inches of bunch uses a little more than four inches of clothing.

On edit: I see that Jerry has already posted the graphic. Why have you ignored it? Do you not understand it?

Organ's graphic is ridiculous, as usual. Did you happen to notice that his graphic does not include the location of the rear clothing holes?! Look where the holes are actually located in the coat and shirt, and then look at Organ's silly graphic. The photo in his graphic does not even come close to showing a bunch that would move a hole located 5 inches from the top of the collar to the base of the neck. This isn't even a close call.

Anyone who says Organ's graphic shows a large enough bunch to account for the rear clothing holes is either dissembling or suffering from bad eyesight. Again, go look, actually look, at those holes and see how far down they are from the base of the neck.

I include photos of the JFK rear clothing holes in my article "Where Was President Kennedy's Back Wound?": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fT_tqslENprGmxm18J5zSL9QUNxjh5sH/view.

And I notice that you and Organ once again ducked Willis 5 and Betzer 3, both of which seem to show the coat virtually flat on JFK's back. One of the few halfway honest WC apologists, Jim Moore, rejects the bunched-clothing theory partly because he acknowledges that Willis 5 and Betzer 3 refute it.

Also, none of you has yet explained how the buttoned, tailor-made shirt could have bunched to any significant degree, especially with JFK sitting back against the seat, not to mention how it could have bunched vertically and horizontally in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat. No thinking person can swallow such fantasy.

And, finally, let it be noted that you guys are simply brushing aside (1) the powerful eyewitness evidence that the back wound had no exit point, (2) the compelling evidence that the shirt slits were not made by a bullet, and (3) the undeniable fact that the nick in the tie knot could not have been made by an exiting bullet because it is not on either edge of the knot. Let's just recap the facts about the shirt slits, shall we?

1. They do not correspond with each other in shape, thickness, or location. Indeed, 1/5 of the slit under the buttonhole extends into the neckband, whereas no part of the other slit does so.

2. The FBI found no metallic traces on the shirt slits, but did find such traces on the rear clothing holes.

3. No fabric was missing from the shirt slits, but fabric was missing from the JFK rear clothing holes and from all of the Connally clothing holes.

4. Even the first FBI lab report on the shirt slits said only that the slits could have been made by a bullet fragment. So, clearly, the FBI experts, before they knew what they were supposed to say, recognized that the slits were not bullet holes.

To any rational, honest person, these facts prove that the shirt slits were not, and could not have been, made by a bullet. But you guys can't admit this because it destroys your theory of the shooting.

[Tim Nickerson]

Organ's graphic is ridiculous, as usual. Did you happen to notice that his graphic does not include the location of the rear clothing holes?! Look where the holes are actually located in the coat and shirt, and then look at Organ's silly graphic. The photo in his graphic does not even come close to showing a bunch that would move a hole located 5 inches from the top of the collar to the base of the neck. This isn't even a close call.

Anyone who says Organ's graphic shows a large enough bunch to account for the rear clothing holes is either dissembling or suffering from bad eyesight. Again, go look, actually look, at those holes and see how far down they are from the base of the neck.

I include photos of the JFK rear clothing holes in my article "Where Was President Kennedy's Back Wound?": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fT_tqslENprGmxm18J5zSL9QUNxjh5sH/view.

And I notice that you and Organ once again ducked Willis 5 and Betzer 3, both of which seem to show the coat virtually flat on JFK's back. One of the few halfway honest WC apologists, Jim Moore, rejects the bunched-clothing theory partly because he acknowledges that Willis 5 and Betzer 3 refute it.

Also, none of you has yet explained how the buttoned, tailor-made shirt could have bunched to any significant degree, especially with JFK sitting back against the seat, not to mention how it could have bunched vertically and horizontally in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat. No thinking person can swallow such fantasy.

And, finally, let it be noted that you guys are simply brushing aside (1) the powerful eyewitness evidence that the back wound had no exit point, (2) the compelling evidence that the shirt slits were not made by a bullet, and (3) the undeniable fact that the nick in the tie knot could not have been made by an exiting bullet because it is not on either edge of the knot. Let's just recap the facts about the shirt slits, shall we?

1. They do not correspond with each other in shape, thickness, or location. Indeed, 1/5 of the slit under the buttonhole extends into the neckband, whereas no part of the other slit does so.

2. The FBI found no metallic traces on the shirt slits, but did find such traces on the rear clothing holes.

3. No fabric was missing from the shirt slits, but fabric was missing from the JFK rear clothing holes and from all of the Connally clothing holes.

4. Even the first FBI lab report on the shirt slits said only that the slits could have been made by a bullet fragment. So, clearly, the FBI experts, before they knew what they were supposed to say, recognized that the slits were not bullet holes.

To any rational, honest person, these facts prove that the shirt slits were not, and could not have been, made by a bullet. But you guys can't admit this because it destroys your theory of the shooting.

You can't even understand the simple concept laid out in that graphic. No wonder you have such a hard time with this stuff. Perhaps you should take up a hobby that's less of a strain on your mental faculties.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You can't even understand the simple concept laid out in that graphic. No wonder you have such a hard time with this stuff. Perhaps you should take up a hobby that's less of a strain on your mental faculties.

This is your answer to the points I made in my reply to you?!

As I said, Organ's graphic is absurd, like most of his other graphics. Oh, I understand the "simple concept" presented in his graphic, but the concept is erroneous, as usual for this guy. It would take a few pages to list all of the embarrassing gaffes that Organ has made in this forum.

I realize now that you are another hardcore brainwashed WC apologist, immune to fact and logic. But, I nevertheless invite you to look at the location of the rear clothing holes and see how far down they are from the base of the neck and from the top of the respective collars. It is pitifully silly for anyone to believe that the modest bunch that Organ shows in his graphic could explain the location of those holes. Humm, could this be why Organ did not include those clothing holes in the graphic, because anyone with functioning eyes would take one look at them and see that the rest of Organ's graphic is ludicrous?

[Jerry Organ]

This is your answer to the points I made in my reply to you?!

As I said, Organ's graphic is absurd, like most of his other graphics. Oh, I understand the "simple concept" presented in his graphic, but the concept is erroneous, as usual for this guy. It would take a few pages to list all of the embarrassing gaffes that Organ has made in this forum.

I don't think you will ever get it, as you appear happily susceptible to just about any crackpot conspiracy theory out there. Just Rube-Goldberg stuff you keep posting. We've patiently walked you through answers to the Brehm boy in the Z-film, the Z188 "cheek puff", the jacket bunch and the clear unimpeded pathway through the neck from C7-level to T1-level.


We showed you the photos by Skaggs, Altgens and Betzner of JFK in Dealey Plaza that do not show a jacket collar shadow at the nape area or white of shirt collar. Because the jacket bunch blocks the line-of-sight.


We showed you pictures by Beal, Towner and Croft (labelled "Elm Street" in John Mytton's animation) that had reasonable resolution and a good camera-angle. They consistently show the one-inch-high clothing bunch on top of Kennedy's nape area.

We can only show you the water; we can't make you drink. At least, readers have a chance to see things avoided by the "JFK" movie and "JFK Revisited" doc.

I realize now that you are another hardcore brainwashed WC apologist, immune to fact and logic. But, I nevertheless invite you to look at the location of the rear clothing holes and see how far down they are from the base of the neck and from the top of the respective collars. It is pitifully silly for anyone to believe that the modest bunch that Organ shows in his graphic could explain the location of those holes. Humm, could this be why Organ did not include those clothing holes in the graphic, because anyone with functioning eyes would take one look at them and see that the rest of Organ's graphic is ludicrous?

Good Grief, man. Simply project line "C" backward to show where the clothing holes were.



There's a ruler in the autopsy photos of the "back" wound (the entry wound is really at the base of the back of the neck, as described in the autopsy report). Using the ruler, the Clark Panel determined that the "back" wound was 2¼" below ("A" in the graphic) the lowest crease on the back of the neck .

Line "H" shows the top reach of the top of the jacket as it appears in the Croft photo. That means the top of the jacket (and maybe the top of the shirt, too) is 1¼" above ("D" in the graphic) the lowest crease on the back of the neck. Add "A" and "D" to get the distance from the top of the clothing to the "back" wound: 3½". That's 3½" of clothing taken up before bunching.

Measurements of the clothing made while the clothing was laid flat or hanging straight-down from a hanger show the bullet holes averaged about 5½" below the top edge of the garments. Subtract the 3½" (that had no bunching) from 5½" to get the amount of clothing that needs to be accounted for by a bunch. That leaves two inches of clothing, to be taken up by a 1"-high bunch. The inch-high bunch will take up two-inches of cloth, due to one-inch needed on each side of the bunch. The bunch was above the clothing holes, so just a single hole in each item of clothing.


IMO, the shirt was lighter material and would have bunched up in a series of small wrinkles underneath the jacket.

[Tim Nickerson]

This is your answer to the points I made in my reply to you?!

As I said, Organ's graphic is absurd, like most of his other graphics. Oh, I understand the "simple concept" presented in his graphic, but the concept is erroneous, as usual for this guy. It would take a few pages to list all of the embarrassing gaffes that Organ has made in this forum.

I realize now that you are another hardcore brainwashed WC apologist, immune to fact and logic. But, I nevertheless invite you to look at the location of the rear clothing holes and see how far down they are from the base of the neck and from the top of the respective collars. It is pitifully silly for anyone to believe that the modest bunch that Organ shows in his graphic could explain the location of those holes. Humm, could this be why Organ did not include those clothing holes in the graphic, because anyone with functioning eyes would take one look at them and see that the rest of Organ's graphic is ludicrous?

You're not helping yourself any with that. It's obvious that you really don't understand the simple concept laid out in Jerry's graphic.

What would be the height of the bunch in inches in order for the holes in the jacket and shirt to match up with the entry wound as seen in the autopsy photo(s)?  The Clark Panel measured the wound to be about 5.5 cm below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck. The HSCA rounded the number up to 6 cm.

[John Iacoletti]

What would be the height of the bunch in inches in order for the holes in the jacket and shirt to match up with the entry wound as seen in the autopsy photo(s)?

What difference does it make? The LN-faithful will just declare that they both bunched up by whatever was necessary to make the holes match where they want the wounds to be, in order to alleviate their cognitive dissonance.

[Jerry Organ]

What difference does it make? The LN-faithful will just declare that they both bunched up by whatever was necessary to make the holes match where they want the wounds to be, in order to alleviate their cognitive dissonance.

Readers will note that Griffith and you have countered non-subjective photographic evidence with vapid platitudes like "LN faithful" and "brainwashed WC apologist, immune to fact and logic."