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

[Bill Chapman]

It is odd and rather humorous that you so frequently include photos that refute your argument. Not one of those photos shows JFK's coat bunched more than an inch or two. Surely you can see this. Of course you can.

To account for the rear clothing holes, his coat would have had to bunch far more than what we see in the photos you included. You know this. I know you do. You and others have posted these same photos before, and I and other skeptics have pointed out to you many times the obvious fact that not one of those photos shows the coat was bunched nearly enough to account for the location of the rear bullet holes in the coat and shirt. But you just keep posting those photos because you don't have any photos that show the coat bunched more than an inch or two.

I notice you said nothing about the Willis and Betzner photos, which were taken much later in the motorcade and much closer to the time of the shooting than the photos you included. What do those photos show? Hey? We both know the answer. I've pointed this out to you before. We've had this exact same discussion several times. But, you just keep lying about this over and over and over again.

And what about the tailor-made shirt? The shirt would have had to miraculously bunch in nearly perfect millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence with the coat, both vertically and depth-wise. Given that JFK's shirt was tailor-made, given that his shirt collar was buttoned, and given that he was sitting back against a seat, how in the world could his shirt have bunched more than a fraction of an inch?

This bunched-clothing theory is just ridiculous. If this were any other case, no rational, honest person would entertain such an absurd, demonstrably erroneous theory for a second. It would be dismissed as a lame, desperate attempt to avoid the obvious. The rear clothing holes are hard physical evidence that the back wound was below the throat wound, but you guys just keep lying about this because it destroys your version of the shooting.

It would be dismissed as a lame, desperate attempt to avoid the obvious
_ Whats obvious is that Oswald got what he deserved

[Michael T. Griffith]

The utter absurdity of the bunched-clothing theory becomes obvious when we consider just how much the coat and shirt would have had to bunch to account for the location of the rear holes in JFK's coat and shirt.

The rear holes in the coat and shirt were just over 5 inches below the top of the collar (coat: 5.375 inches below the top of the coat collar; shirt: 5.75 inches below the top of the shirt collar). These holes locate the back wound at around T3, the same location established by the back-wound dot on the autopsy face sheet, by the death certificate, by Dr. Ebersole's description, and by the wound diagrams that several witnesses drew for the HSCA. However, the single-bullet theory requires that the magic bullet struck at C6 or C7, that is, at or slightly above the base of the neck.

Leaving aside the fact that the autopsy photo of the back plainly refutes the C6/C7 location, a bullet striking at C7 would have made a hole in the coat that was no more than 0.5 inches below the top of the coat collar, and would have made a hole in the shirt that was no more than 1.0 inch below the top of the shirt collar.

Now, just imagine how much the coat and shirt would have had to bunch for the bullet to have made a hole in the coat that was 5.375 inches below the top of the coat collar and a hole in the shirt that was 5.75 inches below the top of the shirt collar. The coat and shirt would have had to bunch at least 4 inches.

Just to be extra generous and cautious, let's add half an inch to the distances from the tops of the collars. That would mean that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch at least 3.5 inches to make the clothing holes fit the C7 location.

However, no photo or footage of the Dallas motorcade shows JFK's coat bunched 3.5-4 inches. The two photos taken right around the time the shooting started (Betzner 3 and Willis 5) show no large bunch in JFK's coat--indeed, Willis 5 seems to show the coat lying flat on JFK's back. And, how in the world would the tailor-made, buttoned shirt have bunched that much, and how would it have done so in nearly perfect correspondence depth-wise with the coat? It's just preposterous.

[Tim Nickerson]

It is odd and rather humorous that you so frequently include photos that refute your argument. Not one of those photos shows JFK's coat bunched more than an inch or two. Surely you can see this. Of course you can.

To account for the rear clothing holes, his coat would have had to bunch far more than what we see in the photos you included. You know this. I know you do. You and others have posted these same photos before, and I and other skeptics have pointed out to you many times the obvious fact that not one of those photos shows the coat was bunched nearly enough to account for the location of the rear bullet holes in the coat and shirt. But you just keep posting those photos because you don't have any photos that show the coat bunched more than an inch or two.

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?

[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?

[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.