Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jake Hammond said:

I'm new sorry

Don't apologize - I didn't even have that excuse when I was sucked into it.  If you will try the same little at-home experiment with a suit coat and shirt that Francois and I independently tried, then you too will be thrust into the L-I-A-R-S Club by the Vortex Master (a/k/a The Weaponizer).  When the membership reaches five, I'm going to have some tee shirts and mugs made up at my own expense!

[Jake Hammond]

Quote

Don't apologize - I didn't even have that excuse when I was sucked into it.  If you will try the same little at-home experiment with a suit coat and shirt that Francois and I independently tried, then you too will be thrust into the L-I-A-R-S Club by the Vortex Master (a/k/a The Weaponizer).  When the membership reaches five, I'm going to have some tee shirts and mugs made up at my own expense!

The 'weaponizer', I did wonder about that ...... I'm awaiting a response still and will remain objective.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

The 'weaponizer', I did wonder about that ...... I'm awaiting a response still and will remain objective.

Watch this, beginning at about the 39-minute mark:  http://www.veoh.com/watch/v105172340dKhaPjXr

I'm still researching the history of our little organization, but I believe the guy in the above video is the founder of the L-I-A-R-S Club.  (You have to spell l-I-a-r-s like that or the system deletes it, which C-l-I-f-f already knew because he applies the term to everyone who disagrees with him.  What he has, you see, is "prima facie evidence" and "irrefutable," which is why he refuses to engage in "fake debate" - except on those 4,000 or so occasions when he has stooped to this level.  It's really all pretty comical.)

I dubbed him The Weaponizer because (as you can see from the blurb beneath his photo) he insists he "weaponized" the trading card industry (whatever that may mean!) and is now "weaponizing" the assassination (I might have thought that would be a better motto for Oswald, but the Oswald Estate apparently failed to trademark the term).

Just a hint:  Before engaging with C-l-I-f-f, I find it helpful to watch 30 seconds or so of Monty Python's "Minister of Silly Walks."  As you read his posts, just keep repeating "Minister of Silly Walks" as sort of a calming mantra.

[Jake Hammond]

Quote

I'm still researching the history of our little organization, but I believe the guy in the above video is the founder of the L-I-A-R-S Club.  (You have to spell l-I-a-r-s like that or the system deletes it, which C-l-I-f-f already knew because he applies the term to everyone who disagrees with him.  What he has, you see, is "prima facie evidence" and "irrefutable," which is why he refuses to engage in "fake debate" - except on those 4,000 or so occasions when he has stooped to this level.  It's really all pretty comical.)

I dubbed him The Weaponizer because (as you can see from the blurb beneath his photo) he insists he "weaponized" the trading card industry (whatever that may mean!) and is now "weaponizing" the assassination (I might have thought that would be a better motto for Oswald, but the Oswald Estate apparently failed to trademark the term).

Its 5000 now almost, and I hadn't read the full blurb, the shirt bullet hole location really is a big deal to him.  I feel like i walked into a flushing meadow and stepped on a land mine ! I've seen every Python sketch so i know what you mean. The Lake Pahoe sketch or the swiss watch importer are good rebuttals to the vortex. 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

Apologies for the multiple responses it wouldn't let me upload images easily...

 

All this photo shows is that a shirt can bunch up, which is something I think most people already know. The question is, what pushed the shirt up like that?

If you're trying to prove that the shirt bunched up as a result of JFK's natural movements or by his lifting his arm to wave, you'd need to show a video of the shirt rising while either of those two things were happening. As far as we know, he could have been slumped down in a chair just prior to the photo being taken, and it was the chair back that pushed the shirt up. As a matter of fact, the back of his hair looks like he's been slumping in a high-backed chair.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

 

Well whadaya know... when you see the WHOLE PICTURE, you find that Kennedy is indeed sitting in a HIGH-BACKED (airline) chair. No doubt right after being slumped down in the chair.  LOL  So much for that "proof."

I just found this in a Google Images search.

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Jake Hammond]

Quote

As a matter of fact, the back of his hair looks like he's been slumping in a high-backed chair.

And the shirt would stay like that as he stands up , walks over to a child, and then bends down ?

 I don't think much more can be added to my above posts to show that the bullet hole on the shirt is exactly where you would expect it to be. We could agree to disagree and be gents about it if you like, but.... at the very least my above posts show that the trajectory and shirt hole location are perfect and that the hole being 4" below the collar is only evidence of  a single shot. I have marked a shirt of my own and bunched it up like that, even without the decline of Elm street the shirt hole is perfect when you lean forward as JFK was. 

[Jake Hammond]

Quote

Well whadaya know... when you see the WHOLE PICTURE, you find that Kennedy is indeed sitting in a HIGH-BACKED (airline) chair. No doubt right after being slumped down in the chair.  LOL  So much for that "proof."

Ah ok I see what you mean, he is sitting in that image, I thought he was crouching, thats my bad. It is irrelevant of course - JFK's shirt and jacket were bunched as he leaned forward, sitting, just like in the image you just so kindly provided, where he is sitting and leaning forward. Thank you. 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Ah ok I see what you mean, he is sitting in that image, I thought he was crouching, thats my bad. It is irrelevant of course - JFK's shirt and jacket were bunched as he leaned forward, sitting, just like in the image you just so kindly provided, where he is sitting and leaning forward. Thank you. 

Oh sure.... in Dealey Plaza JFK sat up straight from a slumped position in the limousine, just like he did in the aircraft.  

 

[Jake Hammond]

Quote

Oh sure.... in Dealey Plaza JFK sat up straight from a slumped position in the limousine, just like he did in the aircraft.   

?

 Sorry you've lost me. Your image aids my point and the images I posted help visualise the simple reality of the shirt situation. If you have any evidence to the contrary I'd be glad to see it. 

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

?

 Sorry you've lost me. Your image aids my point and the images I posted help visualise the simple reality of the shirt situation. If you have any evidence to the contrary I'd be glad to see it. 

Sorry pal... you're the one who needs to provide the evidence. Evidence that a shirt can bunch up like that spontaneously. Or from waving. Or from whatever way you think the shirt got bunched up in Dealey Plaza.

You seem to have missed what I posted above, when I said that JFK's slumping down in a high-backed chair would explain why his shirt is bunched up in the photo, and why the back of his hair is messed up.

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Jake Hammond]

Quote

Sorry pal... you're the one who needs to provide the evidence. Evidence that a shirt can bunch up like that spontaneously. Or from waving. Or from whatever way you think the shirt got bunched up in Dealey Plaza.

 

Did you not look at the pictures or read my posts ? What do you mean by 'spontaneously' ? , I don't think his shirt was bunched, the photographs show it. 

[Sandy Larsen]

13 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

I don't think his shirt was bunched, the photographs show it.

[This sentence can be taken more than one way. I think what Jake means to say is this:  " I don't just THINK that his shirt was bunched up, the photograph SHOWS that it was bunched up."]

The photograph shows that the shirt was bunched up in an aircraft, not in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Just because it was bunched up in the former, doesn't mean it was bunched up in the latter.

Now, it's fairly obvious that the shirt got bunched up in the aircraft due to Kennedy slumping down in the chair. In the process of sliding down in the chair, the back of the chair pushed his shirt up. We can be reasonably sure of that because something had to push the shirt up, and the back of the chair was the perfect (and I think only) candidate for that job.

The motorcade is a completely different situation because Kennedy didn't slump down in the limousine seat. So the aircraft photo doesn't show that Kennedy's shirt would bunch up in the limousine.

These guys who say the shirt bunched up in the limousine need to show how it could have happened. In other words, what it was that pushed Kennedy's shirt up.

 

[Jake Hammond]

Ok its now very apparent that you haven't read my posts and looked at the images on the previous page. Please do. 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Ok its now very apparent that you haven't read my posts and looked at the images on the previous page. Please do. 

I did read those posts (earlier) and looked at the photos. But right now --  my recent posts -- are only in response to the the claim that JFK's shirt was bunched up in Dealey plaza on 11/22/63.