Cliff Varnell

Craig, just wandering through ... and I think this is an important point. Just what evidence is there that JFK wore personally tailored shirts at all? His suits were tailored.But his shirts? According to the JFK library .... "There is nothing in the library files to indicate John F. Kennedy's exact personal preferences or with whom he ordered his clothing; however, according to Dave Powers, the President's friend and assistant, President Kennedy wore Brooks Brothers shirts and single-breasted, conservatively cut suits from Saville Row. He seemed to also prefer them blue pin-striped in design. This is not to say that he did not use other "brands" or tailors, but according to Mr. Powers, these were the most popular choices." Link to page: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Miscellaneous-Information/Shirt-and-Suit-Preferences.aspx That JFK wore Brooks Brothers brand shirts is mentioned on assorted sites about Brooks Brothers. He wore tailored suits, of course ... but tailored shirts? Is there any evidence of that? Bests, Barb :-) Yes, Barb, the label on his shirt reads: Charles Dillon, Shirt Maker, 444 Park Ave NY NY This is real silly season stuff, Barb. Do you honestly believe JFK would wear off the rack dress shirts with his tailored suits?? But given the "fits" this info causes with you high back wound folks, your question isn't surprising. Shirt fit is universal. If the body of the shirt only allows a half-inch of slack, the shirt will fit too tightly and be uncomfortable. If there is an inch of slack or more then this excess could form an unsightly bulge, which could ruin the jacket line, the "silhouette." 3/4 of an inch of slack is the "sweet spot" that all shirt-makers aim for. I know this is inconvenient to your theories of the case, Barb. I'm quite confident you'll someday get over it.

Those are not "suggestions." They are "principles." Maybe you need help with the definition of principle, Craig? PRIN-CI-PLE a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics. The principles of modern physics...or the principles of fine men's dress, it's the rules of the field. Flusser writes as if he's writing rules, such as (emphasis added): That is the guiding principle of clothing fit: there has to be enough slack so that a man can sit down and stand up comfortably, but too much slack can ruin the silhouette. JFK wore Updated American style suits, which featured a "V-shaped torso," a "tapered waist", and the lines of his jacket would DEFINITELY have been ruined by shirt bulge. Your suggestion that JFK wore a tapered-waist jacket along with multiple inches of shirt bulge is absurd in the extreme.

Factually incorrect. There is no "slightly elongated hole." That's a slice and a puncture point. http://occamsrazorjfk.net/jacket.htm

Flusser's work is definitive on the issue of fine men's dress. He's the clothing expert, not you, Lamson. This following is the text that Craig Lamson is emotionally incapable of intellectually processing. He cannot grasp it. It is beyond his ability to accept, since it destroys his Kennedy hating world view. From Flusser's Clothes and the Man: the Principles of Fine Men's Dress: http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7part3.htm (emphasis added) Bulging shirt fabric is unsightly and unfashionable. But according to Craig Lamson, Kennedy and his tailors were ignorant of this fact! John F. Kennedy had to dress like some idiotic clown -- or Craig Lamson's pinhead will explode. Hilarious!

Nevertheless, this thread concerns the Single Bullet Theory and, as Vincent Salandria observed back in 1964, the bullet holes in the clothes make the prima facie case against the SBT. Glenn wanted to know what was wrong with the SBT, and I think I've been able to answer his question on this thread far better than you have, Jim. Cliff, Thanks for your posting. It's not out of neglect or disrespect I haven't commented on it. It is however and area where my knowledge is very limited and I need to do some catch up... Glenn, there's nothing to it. Understanding how clothing moves shouldn't be much of a mystery -- don't we spend most of our lives wearing at least one article of clothing? What could be easier than observing how your clothing moves when you move? Glenn, right now glance over at your right shoulder. Now raise your right arm to casually wave, like JFK in the motorcade. As you raise your right arm the fabric along the top of your right shoulder-line will begin to indent into a series of vertical folds. This occurs every time. Now, according to Vincent Bugliosi, raising the arm causes at least two inches of your shirt to ride up at the base of your neck. But that's not what happens. That never happens. It is a lie. Thanks Cliff - for your detailed instructions..... Even though I was perhaps referring to how it was all configured on JFK at the time of the shooting... Glenn, why do you think JFK would wear his shirt any differently than you do?

Nevertheless, this thread concerns the Single Bullet Theory and, as Vincent Salandria observed back in 1964, the bullet holes in the clothes make the prima facie case against the SBT. Glenn wanted to know what was wrong with the SBT, and I think I've been able to answer his question on this thread far better than you have, Jim. Cliff, Thanks for your posting. It's not out of neglect or disrespect I haven't commented on it. It is however and area where my knowledge is very limited and I need to do some catch up... Glenn, there's nothing to it. Understanding how clothing moves shouldn't be much of a mystery -- don't we spend most of our lives wearing at least one article of clothing? What could be easier than observing how your clothing moves when you move? Glenn, right now glance over at your right shoulder. Now raise your right arm to casually wave, like JFK in the motorcade. As you raise your right arm the fabric along the top of your right shoulder-line will begin to indent into a series of vertical folds. This occurs every time. Now, according to Vincent Bugliosi, raising the arm causes at least two inches of your shirt to ride up at the base of your neck. But that's not what happens. That never happens. It is a lie.

Correct. 3/4s of an inch, to be exact. There was a 3/4s inch fold in JFK's jacket when the limo turned the corner onto Elm St. In Croft the fold is bowed OUT, which gave it the appearance of being bigger than it was. 3/4s of an inch tops. That's how much available slack a tucked-in custom made shirt requires so that a man can move around comfortably and look sharp. Multi-inch bulges of fabric are unsightly, and the Nutter claim that Kennedy was wearing such a bulge is ...pathetic, when you think about it. Tightly tailored is the key idea here, Robert. JFK wore a style called Updated American, and it was tailored to fit closer to the body that the older Ivy League "sack" suits. The principles of fine men's dress destroy the SBT. Period.

Jim, I can't imagine anything more simple. It could be demonstrated to a five year old. Try explaining the acoustics evidence to a five year old...

Why don't you cite something that actually MATTERS, like the exact amount of slack available in JFK's shirt at the time of the back wound. Three-quarters of an inch. Tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only require three quarters of an inch of slack to enable a man to move comfortably. If there is less slack the garment may bind uncomfortably to the body. If there is more slack the excess material bulging around the waist might destroy the jacket line, the "silhouette." This is universal. To deny that JFK's clothing was tailored according to the principles of fine men's dress is...pathetic. A statement of staggering ignorance. It's good to see you drop your mask, Craig. All those years you claimed you didn't care about the assassination, that you could care less about the Single Bullet Theory, that you were only here as an objective photo expert. Now you claim JFK didn't know how to dress, a condition required by the SBT. Thanks for dropping the act.

Nevertheless, this thread concerns the Single Bullet Theory and, as Vincent Salandria observed back in 1964, the bullet holes in the clothes make the prima facie case against the SBT. Glenn wanted to know what was wrong with the SBT, and I think I've been able to answer his question on this thread far better than you have, Jim.

You mis-understand. The "willful ignorance" and "drumbeat of non sequitur" refers to the noise generated by Craig Lamson, David Von Pein, Vince Bugliosi, et al. I did not direct that at you, but at your LN detractors. This is the second thread in which Craig and I have discussed the historical facts surrounding JFK's clothing fit. I cited the work of the preeminant historian on the matter, and cited passages that make it quite clear that shirt "bunch" was quite impossible. That you are dis-interested in these historical facts strikes me as puzzling. Have both you and Tink Thompson come down with an allergy to the clothing evidence? Your lack of appreciation for the clothing evidence is stunning. Are you promoting a false equivalence between the historical facts of the case as observed in Flusser -- and Lamson's smoke blowing? We both have an equal argument and we should call it a draw? No thanks, Jim. What happened to you, man?

Sure, when you declare the same with DVP. Big difference Lammy. DVP and I argue about just about everything in this case. You and Cliff argue about one thing over and over. I've discussed the work of Alan Flusser with Lamson twice. 2 times. Compare that with the round and around discussions you have with any number of these clowns. Ad infinitum ad nauseum. At least I'm defending the prima facie case, not a rabbit hole like CE399. Physician heal thyself. I started a thread devoted to the subject called The Salient Fact of Conspiracy.

I don't get this. Does the attention of relentless trolls diminish the value of a researcher's case? Does a steady drum beat of non sequitur and willful ignorance somehow diminish the significance of historical fact? If such were the case the worth of Jim D's work would be less than zero.

You haven't grasped the meaning of the word "fit". Fit is a fixed condition: just enough slack to allow a man to sit down and stand up comfortably. His back brace had no impact on the fit of the shirt. Bulging fabric is what the tailor is responsible for avoiding. Your ignorance is not a rebuttal.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is dispositive, SBT debunked. The provenance of CE399 is in no way dispositve on the issue of the SBT. Magic Bullet critic John Hunt has stated that he believes that one bullet went thru JFK and JBC. Feeling physical evidence envy, Jim? You play into the hands of the nutters when you try to promote secondary evidence that has nothing to do with the killing of Kennedy.

Excuse me? I've never before presented most of this material -- ever. I've been waiting 14 years for Flusser's work to be posted on the internet, and here it is. My previous discussions with Craig concerned photo interpretation of the jacket. This discussion concerns the historical facts regarding JFK's clothing fit, a subject I would think a professional historian would take interest. This thread concerns the Single Bullet Theory. Back in 1964 Vincent Salandra debunked the SBT by citing the bullet holes in JFK's clothes. Alan Flusser's work corroborates Salandria. I understand this is an unpopular fact in the self-aggrandizing world of JFK assassination research, but don't scold me for defending the best evidence in the case.

Once again we see Cliff in full panic mode, left with one "clothing fit theory" and no hard facts. Varnell has NO clue of the ACTUAL tailoring of JFK's shirt. Of course we do. Haven't you read the links and the quotes I've cited of the designer/historian Alan Flusser? JFK's clothing style was called Updated American. It featured a "silhouette" with a "V-shaped torso." Flusser specifically cited "bulging material" as the bete noire of custom made shirts. Why can't Craig Lamson process this clear information? Even when JFK's clothing style is clearly stated and described -- Updated American Sihouette, V-shaped torso, tapered waist -- Craig pretends that it isn't. Principles are not theories. That you must conflate the two is telling. The rest of your contentless dismissals are also quite telling. &Yes, Craig, every modern tucked-in custom made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of slack. Why can't you grasp "tapered waist"? You are left with nothing but empty ridicule in the face of that fact.

PROVE IT by showing us the EXACT fit of JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot Varnell. Panic suits you...pun intended. ROFLMAO! All custom-made dress shirts have a fraction of an inch of slack. Normal body movements cause fractions of an inch of clothing fabric to move. This is not "theory." This is the guiding principle of clothing design.. Your determined ignorance of this is not an argument. Before you start asking about clothing fit, Craig, you should educate yourself. Alan Flusser's Clothes and the Man: the Principles of Fine Men's Dress: http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7part3.htm Craig brings up JFK's specifications for clothing fit, but Craig can't process the fact that JFK's preferred clothing style would have been ruined by bulges of fabric. You can't face reality, Craig.

Watching you in a panic is PRICELESS Varnell. Watching you unable to intellectually respond is as per usual. JFK's shirt fit "almost like a second skin" according to the preeminant men's clothing designer/historian, Alan Flusser. What part of "almost like a second skin" don't you grasp? JFK's specifications were dictated by his V-shaped suit jacket, the "silhouette" of which would have been ruined by your 3+ inch "bunch". JFK's clothing style was called "Updated American Silhouette". Craig Lamson don't know "silhouette" from "shinola."

The principles of fine men's dress destroy the Single Bullet Theory Fallacy. It's unimpeachable.

Fit doesn't change. Fit is constant. Your ignorance of what clothing "fit" entails is no kind of argument. JFK's specifications were obvious: his "V-shaped" jacket style would have been ruined by 3+" of excess shirt fabric. Are you claiming that JFK wore a tight-waisted jacket to accentuate the gross excess shirt fabric? Sure, according to this scenario JFK wanted to go around dressed like a clown. Lamsonite!

Lamsonite logic: 30 pounds of potatoes can fit into a 7 pound potato sack. All high back wound advocacy is Lamsonite.

From Alan Flusser's Clothes and the Man: the Principles of Fine Men's Dress http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch2.htm (emphasis added) From Tony Ventresca's The Paul Stuart Variation: Classic American Style http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-paul-stuart-variation-classic-american-style (emphasis added) "Extreme fittedness". "V-shaped torso." The SBT requires multiple inches of bunched shirt fabric, an obvious fallacy given the fact that such a "bunch" would have ruined JFK's distinctive "look." This is the cardinal, salient fact of the entire JFK assassination -- just like Vincent Salandria pointed out so many decades ago.

From Alan Flusser's Clothes and the Man: the Principles of Fine Men's Dress http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch2.htm (emphasis added) From Tony Ventresca's The Paul Stuart Variation: Classic American Style http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-paul-stuart-variation-classic-american-style (emphasis added) "Extreme fittedness". "V-shaped torso." The SBT requires multiple inches of bunched shirt fabric, an obvious fallacy given the fact that such a "bunch" would have ruined JFK's distinctive "look." This is the cardinal, salient fact of the entire JFK assassination -- just like Vincent Salandria pointed out so many decades ago.

There is no such thing as "clothing theory." It is a straight-forward fact that shirt "bunch" ruins the lines of a suit jacket. There is no "theory" to this at all. Custom-made shirts are specifically designed NOT to bunch up. Period. Any excess fabric can ruin the jacket lines. No tailor makes a shirt that could ruin the jacket line. JFK was an elegant dresser. This is unimpeachable. Lamson is attempting to re-write history. So JFK specifically asked his tailors for poorly fitted shirts? Only a die-hard nutter could possibly claim such a thing. I hate to upset your world-view, Craig, but in the real world no one goes into a tailor and asks for a poorly fitted shirt. Least of all John F. Kennedy! Your ignorance on this topic is in full display, Lamson. They are not "specs," they are the PRINCIPLES by which the shirts are designed. Custom-made dress shirts are designed not to bunch up. Excess fabric ruins the jacket lines, pure and simple. Nutters like Lamson think that their ignorance on this topic constitutes an argument. It's the same amount of slack JFK always had in his shirts. It's the same amount of slack that every custom-made dress shirt has. The shirt must act "almost like a second skin," that is the principle behind the design of every custom made shirt. "Principles" are not "theories." Clothing fit PRACTICE. JFK wore suits with a tapered waist, he popularized the fashion briefly in the 60's. Any excess material around his midriff would have RUINED THE JACKET LINES. Nice try re-writing history, Lamson.