Jake Hammond

Sandy, I am simply going by the fold eminating at the right shoulder and extending across, tapering , to the left shoulder. I'm no surmising anything. My educated assumption, which matches the evidence, is that exactly like in the black and white photo I posted the short has gathered and folded like the jacket, possibly more so as they are a looser fitting item.

What are you getting at ?

What are you on about ? What significance does the prior possible movements of the jacket vs the jacket and collar have to my experiment ?

No I never said that but if I did, what is the signicancy of this movement ?

And this means what ? I really don't follow, can you explain to me and reveal this secret meaning we don't see.

You have no point do you Cliff.

Cliff can you please make your point

Cliff look at the images of JFK in a shirt and tie, very loose, or just look at my post and the black and white image.

Cliff I have no idea what you are talking about.

I explained this in the written section. you see the shirt, as detailed by the black and white image, in those days, was a very loose fitting item, measuring approximately 6" larger across the chest than the body and obviously with plenty of excess length. It is impossibly for a shirt to sit tight against the body therefore. As I outlined in the written section , I have pretty specific knowledge of this from my trade. It may have been scrunched slightly but from experience the cotton shirt creases in a similar way to the jacket and follows its creases. I must however state thats this is an explanation of the evidence, and it works. This is not a hypothesis or conspircay theory. You seem to take the stance that this is a theory. The hole in the shirt is a known quantity.

Go on then explain.... And Cliff please if you have a grievance can you form a coherent question like Sandy has ?

the ones I posted, Croft ( despite being from the much less bunched side ) and all the others. I have posted several.

it is easily as tall yes, not a high in latitude, thats different.

I don't need to, all the images show it so it is a known quantity.

I folded it 1", hence the 2" of difference from image 1 measurement. I folded it 1", hence the 2" of difference from image 1 measurement.

see image 4.

The top of the tape appears about 1mm above the bottom of the collar because the tape is not sitting flat on the curved back and the camera angle. Tough details to understand I know. The rest is just waffle and irrelevant. I'm happy to answer any constructive questions or criticism but if thats all you've got then I won't reply again as I have a few things to get on with.

1" x 2 as it is at least as big as the collar which is a known quantity. Thanks for high lighting that. Collars are almost always 1.5". so may be more like 3". I should have added this image of the fold too...

I'm so glad we agree here. What you have to realise with JFK is that there is a massive motivation to prove LHO inncoent and so ' Oswald in the doorway' is a home run. The fact that several films and images shows quite clearly show a man wearing a boldly checked red shirt, who looks identical to Billy Lovelady, Frazier, Lovelady and Truly all place him there, Altgens 6 clearly shows Lovelady standing there not Oswald, several people put Oswald inside the building before and after the incident, no witnesses identified oswald there and most importantly... it is irrelevant ! It is potentially possible though so ignoring it as unlikely would be a mistake, as with any potentiality. Can I ask a quick question ? how do you rationalise the swarm of people charging up to the corner of the grassy knowl/ fence ? the smoke coming from that area in photographs, all the witnesses who said they saw smoke in that area, all the witnesses who said they heard shots from there, the witnesses who said that the bullets came over their shoulder ( on grassy knowl) and the piece of bone ending up by Charles Brem ? Second Q. without any explanation, which of JA's 'discrepencies did you demystify ?

I would take issue with what you say above but I have to agree with much of what you say. I was completely turned off the JFK case when I realised that the whole Horne / Lifton route of major body manipulation , then autopsy forgery and then of course Z film manipulation was a load of rubbish. It really annoyed me that I'd gone down that route and wasted energy. As regards JA I must come back to previous inferences . .. You don'y have to be a fundamentalist or zealot to read a book, Just because i'm reading Harvey & Lee doesn't mean I am a fanboy of JA. What the book does is set a challenge to anyone to figure out why there are so many discrepancies and why the FBI consistently avoid certain people and issues yet engage with others. One that comes to mind is when two separate people who state to the FBI and WC that 'LHO' was always talking about Cuba and Communism are completely ignored by the Warren Commission report when they are desperately looking for this sort of evidence. The issue is that these people were with LHO when they shouldn't have been. This happens a lot it seems around ' 57-59. Anyway, back to the quote. I would oppose what you have said there quite strongly. The truth is not about 'best available evidence' and 'most reasonable inferences' at all, it has nothing to do with that. Although those two criteria can and always should be applied you cannot make the truth fit them, nor should attempt to. To ( badly ) paraphrase the literary detective Hercules Poirot ...' Once you have stripped away all of the impossible, what you re left with is the truth, regardless of how UNLIKELY it may seem'. Unlikely is in bold because likeliness should hold no value in an objective investigation. Poirot's approach is especially true when dealing with people who's day job it is to deceive the public , the CIA and the media, to apply likelihood and common sense doesn't really work I've found. It also of course limits you to what you already know. Which then sucks you into a Vortex of your own and you become Bugliosi. As a real world example that happened to me last year. Awaiting a parcel that was late I used common sense to think that the parcel was posted late, the best available evidence was that the parcel had been sent and dropped off but not signed for. My inference then was that this courier, who have a habit of leaving things on doorsteps or behind bins were inept and the parcel had gone missing. Do you know what had happened ? The parcel had been in the garden of a neighbour for three days. It had been taken by foxes, ripped open and used as a toy. The neighbour didn't return it because it was covered in poo.

I have weaponized the mini experiment from yesterday in a new topic .

I have started a new topic on the ' bunching' and the non tampering with the shirt theory ( NTWTST) . As promised. Please feel free to debate.

Below is a simple yet accurate series of photos which I took yesterday to try to visually help a certain member understand how the 'slouch angle', the crease in JFK's jacket and the migration of the shirt collar up into the neckline make huge differences to the relative height and alignment of the shirt, back and throat wound. Being new to the forum I made the error of jumping in to a debate and accidentally stood on the landmine or 'Vortex' as one more accurately described it, of the shirt hole and back wound. Just to check that my understanding of some basic physics was correct and to visualise this for others I grabbed a mannequin and shirt and some kids paint. All were within arms reach at the time coincidentally and my wife is away... I would like to preface this by adding that this isn't the area of the JFK case that I study or have a desire to spend great deal of time on but the single bullet theory has a few myths attached to it, of which the shirt entry wound is one. The challenge from the member was that the T1 vertebrae, which had a small fracture, is way too high to allow an exit wound in the throat AND an entry wound in the shirt, where we see it. Like many aspects of that fateful day the science and facts are fairly straight forward if you only discount the absurd and include the variables. The below series of photographs are not meant to suggest any more than that the points can and do line up, very easily. In the debate yesterday we kept to the clothing only and didn't discuss wider issues of the shot. Firstly we see a group of images showing the amount of bunching that day. I prefer the term 'fold' because the jacket actually has a single fold in it, at minimum 1" (doubled). The black and white image of JFK on a plane shows not only the same ( exaggerated admittedly by his previous sitting position and lack of jacket) fold but also the looseness of the cotton shirt he was wearing. This is important because one rebuttal of this experiment could be that a jacket crease is not a shirt crease. I have worked for 10 years buying and selling mens clothing, managing and owning several shops supplying traditional menswear. We are now online only, as is the fashion, but still have many memories of pinning customers in to jackets by way of their shirts. It always surprised me the regularity this would happen because you don't instinctively assume that the shirt follows the jacket. Well, it does. The looseness of the shirt would actually require a force applied to it for this to not be true when you think about it, and there is no force acting on a shirt to pull it tight on the body under a jacket which is both more fitted and stiff. When applied to JFK and more specifically the 'Croft' photo we can see that a bullet passing on the lower side or just under that crease would easily line up the known data points. In brief, the Z film shows very clearly the men reacting at the exact same time. Early versions of the Z film were blurred enough that many theories arose but now we have stabilized and HD version the myth that they react at different times needs to be put to bed, unless you want to suggest that the Z film is a complete CGI fabrication, which it isn't. But to focus on the shirt and its data points lets look at the images. One more thing .... The bunching is greater on the right sidebecause of his arm position, in fact it is entirely caused by this. The bullet entered right of centre so if anything there is more bunching on the non Croft side. Or , the Croft photo is deceiving as we are looking at the tail end of the fold, not where the bullet entered. The first set , as mentioned show the 'fold' AKA bunching. Then of course a basic line on the croft photo showing the path of a bullet satisfying the known points of impact. Image 1 - Bullet hole marked with paint Image 2 - Vertical position Image 3 - Slouch ( this is fairly conservative I feel and does not account also for the compression within the neck) Image 4 - Slouch with fold and raised neckline, as per Croft. (1" fold, 1" raise of shirt , relative to upright standing position - conservative if anything)

Or , just to throw a spanner in with Lance .... I can take the above view AND be a believer in John Armstrong’s work. Do I follow everting JA says ? NO . Does his research stand up - yes !