Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) There are only 3 possible orientations that will maintain alignment with the pattern on the tie. The one Ashton has selected for animation and either 120 degrees clockwise or 120 degrees counter-clockwise. Remember, the pattern on JFK's tie is fixed relative to his body. If you rotate the overlay less than 120 degrees the pattern will be misaligned."[/font][/cvolor] I don't understand what you are saying, Tom. If the section of tie we see above, with the nick, becomes the horizontal part of the tie knot, why couldn't the nick be anywhere on the 360° circumference of the tie knot?[/font][/color] Bob, If we view the tie at the level of the "nick" there are six 'icons' around the horizontal circumference of the tie in the underlying photo. Two icons are visible in the front, two in the back that are unseen, and one on each side that are partially visible. 360/6=60 degrees - every icon is located 60 degrees from the other around the circumference of the knot. IF only one type of icon was used, the horizontal tie in the overlay could be moved ONLY at 60 degree increments or the icons will not overlap. However, two different icons are present and they alternate. A 60 degree movement would overlap two non-matching icons. This requires another 60 degrees of travel around the circumference of the tie in order to match the overlapping icons. Two incremental moves of 60 degrees each, equals a single movement of 120 degrees. 360/120=3 Therefore only 3 possible location of the nick in the tie exist - AS THE TIE IN THE PHOTO IS TIED. If you presume the photo represents the knot AS WORN BY JFK then there are only 3 possible positions of the nick per the explanation above. However, we know by the photos of the untied full length tie, that the tie was obviously unknotted. When it was re-tied, the 'tighter' the knot was pulled, the shorter the circumference of the knot in the tie. It follows then that the 'looser' the knot the longer the circumference. Utilizing this procedure, the location of the nick could be moved laterally in VERY small increments. The knot in the tie would then appear larger or smaller than the knot in JFK's tie as seen in photographs. Any change in the size of the knot could be hidden by photographing the tie from a distance, and in any close-up, a photo from the side prevents any size-of-the-knot comparison. I do NOT have any closeup photos of the nick as viewed from the front. Are there any? Did they photograph the tie ONLY after re-knotting it? Given their SOP, IF it was to their advantage to do so, then they almost certainly did! Tom Edited January 30, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) This is a cool photo of Allen Dulles! And he certainly counted on the veracity of that quote... But why did you put "-Mark Twain" at the bottom of the photo? Tom Edited January 30, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) There are only 3 possible orientations that will maintain alignment with the pattern on the tie. The one Ashton has selected for animation and either 120 degrees clockwise or 120 degrees counter-clockwise. Remember, the pattern on JFK's tie is fixed relative to his body. If you rotate the overlay less than 120 degrees the pattern will be misaligned."[/font][/cvolor] I don't understand what you are saying, Tom. If the section of tie we see above, with the nick, becomes the horizontal part of the tie knot, why couldn't the nick be anywhere on the 360° circumference of the tie knot?[/font][/color] Bob, If we view the tie at the level of the "nick" there are six 'icons' around the horizontal circumference of the tie in the underlying photo. Two icons are visible in the front, two in the back that are unseen, and one on each side that are partially visible. 360/6=60 degrees - every icon is located 60 degrees from the other around the circumference of the knot. IF only one type of icon was used, the horizontal tie in the overlay could be moved ONLY at 60 degree increments or the icons will not overlap. However, two different icons are present and they alternate. A 60 degree movement would overlap two non-matching icons. This requires another 60 degrees of travel around the circumference of the tie in order to match the overlapping icons. Two incremental moves of 60 degrees each, equals a single movement of 120 degrees. 360/120=3 Therefore only 3 possible location of the nick in the tie exist - AS THE TIE IN THE PHOTO IS TIED. If you presume the photo represents the knot AS WORN BY JFK then there are only 3 possible positions of the nick per the explanation above. However, we know by the photos of the untied full length tie, that the tie was obviously unknotted. When it was re-tied, the 'tighter' the knot was pulled, the shorter the circumference of the knot in the tie. It follows then that the 'looser' the knot the longer the circumference. Utilizing this procedure, the location of the nick could be moved laterally in VERY small increments. The knot in the tie would then appear larger or smaller than the knot in JFK's tie as seen in photographs. Any change in the size of the knot could be hidden by photographing the tie from a distance, and in any close-up, a photo from the side prevents any size-of-the-knot comparison. I do NOT have any closeup photos of the nick as viewed from the front. Are there any? Did they photograph the tie ONLY after re-knotting it? Given their SOP, IF it was to their advantage to do so, then they almost certainly did! Tom Tom Did you not notice that I pointed out that this tie: has 5 icons in its width, while THIS tie, now in a horizontal position in JFK's tie knot, has 6 icons in its width??? I recommend clicking on this photo of JFK and counting how many icons wide the material at the front of his tie knot is, and then having another look at this gif: Edited January 30, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) IMO the red arrow is pointing to the somewhat darker top edge of the horizontal part of the knot. The vertical part of the tie should have been pulled down until the horizontal part of the knot rises up and covers the part that appears above the top of the horizontal edge. Depending upon your screen brightness and contrast settings, this may be easier to see the dark edge at the top of the horizontal tie knot: Tom Edited January 30, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 IMO the red arrow is pointing to the top edge of the horizontal part of the knot. The vertical part of the tie should have been pulled down until the horizontal part of the knot rises up and covers the part that appears above the horizontal edge. Tom And the icons just above where your red arrow is pointing just happen to match the 5 icons below each of them? Not to mention the tie is 6 icons wide all the way up to the knot, and then suddenly becomes 5 icons wide going across the front of the tie knot. Please, Tom, look at this photo one more time, and click on it to enlarge it so you can see the tie knot better. If JFK's tie was tied the way you describe it, that would be the sloppiest tie knot I have ever seen. A well tied knot should go right up to the collar top, and hide everything tied beneath it, instead of leaving part of the inner section of the knot sticking out. No, JFK is wearing a perfectly tied tie that does not need the vertical part pulled down in order to cover up the part "appearing above the horizontal edge". This is the President, after all. Do you really think he would be out in public with a tie tied like a used car salesman's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 You'll have to get some other opinions then, because that's the way it looks to me. The alternative is what? Someone who can't count to 6 replaced the tie at NARA with a fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 P.S. And what a coincidence that there is a square icon above the top circle icon on the left, and a circle icon above the top square icon on the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 You'll have to get some other opinions then, because that's the way it looks to me. The alternative is what? Someone who can't count to 6 replaced the tie at NARA with a fake? I simply cannot believe you cannot see something so obvious, Tom. I have no trouble seeing two vertical rows of icons on the tie knot, and each vertical row has six icons, all neatly lined up in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I would assume the miscount took place long before this material made its way to the National Archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 P.S. And what a coincidence that there is a square icon above the top circle icon on the left, and a circle icon above the top square icon on the right. Have it your way. They can't count to 6... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Who can't count to 6? What are you saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 No matter when it was done, it still requires the inability to count to 6, and a tie exists that is a perfect match except for that for the wrong number of icons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Who can't count to 6? What are you saying? Take a deep breath, let it out slowly, then go back and read your own posts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 No matter when it was done, it still requires the inability to count to 6, and a tie exists that is a perfect match except for that for the wrong number of icons. Seriously, I don't understand what you are saying about an inability to count to six, Tom. Can you not see two vertical rows of six icons each in the tie knot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now