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. 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? Is your point that the tie in the c/u color photo of the nick is 5 icons wide, and the tie JFK is wearing in the B&W photo is 6 icons wide in the horizontal part of the knot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 How many here believe JFK would leave part of the inner knot of the tie hanging out of the top of the knot? Also, if the neck band of the tie comes out of the top corner of the tie knot, why can we not see the neck band coming out the top right corner of the tie in the photo with the arrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 How many here believe JFK would leave part of the inner knot of the tie hanging out of the top of the knot? I think it's more likely than the tie is 5 icons wide in the nick photo and 6 icons wide at the same place when it's tied around his neck... Obviously Ashton also thinks JFK messed up his tie: And if you answer my question in post #376, maybe I can follow your thinking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) How, then, do you explain the two icons above the tie knot that just happen to align perfectly with the vertical rows of icons beneath each of them? I cannot believe I am even having this discussion with you, Tom. Can you not see the attempt at hustling us that has been made here? 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) I cannot believe I am even having this discussion with you, Tom. Can you not see the attempt at hustling us that has been made here?Why don't you just answer my questions so I can attempt to follow your reasoning? 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 What question was that, Tom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 It appears to me the knot has slipped. I wear suits and ties all the time. It's not unusual for my tie knot to slip. When a mirror is available, I always check my tie knot. FWIW, I wear custom-made Brooks Brothers suits and also Brooks Brothers ties and tie my tie the same way as shown in the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Is this the question, Tom? "The alternative is what? Someone who can't count to 6 replaced the tie at NARA with a fake?" If it is, all I can say is, do we immediately stop analyzing evidence, just because we cannot think of a good reason why it might have been altered? Isn't that a rather odd approach to investigative research? I have no idea what occurred here. I do know that we have been presented with the impossible, and that certain elements of the evidence do not match up. Who did it and why? That's the next thing to deduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 It appears to me the knot has slipped. I wear suits and ties all the time. It's not unusual for my tie knot to slip. When a mirror is available, I always check my tie knot. FWIW, I wear custom-made Brooks Brothers suits and also Brooks Brothers ties and tie my tie the same way as shown in the photo. Yeah, sure it does, Jon. And I'll bet the knot underneath just happens to be a perfect match, pattern wise, for the front of the tie, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 What question was that, Tom? Let's take this one step at a time: How many icons do you see in the horizontal row that contains the nick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Five Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 In the horizontal wrap-around part of the knot, how many icons do you see in the vertical column of the knot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) Sorry, Tom, but I see six icons in each vertical row; perfectly aligned in two vertical rows. Here is something else to think about. Look again at the Archives photo: While it may appear that, in this photo, five rows vertically may be the same measurement as five rows horizontally, this is not actually the case. Being a tie, it is only natural that, through several wearings, the tie would be stretched lengthwise. I measured the middle horizontal row in this photo, using a ruler up against my monitor, and found it to be 77 mm from the outside edge of one outside icon to the outside edge of the other outside icon. I then measured the middle vertical row in this photo in the same way, and found it to be 114 mm icon to icon. This is to be expected, as this row of icons is running lengthwise on the tie, and prone to stretching with wear. Any lengthwise stretching will also tend to compress the rows of icons running across the tie. So, in this photo of the tie, the two vertical rows of icons on the face of the knot are in the group of icons that measured 114 mm/five icons, while, according to you, the two single icons above them are in a vertical section of tie, and belong to the group of icons that measured 77 mm/five icons. With such a difference in spacing between horizontal and vertical rows, how is it that all six icons are aligned so perfectly? Shouldn't the top two icons be noticeably closer to each other? Edited January 31, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) Robert, I have proof that Kennedy was sloppy with his tie that day. Here it is: The wider the tie is, the more icons there are on a row. Ties are widest at the end that hangs down in front when worn. In the photo below, the widest part of the tie we can see has 6 1/2 icons. Halfway between that row and the knot, there are 6 icons. That's 1/2 fewer because the tie is more narrow there. Just below the knot there are 5 1/2 icons. That's 1/2 fewer because the tie is more narrow there. The number of icons on the front of the knot must be less than or equal to 5 1/2. Because the width of the tie is either the same or more narrow there, Therefore, the 6th icon that seems to be on the front of the knot must really be on a different part of the knot. Which leaves only 5 icons per row on the front of the knot Click to count icons. Edited January 31, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) Well Bob, Once again, you've avoided the step-by-step process by jumping ahead. You posted a question asking for someone to agree with you. You have now received 4 responses who have ALL disagreed with you, yet you cling to the notion that it is physically impossible for the icons to align at the vertical and horizontal intersection. Since I've already constructed this I'll post with the full expectation that you will blow this off too: The B&W photo in this montage depicts the tie as worn by JFK on 11-22-1963. On top of this B&W is the color photo showing the nick in the tie. It has been rotated 90 degrees to match the orientation of the knot in the underlying photo, and resized (with no changes in proportion) to horizontally align these icons with those on the underlying B&W photo. Note the white borders at the top and bottom of the color photo overlay. THIS IS THE FULL WIDTH OF THE TIE. IT HAS NOT BEEN TRIMMED. IT CONTAINS 5 ICONS. As stated on the photo above, the "TIE BEGINS TO CURL INWARD" slightly reducing the width of the tie, but the icon immediately above the curled 'lower' edge is still horizontally aligned with the corresponding icon of the underlay as are the remaining 4 icons across the FULL WIDTH of the tie. Note the fact that the icons in BOTH photos are all the SAME SIZE. Is it a coincidence that when the edges of the color tie are aligned with the edges of the B&W tie the icons are precisely the same size and align horizontally? If I were to increase the width of the color overlay until it reached what you are claiming is the top boundary, not only will the color icons be significantly smaller that the B&W icons, there will still only be 5 icons on the blue tie v. the 6 you claim are present on the full width of the B&W tie. Please explain as to how this 5 icon wide tie does the impossible and becomes a 6 icon wide tie? You imply that it is physically impossible for the row of icons on the vertical part of the tie to align with the horizontal icons on the horizontal part of the tie yet you have have repeated your claim that the nick in the tie can be moved laterally a little bit at a time into any location. The icons are going to travel along with the nick so EITHER the horizontal icons could be matched to the vertical icons OR the nick can't be adjusted in small increments either. You can't have it both ways, so make your choice. The vertical part of the tie that is exposed above the horizontal part of the knot is considerably narrower than the full width of the tie causing the tie to curl so the edges are out of site. Additionally, the 'wings' of the collar would hide this. This would allow the icons to be shifted laterally to align the icons on the horizontal part of the tie. Tightening or loosening the knot increases/decreases the circumference of the tie. This action moves the icons laterally on the horizontal part of the tie. I've just given you 3 DIFFERENT ways to align the icons, but if your counter-argument that JFK would NEVER appear in public without a perfectly knotted (which it isn't, the knot is asymmetrical which is causing the bottom of the knot to point to the right) tie trumps all of the above, then you continue to go with that. I've wasted more than enough time here - and this is the last I have to say on this subject. Tom PS Sandy, I'd appreciate any comments you have on this post and the photo montage... Edited January 31, 2016 by Tom Neal 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