Jump to content
The Education Forum

Salandria & the Salient Fact of Conspiracy


Recommended Posts

Author John Kelin on the background of early JFK assassination researcher

Vincent Salandria:

Praise From A Future Generation, Kelin, pg 33:

Salandria's father was a tailor who took great pride in the custom-fitted suits and

overcoats he produced in his shop, where he worked long hours each day. His

mother worked alongside her husband as a seamstress...

Vincent Salandria grew up with a significant sense of clothing fit. How could he not?

This background makes him singularly qualified to make the following assessment of

the clothing evidence in the murder of John F. Kennedy:

Kelin, pg 483 (emphasis in the original):

Vincent Salandria remains certain that the holes in the back of Kennedy's

custom-made jacket and custom-made shirt do line up precisely with

the wound in Kennedy's back, and the placement of the wound high on the

back is fraudulent.

Following the release of the Warren Report, supporters of the "official story"

had to defend the claim that JFK's clothing "bunched up" 4 to 5 inches to match

the "back of the neck" wound posited by the WC's lone gunman scenario.

Following the release of the HSCA report, the SBT wound was lowered

to the base of the neck, and the discrepancy between the holes in the

clothes and the "new" SBT was two to three inches.

Both SBT wound locations are clearly fraudulent.

Anyone with a working understanding of clothing "fit," as Salandria obviously would,

knows that a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt normally moves in fractions of an inch.

Clothes And The Man -- The Principles of Fine Men's Dress, Alan Flusser, pg 79:

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to

sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines

of the jacket...The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang

at least six inches below the waist so that it stays tucked in when you move around.

The bullet hole in JFK's jacket is 4.125 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is an even 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was "bunched up" .125 of an inch (1/8") vis a vis the shirt.

The SBT requires JFK's shirt and jacket to have been "bunched up" two to three

inches in tandem, an event its defenders have never replicated. As a San Francisco

shirt-maker "Mr. Shirt" explained to me when I visited his downtown shop early in

August of 1997 -- bunch fallacy "cannot be -- there isn't enough fabric."

Kelin, pg 482:

The early critics, and Vince Salandria in particular, argued that this discrepancy

[between the holes in the clothes and the alleged SBT inshoot] overturns the

Warren Commission's entire case.

Salandria and the early critics have yet to be honestly challenged on this point.

Since the jacket was "bunched" 1/8" vis a vis the shirt, it is not enough to

merely point out the obvious -- the jacket was "bunched."

Those who promote "bunch fallacy" never get beyond non sequitur.

Praise From A Future Generation, pg 298:

For Salandria the holes shown in the President's shirt and jacket

had a personal dimension. His father had been a tailor who was proud of

his profession; Salandria couldn't accept the explanation that Kennedy's

tailor would make a shirt and jacket so ill-fitting it would bunch up as he

waved to the crowd. Yet this is the explanation [Arlen] Specter offered to

Gaeton Fonzi. "Wave your arm a few times,"Specter said..."[W]hen you

sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities

are that, uh, that it gets, that uh, this, this, this is about the way a jacket

rides up..." And the shirt? "Same thing."

Kelin, pg. 483:

"Specter made a fool of himself with Fonzi in trying to defend the single

bullet theory," [salandria] recalled in 2007, in discussing the Jefferies

film. "If he could not defend the single-bullet concept, then it is not

defensible."

When Arlen Specter made a fool of himself in his confrontation with Fonzi,

it wasn't the first time such a humiliation befell him over the same issue.

J. Edgar Hoover certainly inflicted such during the notorious FBI "reanactment."

Many other "bunch fallacists" and their defenders have commited laughable acts

of intellectual buffoonery and fraud. There is no need to inventory those here.

Suffice to say:

1) JFK's tucked-in, custom-made dress shirt was designed not to "bunch up" more

than a fraction of an inch.

2) The claim that JFK's jacket was elevated 2" to 3" in the Jefferies film is rendered

moot by the Dealey Plaza films and photos which show the jacket actually dropping.

The visible shirt collar and slight (fraction of an inch) jacket fold seen in Betzner #3

(Z186) is similar to the visible shirt collar and slight fold seen in JFK's clothing in a

similar posture (arm elevated) at Fort Worth that morning.

Fort Worth:

Elm St. (Z186):

3) Vincent Bugliosi refused to address the salient fact of conspiracy in his book,

Reclaiming History, but he did, however, address the issue in the CD which

accompanied the book:

A point that conspiracy theorists have raised over and over in their books is that

the entrance holes in the president's coat and shirt were more than 2 inches lower

in the back than the actual entrance wound in his body. But even if there wasn't

an explanation for this, so what?

The lone assassin scenario doesn't square with the physical evidence -- so what?

I can't imagine a greater monument to Salandria's analysis than to have Bugliosi

concede the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One must not forget in this matter the likelyhood the last 'tuckin' was on Airforce One, followed by numerous stretchings, bendings, twistings, getting in and out of Limo to shake hands with kids, plus the thick back brace and the wrapping around it under the shirt/coat. ie general statements by tailors not taking these matters into account are not as valid as they may otherwise seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One must not forget in this matter the likelyhood the last 'tuckin' was on Airforce One, followed by numerous stretchings, bendings, twistings, getting in and out of Limo to shake hands with kids, plus the thick back brace and the wrapping around it under the shirt/coat. ie general statements by tailors not taking these matters into account are not as valid as they may otherwise seem.

And why do you make the assumption that tailors are "not taking these matters into

account"?

These "numerous stretchings, twistings, getting in and out of the limo to shake hands"

are always taken into account by tailors -- do you think these activities were the sole

province of John F. Kennedy?

And how did the back brace have one iota of impact on the fit of JFK's shirt?

Please cite your expertise in this area, John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"why do you make the assumption..."

I don't. I state : "general statements by tailors not taking these matters into account...et.c."

"...are always taken into account by tailors." - citation please.

"...how did the back brace have one iota of impact..." - assumption that one wishes to be comfortable and therefore loose shirt. Someone, (Michael perhaps?) posted a photo last year of JFK in a shirt. It was loose and comfy looking to me.

"Please cite your expertise in this area..." - non-existent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"why do you make the assumption..."

I don't. I state : "general statements by tailors not taking these matters into account...et.c."

"...are always taken into account by tailors." - citation please.

I will repeat the citation I posted, adding the emphasis:

Clothes And The Man -- The Principles of Fine Men's Dress, Alan Flusser, pg 79:

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to

sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines

of the jacket...The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang

at least six inches below the waist so that it stays tucked in when you move around.

The reason guys spend extra money for custom-made clothes is so that their

shirts stay tucked in when they move around.

"...how did the back brace have one iota of impact..." - assumption that one wishes to be comfortable and therefore loose shirt.

Do you understand the concept -- "clothing fit"?

The tailor's craft is to allow enough room for the wearer to move comfortably

while still looking good. Allowing extra material for the back brace does not

translate into extra slack.

The amount of slack remains the same, back brace or no -- 3/4".

Someone, (Michael perhaps?) posted a photo last year of JFK in a shirt. It was

loose and comfy looking to me.

Of course it was. A custom-made shirt is always comfy -- and 3/4" of slack

will do the trick.

"Please cite your expertise in this area..." - non-existent.

If you have no expertise in this area, why do you make definitive statements

about that which you have no knowledge?

For myself, I share something in common with Salandria, as this is a personal

matter with me, as well: my sister is one of the world's top textile conservators,

and a 2-time winner of the LA Drama Critics Circle Award for Costume Design.

This is the expertise she has imparted:

In clothing design, there are two categories of clothing/body movement:

"normal movements" and "gross movements." Normal body movements are

casual, and correspond with fractions of an inch of "normal" clothing movements.

"Gross movement" occurs when the body is extended; "gross" body movement

corresponds with multiple-inch movements of clothing.

For all his "twisting and stretching" in the limo, none of JFK's movements in the

limo were "gross."

The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropping; the tailoring of his shirt precluded

"gross" movement of the fabric. The SBT thus stands debunked...anyone's bruised pet

theories notwithstanding.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you have no expertise in this area, why do you make definitive statements

about that which you have no knowledge?" - non sequiteurs mixed with misrepresentations. Statements, definitive statements... there's a difference. The Forum is full of statements, I suppose one could characterise them as definitive or not as suits the occasion. I raise matters that puzzle me hoping to have them corrected or confirmed. Sans the negativities, you do answer. Thank you.

"For all his "twisting and stretching" in the limo, none of JFK's movements in the

limo were "gross." "

- I wrote, in toto: "One must not forget in this matter the likelyhood the last 'tuckin' was on Airforce One, followed by numerous stretchings, bendings, twistings, getting in and out of Limo to shake hands with kids," ie. likely 'gross movements', supported by the initial handshaking pre limo entry photos at the airport. Perhaps as a whole there might be a bit of 'grossness' there, certainly no retucking AFAIK. Who knows what the state of his shirt tail was by the time they got to DP? Did any nurses or doctors comment on it?

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you have no expertise in this area, why do you make definitive statements

about that which you have no knowledge?" - non sequiteurs mixed with misrepresentations. Statements, definitive statements... there's a difference. The Forum is full of statements, I suppose one could characterise them as definitive or not as suits the occasion. I raise matters that puzzle me hoping to have them corrected or confirmed. Sans the negativities, you do answer. Thank you.

You're welcome. Usually when one raises matters that puzzle them they use

one of these -- "?" I didn't get the impression you were puzzled, at all.

"For all his "twisting and stretching" in the limo, none of JFK's movements in the

limo were "gross." "

- I wrote, in toto: "One must not forget in this matter the likelyhood the last 'tuckin' was on Airforce One, followed by numerous stretchings, bendings, twistings, getting in and out of Limo to shake hands with kids," ie. likely 'gross movements', supported by the initial handshaking pre limo entry photos at the airport.

Shaking hands is not a "gross" body movement. I'm curious why you would characterize

it as such. Have you ever noticed someone's tucked-in, custom-made shirt becoming

untucked when they shake someone else's hand?

Here's the Fort Worth photo again. A "normal" extension of the arm was accompanied

by "normal" folds in the clothing.

Perhaps as a whole there might be a bit of 'grossness' there, certainly no retucking AFAIK. Who knows what the state of his shirt tail was by the time they got to DP?

The shirt tail was tucked in, John. That's what shirt tails do. Salandria understands

this because he grew up with it. It's not at all the mystery you appear to want to

make of it.

Did any nurses or doctors comment on it?

If I say this is a silly question are you going to accuse me of being "negative"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome. I'll try to throw in a few more Q marks in the future.

____________

At love field there a numerous far stretchng hand shakes, with the right arm. They strike me as 'gross'. ?

____________

"Did any nurses or doctors comment on it?"

"If I say this is a silly question are you going to accuse me of being "negative"?"

Nope, I'd say you're being silly.

Did any nurses or doctors comment on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome. I'll try to throw in a few more Q marks in the future.

____________

That would be helpful, thank you.

At love field there a numerous far stretchng hand shakes, with the right arm. They strike me as 'gross'. ?

Post the photo you think shows "gross" movement.

____________

"Did any nurses or doctors comment on it?"

"If I say this is a silly question are you going to accuse me of being "negative"?"

Nope, I'd say you're being silly.

Did any nurses or doctors comment on it?

No, there was no comment upon whether his shoes were tied or his fly zipped up,

either.

Wouldn't you think the nurses and doctors had more pressing concerns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Post the photo you think shows "gross" movement". - no, there are plenty to see on many sites.

"..whether his shoes were tied or his fly zipped up,...Wouldn't you think the nurses and doctors had more pressing concerns?"

Certainly (one would hope so anyway), however there are interviews with nurses and doctors noting the clothing and its removal. Did any nurses or doctors comment on whether his shirt was neatly tucked in or not? I haven't read any such comments. inference : it cannot be known, only speculated upon. ?.

edit:spelling

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff, you have piqued my curiosity about this.

I was done with image analysis as Dons' map is demonstrably faulty, Allans' snipers nest ignores the proper placement of the pipes and the West Survey has been cut up and sticky taped together, ie all previous analysis has been a waste of time as the foundations are flawed, ie the conclusions flawed.

There may be a way of looking at this. However, I can foresee problems :

- the photos of the shirt are not scaled.

- the shirt is creased and the compounds in the blood that draws wound edges together when blood contacts air has contracted the shirt in the bloodied areas.

- the photos are obliquely taken and proper perspective correction could be difficult

- Kennedy's right shoulder was 'over developed' through steroids

- the length of skin/back from belt to neck creases may be unknown.

- others?

However I think one can faintly percieve where the belt was on the shirt, and the blood on collar and neck crease matches. But not now, It's good night for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff, you have piqued my curiosity about this.

I was done with image analysis as Dons' map is demonstrably faulty, Allans' snipers nest ignores the proper placement of the pipes and the West Survey has been cut up and sticky taped together, ie all previous analysis has been a waste of time as the foundations are flawed, ie the conclusions flawed.

And what does this have to do with the principles of clothing fit and

John F. Kennedy's obvious adherence to those principles?

There may be a way of looking at this. However, I can foresee problems :

[

- the photos of the shirt are not scaled.

So what? We can measure the location of the clothing holes and observe

the jacket dropping in Dealey Plaza.

Please cite your evidence that JFK's tailors didn't follow the principles of clothing fit.

- the shirt is creased and the compounds in the blood that draws wound edges together when blood contacts air has contracted the shirt in the bloodied areas.

- the photos are obliquely taken and proper perspective correction could be difficult

I have no idea what you're talking about.

- Kennedy's right shoulder was 'over developed' through steroids

Factually incorrect. He had fleshy pads on the back of his neck.

- the length of skin/back from belt to neck creases may be unknown.

Hurt much bending over backwards for irrelevancies?

- others?

I can bat 'em down as fast as you manufacture 'em.

However I think one can faintly percieve where the belt was on the shirt, and the blood on collar and neck crease matches. But not now, It's good night for now.

What's good for right now?

As noted earlier in this thread, Salandria's analysis has yet to be honestly challenged.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Post the photo you think shows "gross" movement". - no, there are plenty to see on many sites.

Then you should have no trouble posting one.

"..whether his shoes were tied or his fly zipped up,...Wouldn't you think the nurses and doctors had more pressing concerns?"

Certainly (one would hope so anyway), however there are interviews with nurses and doctors noting the clothing and its removal. Did any nurses or doctors comment on whether his shirt was neatly tucked in or not? I haven't read any such comments. inference : it cannot be known, only speculated upon. ?.

Irrelevant. His shirt may have been pulled out when he was removed from the limo.

If you are going to claim that JFK went around with his shirt tail out you have

to do more than declare "it cannot be known."

The burden of proof is yours.

Otherwise, the claim is absurd on its face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonderful, thank you for everything, that'll save me a lot of time.

Case Closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...