New thread for the bunched jacket debate...

[Craig Lamson]

Towner is far for all the evidence. Have you asked your experts to revisit

their opinion and shown them the entire body of photographic evidence?

I know Towner is far from all the evidence. I was not answering your

question with regard to that, as you know well by now.

We will let the readers decide it you are being truthful or not. They can read your words. I've decided.

And no, sadly, I cannot revisit the issue with them.

I made one follow-up call to Mr. Shirt and he politely answered some

follow-up questions, emphatically declaring (I paraphrase), "There's

not enough fabric -- it cannot be." However, he said to me that his son

warned him not to discuss the JFK assassination, and that was that.

So, we can take Mr. Shirts guestimation with a very large grain of salt, since his expossure was to the evidecne was quite limited. To be blunt, his analysis is worthless.

My other expert was a casual LNer when I brought this evidence to

their attention. I was advised at first to speak with tailors, which I

did, then I went back to discuss it with my other expert. The jacket

collar was pointed out as an effective way to measure the fraction

of an inch fold. My expert said there was no way 2-3" of shirt and

jacket fabric could ride up without pushing up on the jacket collar.

And now we can dismiss this experts opinion as well. Jefferies destroys his theory. Real life has a way of doing that sometimes. So what to you have left Cliff? Anything?

Chad Zimmerman's x-ray experiments have verified this.

At the end of the analysis, my expert was a very reluctant CT and wanted

to make sure that their name was never associated with this analysis. I

haven't discussed it with this individual since, nor will I.

You gotta love "unnamed sources". How cool is that! You can say anything you want and no one can verify the resluts or ask additional questions!

So you have a guy who has only seen a small part of the evidence and he renders an opinion and an expert who tells us something is impossible and that is shown to be false. Great lineup you have there Cliff. Sheesh. Too bad for you.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

btw, Craig, I've barely scratched the surface of my argument.

I've been waiting for you to make my case for me.

Thanks!

Bring it on CLiff, I'm not going anyhwere.

BTW, have you figured out how parallax works yet. You are going to need to understand the process as we move forward.

[Cliff Varnell]

Another look at the collar.

See red lines.

If its the collar Miles, where is the shadow line marking the bottom of the collar. There is plenty of detai available to show it.

Isn't it amazing that the jacket couldn't have been elevated the 3 millimeters

required to occlude the bottom of the jacket collar -- BUT it is a FACT that the

shirt and jacket wrapped themselves around the base of his neck in a manner

consistent with a jacket collar.

Wow. This gets better and better all the time!

Replicate this event with a tucked in custom-made dress shirt.

You never will, Craig. What you see there is his jacket collar.

Obviously.

Cliff, when are you coing to establish that the shirt was tightly fitted and was properly tucked in?

Oh yes...thats right, you can't.

Of course we can.

We're talking about John F. Kennedy.

Of all the intellectual buffoonery you have authored, Craig, this takes the cake!

Are you seriously suggesting JFK's clothes were ill-fitted and when he changed

his shirt for the last time on the flight to Dallas...he didn't tuck his shirt in??

What man doesn't tuck his dress shirt in? I have never heard of that about

anybody, much less John F. Kennedy.

Because you grasp so little about clothing fit, the following is not going to make

much of an impression on you, Craig. I know it won't because I cited this once

before and you dismissed it as "just words" or something to that effect.

The Clothes and the Man: The Principles of Fine Mens Dress, by Alan Flusser,

was used as a reference book at the New York University School of Design.

(Craig, that means they teach people stuff out of the book. At important universities

and stuff).

Emphasis mine:

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.

[Craig Lamson]

Would it be too mcuh to ask that you exercise a little more consistency

to your rhetoric?

This is what you get Cliff, take it or leave it. At least I tell the truth, you on the other hand....

It was rhetorical question. I know you're not interested in consistency.

And anyone who describes a symmetrical fold as grossly asymmetrical is very

far from telling the truth.

All the folds in the DP photos were symmetrical -- you claim the opposite.

And since you continually refer to gravity as a "magic theory," let me point

out the obvious drop of JFK's jacket on Houston St. -- one more time!

Oh Please, you are making the claim that the jacket dropped from those images? DING DING DING! Does the term parallax ring a bell. Back to the drawing board Cliff. You are losing it Cliff!

Altgens puts us right back to where we started with that image, Inconclusive. We are

using it why?

No. Your claim that JFK's shirt and jacket could ride up tightly around his neck

in the manner of a jacket collar is another one of your howlers.

Cliff, Cliff, Cliff..its pretty clear by now that you are not a visually based person and that understanding what you see in a photography is very hard for. Its not unusual, even amoung those in a visual business like art directors and such. However its really too bad considering you have chosen to analyse photography. What do you imagine this might look like when photographed from the rear and lower..say the camera to subject angle in Altgens? Can you visualize this Cliff? Can you understand that its possible for this to look exactly like the collar of he jacket tightly wrapped around the neck? If you can't you need to quit now, you are not mentally equipped to continue the discussion of the photographic evidence.

JFK's jacket was elevated about an inch in Altgens. The jacket collar is visible,

the smooth shoulder-lines are visible, precluding this Betzner Delusion of yours.

Thats your OPINION Cliff. The photo is inconclusive. My opinion is that the fold and bunch hides the jacket and shirt collar. The photo is inconclusive. Your assesment that this image dismisses Bentzer is BS. Try again next time Clifff.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

You haven't done your homework.

Well sorry Cliff but thats exactly what you ask the reader to do...inspect a line in the photos to the fold.

The cup of the fold. The inside of the fold. That's why Towner is such a

good shot because we clearly see the trough of the fold.

That's why you put it into evidence. You looked at it and recognized

the "bunch" and put it into evidence here.

Quite rightly, it's determinative.

It's also true of the Lattimer photo. Clearly visible large trough. If Towner were

2-3" -- what is Lattimer 5-6"?(!)

Croft only shows the trough partially.

That's why Mr. Shirt could instantly identify the Towner fold as 3/4" -- by the cup of

the fold.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Another look at the collar.

See red lines.

If its the collar Miles, where is the shadow line marking the bottom of the collar. There is plenty of detai available to show it.

Isn't it amazing that the jacket couldn't have been elevated the 3 millimeters

required to occlude the bottom of the jacket collar -- BUT it is a FACT that the

shirt and jacket wrapped themselves around the base of his neck in a manner

consistent with a jacket collar.

Wow. This gets better and better all the time!

Replicate this event with a tucked in custom-made dress shirt.

You never will, Craig. What you see there is his jacket collar.

Obviously.

Cliff, when are you coing to establish that the shirt was tightly fitted and was properly tucked in?

Oh yes...thats right, you can't.

Of course we can.

No you can't. You are simply guessing.

We're talking about John F. Kennedy.

Yes

Of all the intellectual buffoonery you have authored, Craig, this takes the cake!

Are you seriously suggesting JFK's clothes were ill-fitted and when he changed

his shirt for the last time on the flight to Dallas...he didn't tuck his shirt in??

I've never suggested anything of the kind. You claimhis shirt was fitted to suh an extent that it would only allow 3/4 of an inch of slack. Your problem is you don't know exactly how well fitted his shirt really was. He was wearing a back brace. Did he have his shirt fitted to allow for the brace? Lots oof questions you simply can't answer. You make a MAJOR assumption based on third party knowlege with no actual experience wiht JFK's shirts nor his preference for the fit andf you claim it as fact. Talk about intellectual buffoonery! You take the trophy for that one Cliff!

What man doesn't tuck his dress shirt in? I have never heard of that about

anybody, much less John F. Kennedy.

Again who said anything about not tucking in the shirt? More Cliff Varnell claptrap. Was it properly tucked in , Did he leave any slack? Did it pull out slightly buy grabbing on the back brace as he entered the limo? All questions that need to be answered by you. If you can't answer thaose questions you are out of luck. The shirt part of your theory is full of holes. And of course you can't answer any of these questions unless you had your head firmly planted up JFK's butt.

Because you grasp so little about clothing fit, the following is not going to make

much of an impression on you, Craig. I know it won't because I cited this once

before and you dismissed it as "just words" or something to that effect.

Well Cliff they are jsut words. You can't provide concrete evidence of the fit of JFK's shirt nor the extent of the fabric availabe in the back of his shirt. Please try again next time.

The Clothes and the Man: The Principles of Fine Mens Dress, by Alan Flusser,

was used as a reference book at the New York University School of Design.

(Craig, that means they teach people stuff out of the book. At important universities

and stuff).

Emphasis mine:

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.

Did you notice the KEY word in the passage you quoted... SHOULD...

Please provide the concrete proof that this was the case with the shirt JFK wore. No speculation that ...He was JFK, He wanted to look sharp...etc. No CONCRETE facts. If you can't we can dismiss your claims about the fit and condition of JFK's shirt.

[Craig Lamson]

You haven't done your homework.

Well sorry Cliff but thats exactly what you ask the reader to do...inspect a line in the photos to the fold.

The cup of the fold. The inside of the fold. That's why Towner is such a

good shot because we clearly see the trough of the fold.

But thats the problem Cliff and it seems beyond your grasp...you can't see the trough of the fold, part of it is hidden in shadow. And you can't see the amount of fabric that is bunched on the back. This issue wil nver og away Cliff and you have yet to address it.

That's why you put it into evidence. You looked at it and recognized

the "bunch" and put it into evidence here.

No I put it into the thread for two reasons. First it is part of the chain, you have to show it regardless of how it migh look. Second I was lazy. I did not take the time to crop it out. Try again.

Quite rightly, it's determinative.

No its inconclusive for the reasons stated.

It's also true of the Lattimer photo. Clearly visible large trough. If Towner were

2-3" -- what is Lattimer 5-6"?(!)

Maybe. Croff shows almost 4 inches.

Croft only shows the trough partially.

Thats true, and excluding the the part we cant see there is almost 4 inces of fabric folded/bunched in Croft

That's why Mr. Shirt could instantly identify the Towner fold as 3/4" -- by the cup of

the fold.

And thats why Mr. Shirts guesstimate fails. He did could not see the depth of the fold nor could he see the fabric bunched on the back. Thats the PRIME reason he needed ot see all of the evidence, not just what you cherrypicked. You can keep pimping this forever Cliff but its never going to change the fact that its a losing game for you.

[Cliff Varnell]

Thats your OPINION Cliff. The photo is inconclusive. My opinion is

that the fold and bunch hides the jacket and shirt collar.

That's the left side of JFK's head visible in Altgens, Craig.

It's your opinion that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt collar on

the left side of JFK's head in Altgens?

And haven't you also claimed that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt

collar on the right side of his head in Betzner, taken about 30 seconds after

Altgens?

And yet you were raving about the visible shirt collar in Croft?

I think we have the operative definition of cognitive impairment.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig:

"Clothing fit" is a term of art which you are using improperly.

Do some research before you go spouting off with phrases the

meaning of which you have no clue.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig:

"Clothing fit" is a term of art which you are using improperly.

Do some research before you go spouting off with phrases the

meaning of which you have no clue.

Clif, please post your evidence as to the actual fit of JFK's shirt. You do have it..right? And Cliff, fit is subjective. The end user, in this case JFk, decides what he wants, not the tailor nor a text on clothing design.

Yoo post endless speculation on the fit and condition of JFK's shirt and claim it as fact. It is not and thats a fact.

[Craig Lamson]

Thats your OPINION Cliff. The photo is inconclusive. My opinion is

that the fold and bunch hides the jacket and shirt collar.

That's the left side of JFK's head visible in Altgens, Craig.

So?

It's your opinion that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt collar on

the left side of JFK's head in Altgens?

Yes

And haven't you also claimed that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt

collar on the right side of his head in Betzner, taken about 30 seconds after

Altgens?

Yes

And yet you were raving about the visible shirt collar in Croft?

Yes, and they are all consistant. You however lack the ability to understand.

I think we have the operative definition of cognitive impairment.

No we have the operative definition of Cliffs total ignorance of basics of the photographic process.

Good god Cliff, learn about parallax. You have made yourself look even more foolish that ever. How do you contain your embarassment? You side and not suffer from a complete disconnect with reality, you also suffer from a decided lack of ability understand even the most simple of photographic principals

[Cliff Varnell]

Thats your OPINION Cliff. The photo is inconclusive. My opinion is

that the fold and bunch hides the jacket and shirt collar.

That's the left side of JFK's head visible in Altgens, Craig.

So?

It's your opinion that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt collar on

the left side of JFK's head in Altgens?

Yes

And haven't you also claimed that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt

collar on the right side of his head in Betzner, taken about 30 seconds after

Altgens?

[quotr

Yes

And yet you were raving about the visible shirt collar in Croft?

Yes, and they are all consistant. You however lack the ability to understand.

I think we have the operative definition of cognitive impairment.

No we have the operative definition of Cliffs total ignorance of basics of the photographic process.

Good god Cliff, learn about parallax.

You're bluffing.

Parallax isn't going to explain the sudden appearance of JFK's shirt collar

in the Nix film.

Did Nix's perspective significantly change in that fraction of an instant?

No.

The limo only moved a few feet when JFK leaned back from his chat

with Nellie and the jacket dropped.

Every photo image of JFK prior to his chat with Nellie shows the jacket collar

riding over the top of the shirt collar.

Every photo image of JFK after his chat with Nellie shows the exposed shirt

collar.

You cannot explain this discrepancy by "parallax."

Good god Craig, learn about gravity.

You have made yourself look even more foolish that ever. How do you contain your embarassment? You side and not suffer from a complete disconnect with reality, you also suffer from a decided lack of ability understand even the most simple of photographic principals

That principal doesn't apply given the varied perspectives of the

photographers and the consistency of the information in the photos.

Consider:

The above is the "Adolphus Hotel" photo taken on Main St. 2 minutes

before the shooting.

The photo was taken from behind and above JFK. The jacket clearly rode into

the hairline and the shirt collar is not visible. Note JFK's posture: head turned

to the right, right arm waving. This is a similar posture as in Betzner. The

fold in the jacket is also similar to the fold in Betzner.

Consider:

This is a frame of the Jefferies film, taken on Main St. 90 seconds before

the shooting, which clearly shows the jacket riding up over the top of the

shirt collar and into the hairline. Vastly different perspective than the

Adolphus photo, same information.

Consider:

This is the Weaver photo taken on the corner of Houston and Main.

This is where JFK started to knock his jacket down.

The padded right-shoulder of the jacket pushed down on the jacket

fabric, creating the obvious horizontal fold. The jacket collar had dropped

from the hairline but still occluded the shirt collar.

At this point JFK's jacket wasn't elevated more than an inch.

At the 10 second mark of the Huges film there was no visible shirt collar.

The 10 second mark of the Martin film shows no visible shirt collar

and a smooth right shoulder-line.

Consider:

The jacket collar stays roughly in the same place as as in the Weaver

photo, but the jacket has smoothed out and JFK's right shoulder line

is smooth.

Consider:

Nix is the seventh shot showing the same information.

Different perspectives all, all showing the jacket riding above the shirt

collar.

This Nix frame shows JFK leaning forward to chat with Nellie, un-pinning

his jacket. The jacket begins to fall.

A few seconds later on the corner of Elm and Houston we clearly see that

the jacket collar had dropped leaving a 3/4" fabric fold symmetrically

placed at the nape of his neck in the Towner photo:

The Tina Towner movie shows JFK's clearly visible shirt collar throughout.

http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg

Within a second of the Towner film there's Willis #4 and its highly visible

shirt collar:

Croft (z161):

Betzner: (z186)

Let's take an inventory:

These images were all taken before JFK leaned back from his chat with

Nellie, all show the jacket collar occluding the shirt collar:

The Adolphus photo

The Jefferies film

The Weaver photo

The Martin film

The Hughes film

The Altgens photo

The Nix film

These were taken after JFK leaned back from his chat with Nellie, all

showing the exposed collar:

The Nix film

The Towner photo

The Towner Film

The Willis photo

The Croft photo

The Betzner photo.

The motorcade films and photos show a clear record of the

movement of JFK's jacket.

JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

That, my friend, is a historical fact.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Miles Scull]

That, my friend, is a historical fact.

Cliff,

Where is the back entrance puncture point?

Thanks

[Cliff Varnell]

That, my friend, is a historical fact.

Cliff,

Where is the back entrance puncture point?

Thanks

Bingo! I'd say it's the small defect suggested by your graphic.

I see what you're saying about the autopsy photo.

Nice work, Miles!

[Miles Scull]

Bingo! I'd say it's the small defect suggested by your graphic.

I see what you're saying about the autopsy photo.

OK, Cliff,

Then, if it's 3.5 inches down, then the fabric contracted app. 2 inches.

Therefore, the bulge consists of a surface contour of 2" in length.

A most acute bulge would be a vertical spike with 1 inch side walls.

Therefore, 3/4 inch spike is one of many possible.

Here is another look at app. trajectories (22 degrees) where 3.5 inches is used as the standard.

Could the shirt collar have moved up the neck? How far, in your view?

Do you see this differently?

Edited February 26, 2008 by Miles Scull