New thread for the bunched jacket debate...

[Craig Lamson]

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

Maybe or maybe not.

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

Or a 4 inch bulge that displaces two inches of length....

[/b][/color]

[Miles Scull]

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

Maybe or maybe not.

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

Or a 4 inch bulge that displaces two inches of length....

Craig, Cliff,

Here's a little study in bunch theory.

There is an infinitude of bunch configurations theoretically possible.

The purple 22 degree trajectory shows a near graze of the bunch fabric.

Do you see this differently?

[Cliff Varnell]

Miles, Craig,

Don't be fooled by the folds in the back of JFK's jacket in that shot.

Those are vertical and vertical/diagonal folds.

What difference does that make, you may ask?

Vertical folds are created by bunching the fabric sideways.

Sideways ain't the same as up, but I've encountered legions of LNers who

swear it is.

Both JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated no more than an inch in that shot,

as indicated by the ride of the shirt collar near the hairline.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[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?

[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.

Thats quite the narrative Cliff, quite wrong but interesting all the same. Historical fact? Not really. Historical revision is more like it.

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

[Cliff Varnell]

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

The burden of proof isn't on me.

You claimed as a FACT that 2-3" of JFK's shirt and jacket were

elevated entirely above the SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

One thing for sure, your rebuttal will not include a replication of

your claims using a suit coat and a tuck-in custom made dress

shirt. You, and others who make these unsupported claims, will

find such impossible.

3/4" does not equal 3" no matter how hard you blow.

That you cannot even define the phrase "clothing fit" speaks volumes

about your lack of knowledge in this area.

[Craig Lamson]

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

The burden of proof isn't on me.

You are the one making the claim here that the jacket fell, so yes you have the burden of proof. Anyways none of your post really matters, what matters is the last seconds before the shot.

You claimed as a FACT that 2-3" of JFK's shirt and jacket were

elevated entirely above the SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

And I have shown just that with the measurement of Croft. You have yet to show my measurments were wrong.

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

One thing for sure, your rebuttal will not include a replication of

your claims using a suit coat and a tuck-in custom made dress

shirt. You, and others who make these unsupported claims, will

find such impossible.

Why do I need a replication? The actual photos show everything.

3/4" does not equal 3" no matter how hard you blow.

Your 3/4 of an inch claim has never been established. We have seen how you limited the evidence to your expert when he gave his ESTIMATE ( notice he did not MEASURE anything). Your provide nothing to back your claim of 3/4 of an inch. Please tell us how you measured the Towner. Until you do you have nothing CLiff. But you already knew that.

That you cannot even define the phrase "clothing fit" speaks volumes

about your lack of knowledge in this area.

I never claimed any expertise in the clothing and I don't need "clothing fit" because you have never established the true nature of JFK's shirt nor jacket. Until you do that there is nothing to discuss about how JFK's clothing "fit" that day. What we have is just more Varnell smoke he pretends is fact. Blow it up someone else butt Cliff. Its not going to fly here.

So, are you done presenting your photographic case that the jacket dropped in the plaza Cliff?

[Miles Scull]

So, are you done presenting your photographic case that the jacket dropped in the plaza Cliff?

Cliff, Craig,

See purple bunch bulge.

At a 22 degree trajectory with only 4.5 inches of fabric bunching the bullet hits the bulge, producing 2 holes.

What's wrong?

Edit: spelling

Edited February 28, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Craig Lamson]

So, are you done presenting your photographic case that the jacket dropped in the plaza Cliff?

Cliff, Craig,

See purple bunch bulge.

At a 22 degree trajectory with only 4.5 inches of fabric bunching the bullet hits the bulge, producing 2 holes.

What's wrong?

Edit: spelling

First off the bulge is not a square but beyond that I'm not interested in what the bullet may or may not have done. My sole reason for this debate is to deal with what the images tell us, not to debate the SBT.

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig went red.

My new comments in: green.

Craig Lamson had written:

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because

I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and

I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

To which Varnell yawned:

The burden of proof isn't on me.

You are the one making the claim here that the jacket fell, so yes you

have the burden of proof. Anyways none of your post really matters, what matters is the

last seconds before the shot.

And by what alchemy of logic did you arrive at that conclusion? JFK was in Dealey Plaza

30-35 seconds. The Weaver photo clearly shows there was no Lamson Fantasy on his

right shoulder-line. But who ya gonna believe -- Craig Lamson or yer own lyin' eyes?

Varnell auto-pilots, bored:

You claimed as a FACT that 2-3" of JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated entirely above

the SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

And I have shown just that with the measurement of Croft.

You wish.

1) You used a less than stellar version of the photo. The better the resolution the

smaller the appearance of the fold.

2) You based your measurements on the exposed shirt collar, another root

fallacy. As we've seen, the amount of exposed shirt collar could shift fractions

of an inch in a split second, according to JFK's movements.

The jacket collar was always 1.25", but the shirt collar exposure was not a fixed

amount.

I didn't arbitrarily draw lines on Towner the way you did on Croft. I simply drew

a line down the 1.25" jacket collar. You have no idea exactly how much shirt collar

was exposed in Croft.

The important thing is that any of the shirt collar was visible on Elm St.

According to one of your conflicted claims, the jacket hid the shirt collar -- but

then you draw a line to represent the highly visible shirt collar.

3) Your second measurement is absurd -- you can't claim to represent a three

dimensional object with a line on a two-dimensional photo.

You haven't even examined You have yet to show my measurments were wrong.

You ignore my critique in hopes it'll go away?

Varnell earlier issued a challenge that cannot be met:

One thing for sure, your rebuttal will not include a replication of your claims using

a suit coat and a tuck-in custom made dress shirt. You, and others who make these

unsupported claims, will find such impossible.

Why do I need a replication?

The question speaks a thousand words about your methodology, or rather your

lack of same.

The actual photos show everything.

They do indeed.

Varnell threw an elbow:

3/4" does not equal 3" no matter how hard you blow.

Your 3/4 of an inch claim has never been established.

To the contrary, you were very helpful in establishing it, Craig. Thank you.

You put Towner into evidence as an example of a photo showing

2-3" of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of JFK's jacket all bunched up in tandem above

the base of his neck.

You wouldn't have put it into evidence unless you saw the cupped fold. We

can see the inside of the cupped fold -- the trough, if you will -- as it extended

across the nape of JFK's neck.

When it dawned on you that Towner was killing your case, you shifted gears

and tried to say -- "can't really see much."

John Hunt and Chad Zimmerman are also champion back-pedalers.

You guys ought to get together and form an Olympic Back-Pedaling Team.

The gold is a lock...

We have seen how you limited the evidence to your expert when he gave his ESTIMATE

( notice he did not MEASURE anything).

Sure he did! The 1.25" jacket collar is right next to the fold. Those with minimum

cognitive ability can see that the fold is small compared to the jacket collar.

And compare it to the huge fold in the Lattimer photo. Was that fold 6-8" of bunched

up shirt/jacket fabric? <snicker>

As you've observed, the Towner fold is a garden variety fold and not much to

see -- just as it is in Willis, the Towner film, the Croft photo, and Betzner.

Your provide nothing to back your claim of 3/4 of an inch. Please tell us how you

measured the Towner. Until you do you have nothing CLiff. But you already knew

that.

I went over this Towner business already, as I did again above.

All you do is repeat the Lamson Universal Rationale over and over -- "you can't

really see much" -- which supports my case, thank you.

Alas, you've called me out very publicly and now you have to say something.

When you're digging yourself a hole, Craig, it's best to first stop digging.

Varnell earlier noted:

That you cannot even define the phrase "clothing fit" speaks volumes

about your lack of knowledge in this area.

I never claimed any expertise in the clothing and I don't need

"clothing fit" because you have never established the true nature of JFK's shirt nor

jacket. Until you do that there is nothing to discuss about how JFK's clothing "fit"

that day.

So you don't need to know anything about the movement of clothing to make

statements of FACT concerning the movement of clothing??

Of course you don't, Craig. It doesn't take any expertise at all to repeat

non sequiturs endlessly.

And just what in hell do you mean by establishing "the true nature of JFK's

shirt and jacket."

What is "true nature"?

I mean, is that anything like establishing the "true nature" of the Javier Bardem

character in the latest Coen Bros. flick? <snicker>

I'll give you a little hint, Craig. Maybe you could break down and do a little

research.

Three words:

Updated American Silhouette.

Google it.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig went red.

My new comments in: green.

Craig adds in blue

Craig Lamson had written:

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because

I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and

I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

To which Varnell yawned:

The burden of proof isn't on me.

You are the one making the claim here that the jacket fell, so yes you

have the burden of proof. Anyways none of your post really matters, what matters is the

last seconds before the shot.

And by what alchemy of logic did you arrive at that conclusion? JFK was in Dealey Plaza

30-35 seconds. The Weaver photo clearly shows there was no Lamson Fantasy on his

right shoulder-line. But who ya gonna believe -- Craig Lamson or yer own lyin' eyes?

We will discuss Weaver later, for all that it matter, which is exactly nothing. I've no problem with the reader using their own eyes to see the depth of Varnells inability to do photo analysis.

Varnell auto-pilots, bored:

You claimed as a FACT that 2-3" of JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated entirely above

the SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

And I have shown just that with the measurement of Croft.

You wish.

1) You used a less than stellar version of the photo. The better the resolution the

smaller the appearance of the fold.

Prove it

2) You based your measurements on the exposed shirt collar, another root

fallacy. As we've seen, the amount of exposed shirt collar could shift fractions

of an inch in a split second, according to JFK's movements.

Thats the only part of the image we can use, the bottom if the jacket collar is not visable. Show that my collar selection is NOT 1/2 of an inch?

The jacket collar was always 1.25", but the shirt collar exposure was not a fixed

amount.

Yes it was and I took a section of the collar away from the back of the neck to assure it was AT LEAST 1/2 inch. In addition I checked the measurement against the ear of JFK, and my selection shows his ear from top to bottom to be three inches. So tell me Cliff what size DO YOU BELIEVE my collar selection is? Lets use YOUR figure and see how much fabric is in the bunch.

Cliff said upthread about the Croft photo: "What is your evidence that the small, normal, fraction of an inch "bunch"

in this photo involves 3" of fabric as opposed to 3/4" of fabric?"

SO please Clif so us haow that works out...Please! This should be the howler of the century!

I didn't arbitrarily draw lines on Towner the way you did on Croft. I simply drew

a line down the 1.25" jacket collar. You have no idea exactly how much shirt collar

was exposed in Croft.

You did the same thing that I did Cliff, only you exclaimed out of thin air that the bunch was a 3/4 inch fold! Wher exactly did you measure form CLiff? You had to measure something to come to this conclusion? And how do you know oyur collar line represents 1.25 inches? Do you have a photo that shows CLEARLY the bottom of the collar? And what about the actual depth of the fold? Where is the BOTTOM CLiff? Oh, thats right, you cant supply either , can you?

The important thing is that any of the shirt collar was visible on Elm St.

According to one of your conflicted claims, the jacket hid the shirt collar -- but

then you draw a line to represent the highly visible shirt collar.

Will it ever sink in Cliff, that the jacket collar can be down, exposing the shirt collar and that the jacket back can be folded and raised so that from certain camera angles the jacket and shirt collars are hidden from view? You know that good old Parallex thing again. Sheesh.

3) Your second measurement is absurd -- you can't claim to represent a three

dimensional object with a line on a two-dimensional photo.

Of course you can, its the very basis of how measurements are taken from photographs. Is it now your expert opinion that it is impossible to measure objects in a photograph? If so your are going to put a lot of people out of work with your new found theory. Please prove your statement.

You haven't even examined You have yet to show my measurments were wrong.

You ignore my critique in hopes it'll go away?

I'm not ignoring anything. You have yet to provide a critique that makes sense. Please try again.

Varnell earlier issued a challenge that cannot be met:

One thing for sure, your rebuttal will not include a replication of your claims using

a suit coat and a tuck-in custom made dress shirt. You, and others who make these

unsupported claims, will find such impossible.

Why do I need a replication?

The question speaks a thousand words about your methodology, or rather your

lack of same.

Sheesh Cliff, I measured some fabric folds in a jacket and shirt to see what happens when you fold them. I never attempted to replicate any of the actual photos because that is a fools errand. Annd why, because some foolish people will always claim, you got this wrong, you got that wrong etc. Its a waste of time. We have the ACTUAL photos to work with. So tell me Cliff, have you attempted any replications to prove your points? Or does that speak volumes about your methodology?

The actual photos show everything.

They do indeed.

Yes, they show a large bulge that equals almost 4 inches of fabric.

Varnell threw an elbow:

3/4" does not equal 3" no matter how hard you blow.

Remember Cliff tells us this bunch involves only 3/4 of an inch of fabric. That makes JFK's ear about an inch tall? Does anyone really think JFK's ear was that small besides CLiff?

Your 3/4 of an inch claim has never been established.

To the contrary, you were very helpful in establishing it, Craig. Thank you.

You put Towner into evidence as an example of a photo showing

2-3" of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of JFK's jacket all bunched up in tandem above

the base of his neck.

You wouldn't have put it into evidence unless you saw the cupped fold. We

can see the inside of the cupped fold -- the trough, if you will -- as it extended

across the nape of JFK's neck.

When it dawned on you that Towner was killing your case, you shifted gears

and tried to say -- "can't really see much."

Cliff the evidence is the evidence, I'll never hide it. Towner is a perfect example of your total failure to act in a intellectually honest manner. You make a claim about Towner that you can't back up. You just ask the reader to "trust you". You say..look, compare the jacket collar, that I can only guess at the exact bottom edge, to the fold in which I can't see the bottom due to the shadow. But never mind all of that and trust some guys I talked to who did not measure anything either. Amazing stuff, and to think you made this the cornerstone of your work on this for the last 9 years! When we combine this with your clams about the 3/4 inches of fabric in Croft, we can fully see the bankrupt nature of your claims.

John Hunt and Chad Zimmerman are also champion back-pedalers.

You guys ought to get together and form an Olympic Back-Pedaling Team.

The gold is a lock...

I've backpedeled on what exactly?

We have seen how you limited the evidence to your expert when he gave his ESTIMATE

( notice he did not MEASURE anything).

Sure he did! The 1.25" jacket collar is right next to the fold. Those with minimum

cognitive ability can see that the fold is small compared to the jacket collar.

And compare it to the huge fold in the Lattimer photo. Was that fold 6-8" of bunched

up shirt/jacket fabric? <snicker>

As you've observed, the Towner fold is a garden variety fold and not much to

see -- just as it is in Willis, the Towner film, the Croft photo, and Betzner.

See my comments above your "evidence"

Your provide nothing to back your claim of 3/4 of an inch. Please tell us how you

measured the Towner. Until you do you have nothing CLiff. But you already knew

that.

I went over this Towner business already, as I did again above.

All you do is repeat the Lamson Universal Rationale over and over -- "you can't

really see much" -- which supports my case, thank you.

Thats your problem Cliff, you can't see. Your investment in your failed theory and false "measurements" has blinded you from seeing the truth. Pretty sad really but not that uncommon for folks like you. The facts about the Towner are clear, you just choose to ignore them because your worldview and 9 years of failed work demand it.

Alas, you've called me out very publicly and now you have to say something.

When you're digging yourself a hole, Craig, it's best to first stop digging.

Cliff, I'm standing on top of that pile of dirt you keep tossing out.

Varnell earlier noted:

That you cannot even define the phrase "clothing fit" speaks volumes

about your lack of knowledge in this area.

I never claimed any expertise in the clothing and I don't need

"clothing fit" because you have never established the true nature of JFK's shirt nor

jacket. Until you do that there is nothing to discuss about how JFK's clothing "fit"

that day.

So you don't need to know anything about the movement of clothing to make

statements of FACT concerning the movement of clothing??

Of course you don't, Craig. It doesn't take any expertise at all to repeat

non sequiturs endlessly.

And just what in hell do you mean by establishing "the true nature of JFK's

shirt and jacket."

What is "true nature"?

I mean, is that anything like establishing the "true nature" of the Javier Bardem

character in the latest Coen Bros. flick? <snicker>

I'll give you a little hint, Craig. Maybe you could break down and do a little

research.

Three words:

Updated American Silhouette.

Google it.

And now we get to the root of your problem. You can't tell us exaclty how the shirt fit JFK. You offer text from books explaining how things SHOULDor MIGTH work, but you offer us nothing on how things ACTUALLY worked. Did JFK's shirt only have 3/4 inchs of slack? You can't tell us, so you speculate and claim it as fact. What is the true nature of the fit of JFK's jacket and shirt? UNKNOWN, despite of the mountain of words offered by Cliff.

The bottom line is that you have no clothing evidence Cliff, only endless speculation thinly disguised as fact. Very intellectually dishonest.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Miles Scull]

The bottom line is that you have no clothing evidence Cliff, only endless speculation thinly disguised as fact. Very intellectually dishonest.

Cliff, Craig,

Again, if you choose the 2.5" puncture, you have to consider a theoretical bulge with 1.5" sidewalls.

A trajectory of 22 degrees gives 3 puncture holes.

The pink loop bulge shows insuperable problems with exact shirt correspondence to the coat, as the shirt & coat punctures were both at 5.5 from collar top.

[Miles Scull]

Cliff, Craig,

Again, if you choose the 2.5" puncture, you have to consider a theoretical bulge with 1.5" sidewalls.

A trajectory of 22 degrees gives 3 puncture holes.

The pink loop bulge shows insuperable problems with exact shirt correspondence to the coat, as the shirt & coat punctures were both at 5.5 from collar top.

Addendum:

The 3.5" puncture allows a much greater travel space, up & down, for the bulge. See blue dash line.

The likelihood of shirt/coat correspondence is dramatically increased.

[Cliff Varnell]

Varnell auto-pilots, bored:

You claimed as a FACT that 2-3" of JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated entirely above

the SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

Craig repeats himself yet again:

And I have shown just that with the measurement of Croft.

Here it is again with 3 different points on the jacket represented with a colored "X".

The blue "X" marks a point inside the cupped fold. The pink "X" marks a point

on the right top of the fold, and the purple "X" marks a point on the back of the

jacket.

No where is it established that these points line up vertically. That is the flawed

root logic at work here.

Because we cannot see the bottom of the cupped fold nor can we see the bottom of the

jacket collar, it is not possible to trace a straight line down from the jacket collar.

It is obvious that a 3-dimensional object will be reduced to two dimensions

in a photograph.

Can Craig be any more ludicrous in his analysis?

Indeed.

I wrote in regards to the fit of JFK's clothes:

I'll give you a little hint, Craig. Maybe you could break down and do a little

research.

Three words:

Updated American Silhouette.

Google it.

Craig sputtered:

And now we get to the root of your problem. You can't tell us exaclty how

the shirt fit JFK. You offer text from books explaining how things SHOULDor MIGTH work,

but you offer us nothing on how things ACTUALLY worked. Did JFK's shirt only have 3/4 inchs

of slack? You can't tell us, so you speculate and claim it as fact. What is the true nature of the

fit of JFK's jacket and shirt? UNKNOWN, despite of the mountain of words offered by Cliff.

The bottom line is that you have no clothing evidence Cliff, only endless speculation thinly disguised as fact. Very intellectually dishonest.

If Craig Lamson understood the meaning of the phrases "clothing fit" and

"Updated American Silhouette" then he would know EXACTLY how JFK's

clothing fit him.

But Craig isn't interested in facts, he's interested in pimping his Lone Nut true

belief against all sense and reason.

Clothing fit is the marriage of style and comfort. By choosing to wear Updated American

style suits -- pioneered by fine men's clothing designer Paul Stuart -- JFK chose a style

that featured a slender waist line, as influenced by European designers. Paul Stuart took

the classic Ameican "Ivy League sack" suit and "suppressed" the waist-line, defined as

"tailored closely to the shape of the torso."

http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-pa...-american-style

From the above article:

The Updated American style gained a boost when John F Kennedy, the popular new

senator and later president, wore suits and jackets from Paul Stuart.

Because Craig has a reading comprehension problem, he ascribes to me the

analysis of Mr. Shirt, who adamantly insisted that tucked-in custom-made shirts

only require 3/4" of slack.

Because Craig Lamson is as much an intellectual snob as he is intellectually

dishonest, he maintains that clothing experts have no actual expertise and that

they are just "some guys" with opinions that count for nothing.

After all, Mr. Shirt isn't a photographer and can't know everything about everything,

as Mr. Lamson does...<snicker>

However, we know that JFK didn't go around with his shirt tail out and his shirts only

had enough slack as was required for him to sit comfortably. This is one the central

principles of fine men's dress, a fact Craig Lamson must deny in order to press his silly

theories.

CLOTHES AND THE MAN - THE PRINCIPLES OF FINE MEN'S DRESS

(Alan Flusser) pg 79:

(quote on)

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.

(quote off, emphasis added)

The reason that Craig won't attempt to replicate his absurd claims is because

his claims are impossible to replicate.

[Cliff Varnell]

This thread still gets hits, so perhaps some loose ends should be tied.

According to Craig Lamson there was an asymmetrical shirt/jacket

bunch at the right base of JFK's neck in the Betzner photo. He illustrated

thusly:

What is it actually?

Here's the corresponding Z-frame -- Z186.

Arm/wrist/hand.

[Cliff Varnell]

Thats quite the narrative Cliff, quite wrong but interesting all the same. Historical fact? Not really. Historical revision is more like it.

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

Craig, see:

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

...Craig?