New thread for the bunched jacket debate...

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff..I do not have an opinion on the single bullet theory other than it's a fine piece of fiction. My only contribution to this thread is to show you the bunching of the jacket at various points between Houston and Elm.

Then you have nothing to contribute since no one ever denied that JFK's jacket

had folds in it.

I have maintained that the jacket remained bunched up all the way from Houston to Elm.

So? At one point you seemed to understand that 3/4" ain't the same as 3"...

I have blown up a good copy of Altgens, and it appears that the bunch is very minimal

at this point in time, and even shows the neck between the top of the jacket and

Kennedy's hairline.

Very good. Thank you. "Minimal" being the key word.

The consistent rise in the bunching must therefore have happened after this point in time.

Here it is.

Duncan

Duncan, please note that JFK's shirt collar is not visible in that photo.

Please note that JFK's shirt collar is visible at Z186:

The only way JFK's shirt collar could have been covered up by the

jacket collar on Houston St. but exposed on Elm St. was if the

jacket dropped.

Think about it a little before you respond...please...

[Craig Lamson]

I tracked this down.

This shows a dimple in the jacket, some small horizontal folds, the bottom

of the jacket collar is visible on the right.

Sorry Cliff you found JPG compression artifacts. This is a perfect example of your ignorance in the process of inspecting photographic images.

BTW, the very fine Altgens posted by Duncan kills your theory of slight folds. It is detailed enough to show that the jacket collar is coverd by the bulge because we cannot see the shadow line that would have been created by the bottom of the collar. The bulge is great enough to cover both the shirt colllar and jacket collar. Your last hope of saving the Magic Jacket Theory has been shot down.

The small horizontal folds at the midline are consistent with the small horizontal

fold/artifact in Betzner:

Uh, there ARE no small horizontal folds. Your attempt to link them to Bentzer fails.

Try again.

Yes it is, sadly its you. Willis is worthless for close, detailed inspection. Are you blind?

You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that the silhouette of JFK

against the light background shows the same shoulder line as your Betzner Fantasy?

Yes. its the same shoulder line.. And the Willis , poor as it is, shows that the bulge in Bentzer is real, because it moves more towards the ceterling of JFK's body as the camera to subject angle changes between the two images. Your choice to make this comparison actully hurts your case.

The power of denial is amazing.

Yes it is Cliff, you have been in denial for years.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Dawn Meredith]

Clifford,

The bad guys win when you dignify their nonsense with direct and polite response.

Expose them for what they are.

They are cognitively impaired by the overwhelming force of their own intellectual

dishonesty.

Cliff: Ignore them and they will go away. Engage them and they will wear you down. They have all the time in the world.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Cliff..I do not have an opinion on the single bullet theory other than it's a fine piece of fiction. My only contribution to this thread is to show you the bunching of the jacket at various points between Houston and Elm. I have maintained that the jacket remained bunched up all the way from Houston to Elm. I have blown up a good copy of Altgens, and it appears that the bunch is very minimal at this point in time, and even shows the neck between the top of the jacket and Kennedy's hairline. The consistent rise in the bunching must therefore have happened after this point in time.

Here it is.

Duncan

Well good, then we are in agreement that the SBT is a "fine piece of fiction". End of story?

Dawn

[Miles Scull]

Well good, then we are in agreement that the SBT is a "fine piece of fiction". End of story?

Dawn

Duncan, Cliff, etal.:

If the coat & shirt puncture holes coincide, then there is a problem in Bunch Theory.

In the crude drawing (below) the coat line must be longer than the shirt line, unless the shirt is glued to the coat.

The shirt is tucked into the pants & held cinctured by a belt. The coat is outside of the pants with no belt restraint.

The Towner shows no bunch bulge of sufficient magnitude, as seen in the drawing.

The Jefferies frames' bulges are anomalous & extremely suspect & are not seen in any other photos.

Your thoughts?

[Craig Lamson]

Well good, then we are in agreement that the SBT is a "fine piece of fiction". End of story?

Dawn

Duncan, Cliff, etal.:

If the coat & shirt puncture holes coincide, then there is a problem in Bunch Theory.

In the crude drawing (below) the coat line must be longer than the shirt line, unless the shirt is glued to the coat.

The shirt is tucked into the pants & held cinctured by a belt. The coat is outside of the pants with no belt restraint.

The Towner shows no bunch bulge of sufficient magnitude, as seen in the drawing.

The Jefferies frames' bulges are anomalous & extremely suspect & are not seen in any other photos.

Your thoughts?

The bunch in Towner is blocked by what appears to be Jackies hand. Can't use those frames Miles.

[Cliff Varnell]

Miles, the Willis #4 photo you showed has a slight 3/4" cupped fold at the

nape of JFK's neck.

This 3/4" fold is claimed by LNers as a 2-3" fold, which it obviously isn't

to anyone familiar with custom-clothing.

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson = red

Cliff Varnell's reply = green

Sorry Cliff you found JPG compression artifacts.

Pure speculation on your part.

You can't say that as a fact.

The artifacts are consistent in shape and location as the small folds commonly seen

in JFK's jacket.

You cite consistencies that don't exist (Betzner bunch), and dismiss those that do exist.

You claim the JFK's jacket didn't drop, then you admit that it did.

It's fun watching you go thru this dance, Craig.

This is a perfect example of your ignorance in the process of

nspecting photographic images.

This is a perfect example of you talking out of both sides of your mouth.

When it was pointed out to you that the "Betzner bulge" was shadow, you argued

that the artifact was consistent with what is seen in EVERY photo.

As it turns out, you cannot identify the "Betzner bulge" in ANY photo/frame taken

in Dealey Plaza.

What is consistent in several photos, however, are the small horizontal artifacts at the

midline of JFK's jacket.

So on one hand you argue for a consistency that doesn't exist, and on the other

hand you dismiss consistencies that do exist.

Typical cognitive impairment.

BTW, the very fine Altgens posted by Duncan kills your theory

of slight folds. It is detailed enough to show that the jacket collar is coverd by the

bulge because we cannot see the shadow line that would have been created by the

bottom of the collar.

It's also detailed enough to show JFK's smooth right shoulder-line.

How did your fantasy bulge smoothly wrap around the back of his neck (in the manner

of a collar, coincidently) without breaking the smooth right shoulder-line?

You are describing clothing movements that are impossible to replicate.

The bulge is great enough to cover both the shirt colllar and jacket collar.

Bingo! Okay by me!

Let's accept for the sake of argument that Altgens #5 shows 2-3" of JFK's shirt

and jacket all wrapped around his neck above both the shirt collar and the jacket

collar.

And then what happened on Houston St.?

The jacket dropped to reveal the shirt collar.

But, of course, you've already conceded that the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza,

or have you forgotten that as well?

Your last hope of saving the Magic Jacket Theory has been shot down.

This is rich!

Craig Lamson on this thread wrote:

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 03:03 PM

I've not made the claim that I can remember that only the jacket collar fell in

Dealey plaza. I've said the jacket collar and the fold/bunch work independent

of each other. If you can find such a claim from me I will admit error and formally

withdraw it.

(quote off)

Out of one side of your mouth you dismiss the obvious as "Magic Jacket Theory"

and out of the other side of your mouth you admit the jacket dropped in

Dealey Plaza and exposed the shirt collar, which is my entire point.

Thank you Craig, and I hope you recover from your dizziness.

CV:

The small horizontal folds at the midline are consistent with the small horizontal

fold/artifact in Betzner.

Uh, there ARE no small horizontal folds.

The artifacts are consist with small folds

You are the one pushing for analysis on the basis of consistency. You don't

know if thoseare folds or not -- but they certainly are consistent with folds commonly

observed in JFK's jacket.

CV:

You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that the silhouette of JFK

against the light background shows the same shoulder line as your Betzner Fantasy?

Yes. its the same shoulder line..

You lack the cognitive ability to tell the difference between a convex and

concave curve? This is a true pity.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, I really find it difficult to understand your way of thinking.

Duncan

The feeling is mutual. Since you're not here to defend the SBT let's you

and I go our separate ways.

[Miles Scull]

Miles, the Willis #4 photo you showed has a slight 3/4" cupped fold at the

nape of JFK's neck.

This 3/4" fold is claimed by LNers as a 2-3" fold, which it obviously isn't

to anyone familiar with custom-clothing.

Cliff & Craig, et al.:

Thanks for input.

Here's another look/see.

The left two insets show a strong similarity & correspondence in regard to shoulder contour & slope. This would suggest an absence of the required bunch bulge heft in JFK's coat at the rear near the neck.

The Croft crop shows a bulge, but again it lacks the needed height.

The green arrow points to a probable right shoulder & the pink arrow points to the area where the bulge is.

The red & yellow lines show possible trajectories with only approximate angles [20%]. (6th floor, not 3rd floor DalTex)

Again, even with corrections on angles, the problems are clear. The bulge is too small.

Your thoughts?

[Cliff Varnell]

The bulge is too small.

Your thoughts? [/b][/color]

Miles, you're spot on!

Back in 1997 I took Groden's The Killing of a President down to Union Square

in San Francisco and spoke with several tailors about the Elm St. folds. Everyone

I talked to said it was impossible for a tucked-in custom-made shirt to bunch up

more than a fraction of an inch.

The tailor with whom I spoke the longest identified the Elm St. bulge as involving

3/4" of of fabric. He said it was a common type of fold.

I also spoke with one of the world's top textile conservators and a 2-time

winner of the LA Drama Critic Circle Awards for Costume Design, who

imparted the following:

There are two kinds of body/clothing movements: "normal" movement and

"gross" movement.

"Normal" movement is casual and causes the clothing to move in fractions

of an inch.

"Gross" movement occurs when the body is stretched out, as when one is running

or reaching up for an object on a high shelf. "Gross" body movements cause the

fabric to move in multiple inches.

All of JFK's movements in the limo were casual.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson vs. Craig Lamson:

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 1:55 PM)

You have claimed the jacket has fallen in [betzner] , and you use the shirt collar to back

you claim. The problem is it has been established that the jacket collar and the shirt collar

are acting independent of the bunch. The burden of proof is on YOU Cliffy, to show the

jacket has dropped. You have failed to do so. What we are left with is the Cliff Varnell

Magic Jacket. The Varnell Magic Jacket

(quote off)

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 03:03 PM

I've not made the claim that I can remember that only the jacket collar fell in

Dealey plaza. I've said the jacket collar and the fold/bunch work independent

of each other. If you can find such a claim from me I will admit error and formally

withdraw it.

(quote off)

But instead of formally withdrawing a claim he made a little more than

an hour earlier, Craig continues to ridicule the obvious.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, I really find it difficult to understand your way of thinking.

Duncan

The feeling is mutual. Since you're not here to defend the SBT let's you

and I go our separate ways.

Cliff

Sure, remember to send a postcard, but please don't fold it

Duncan

A little fold, maybe...

Edited February 22, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Clifford,

The bad guys win when you dignify their nonsense with direct and polite response.

Expose them for what they are.

They are cognitively impaired by the overwhelming force of their own intellectual

dishonesty.

Cliff: Ignore them and they will go away. Engage them and they will wear you down. They have all the time in the world.

Dawn

Dawn, normally I would agree with you, but in the case of the clothing evidence

it's different. LNers always trip themselves up, and it's a gas to watch.

For instance, in order begin to make his case, Craig Lamson

must claim that JFK's shirt tail was out, at least partially.

Think about this a sec.

According to David Powers, JFK changed his shirt on the flight from Fort Worth

to Dallas.

According to Craig's theory, JFK had to leave his shirt tail partially out even though

doing so might ruin the lines of his slim-cut European dress jacket.

The chances of that ever happening were nil.

JFK didn't appear in public with his shirt tail out.

Any theory that rests on such a scenario is a monument to the power of

intellectual dishonesty.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Miles Scull]

Any theory that rests on such a scenario is a monument to the power of

intellectual dishonesty.[/b]

A little fold, maybe...

Duncan,

Little?

Notice another bulge? Upper right hand corner.

Again it's too small.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Miles Scull