The "Single Bullet Theory"

[Mark Haley]

Just wondering what impact the corset JFK was wearing would have on the measurements of the shirt. The existence of the 'back brace' (see link below) suggests to me JFK would be wearing a slightly larger shirt than he would normally otherwise require

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1287783/posts

[Craig Lamson]

Overstated? No...you DON'T HAVE A CASE.

What was the exact state of JFK's shirt at the exact moment of the back shot Cliff?

It was fitting almost like a second skin, Craig. Just as Flusser describes it.

Flusser describes THEORY. He describes NOTHING about the ACTUAL condition of JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot. Now if you want to claim his shirt fit like a 'second skin" then please prove your claim with actual evidence, not a 'suggestion" from a book on clothing theory.

The fact you can't bring yourself to face is that JFK's suit style called for a "tapered waist," which according to the text you put into evidence calls for material to be taken in at the waist, in order to maintain a "natural contour."

What the text tells us is the amount of extra material is PERSONAL PREFERENCE. So what was the ACTUAL condition of JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot proven with actual evidence? Why is this so hard for yo to answer? We know you can offer us suggestions, where are the facts?

Time to put up or shut up cliff.

Going by your example, there was an indentation in JFK's shirt along his right shoulder-line.s

Great, Is the model doing the that exact same things as JFK? Of course not. This is yet another smelly turd tossing by Varnell.

Your claim that almost all of the available slack on the back of JFK's shirt was bunched up above the base of his neck is truly idiotic.

Once again I don't make ANY claims about the condition of JFK's shirt....NONE. I don't have a clue how JFK's shirt reacted to his body movements, how it was tucked nor the amount of actual slack in the shirt at the moment of the back shot. Anyone making any claims as to these conditions would be just plain silly. And yet Varnell does just that. You do the math.

Show us how you get a hole from 5 inches below the collar to 2 inches below the collar.

Demonstrate this, Craig. The burden of proof is on YOU.

I have cliff, more than once in the process of destroying your equally silly claim the jacket was flat on JFK's back in Betzner.

You could not refute it then so I doubt you can refute it now. But feel free to try again. My point has been proven...1.5 inches of excess fabric is all that is needed. If you doubt me why not ask a third grader to use a towel and show you?

All if this still leaves us with the inescapable fact that Varnell's decades long "argument" has been totally destroyed.

Varnells' claim of prima facia evidecne has be sunk. Forever.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Flusser describes THEORY.

No, Flusser describes the cut of JFK's suit -- tapered waist.

What does your expert say about tapered waists, natural contours, and taking in material around the waist, Craig?

We know that JFK's right elbow was elevated, and as per your example what happens when the arm is elevated? The shirt INDENTS on the shoulder-line, the exact opposite of your claims.

The fact is the back of his shirt had 4 inches of evenly distributed slack, but according to your impossible-to-replicate scenario almost all of that slack was bunched up above the base of his neck!

He describes NOTHING about the ACTUAL condition of JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot. Now if you want to claim his shirt fit like a 'second skin" then please prove your claim with actual evidence, not a 'suggestion" from a book on clothing theory.

What about the source you cited? About how tapered waists feature a "natural contour" which is maintained by taking in material at the waist?

Your own source only allows for 3" to 4" of total slack -- and according to you almost all of that was bunched up above the base of JFK's neck.

Don't you see how idiotic this claim is, Craig?

[Craig Lamson]

My replies in Green bold

My comments in bold burgandy

(snip for brevity)

Varnell launches yet another turd.

Craig Lamson, on the other hand, has launched an absolute gem! Thank you for posting the above, Craig!

We see in your photos and text that by PULLING all the slack out of the shirt there's 3" to 4" of excess fabric in the front of the shirt. Same thing with the back of the shirt.

So according to Craig's repeated claims almost all of the slack in the back of JFK's shirt was bunched up above the base of his neck.

But how did it get there? No one pulled up on the shirt, as required in the example you have so generously provided us, Craig.

Did JFK's shirt ride up 3+ inches when he raised his right arm to wave?

Not according to the example Craig has graciously brought to our attention.

When the arm is raised the fabric along the shoulder line will INDENT.

Thanks for providing this example, Craig!

Please show the readers my REPEATED claims about the state of JFK's shirt. A few simple quotes will do just fine.

Beyond that, you are now claiming that the model is doing the exact same things as JFK, yet he is standing, JFK was sitting, he is having is shirt pulled tightly to one side, not so for JFK.

Given your claims that the photo illustrates what YOU think we should see in JFK's shirt, please provide actual evidence to back your silly claims.

Oh and has this model been sitting in a cramped car seat squirming around?

JFK wasn't sitting in a "cramped car seat." Besides, how would sitting in a cramped car seat cause almost all the slack in the back of his shirt to bunch up above the base of his neck?

And JFK wasn't "squirming" in the limo, he was casually waving to the crowd. Besides, how would "squirming" cause almost all of the slack in the back of his shirt to bunch up above the base of his neck?

Since I don't have clue as to the state of JFK's shirt...inside his jacket..while he was sitting and squiriming around in a car seat...AT THE MOMENT of the back shot, I don't make any claims as to how the models shirt MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT compare to to JFK's shirt. That would be plain silly. Oh I see Cliff is making those claims. Now we can see how silly cliff really is.

Oh, you missed that one too? Corner closing in a bit tighter??

BTW, I'm NOT claiming ANYTHING about JFK's shirt. I NEVER have.

Sure you have.

You've spent the last 4 years insisting that JFK's shirt and jacket were bunched up above the base of his neck. When you thought that the SBT required only 2 inches of bunched up clothing, you claimed the Dealey Plaza photos showed 2 inches of bunched up jacket.

Then you found out that the SBT actually requires 3+ inches of bunched clothing, so then you changed your story and said the photos show 3+ inches of bunch up.

After 4 years of challenging you to show us what a shirt looks like when the arm is raised, you've finally come through. Like a champ!

When JFK sat down in the limo and rested his right arm on top of the door -- the shirt fabric along his right shoulder INDENTED. Just like we see in your photograph.

Please show the readers my exact quotes making claims about the state of JFK's shirt. We now know, based on this very thread that Cliff Varnell likes to claim things that are not really true, like his destroyed claims about the slack in a custom made dress shirt. Truth is he simply made up these claim from thin air and told the world they were fact.

Then show us that a standing model, having his shirt pulled to one side, will show the e=same fabric movement as JFK, sitting in cramped car squirming around.

I predict we will get nothing but more smelly turds from Varnell. That is all he has left.[/b]

The one making claims about JFK's shirt is YOU. Claims I might dd you can never prove, which is why you continue quaking in fear and tossing even more turds over the transom.

This is the part of the text Craig Lamson has yet to think through. Emphasis added:

Customers trying to get an "extreme" taper where the contour of the shirt closely matches their frame can do that in most, but not all circumstances. If you have a "V" shaped torso with large Chest and small Waist/Hips we can tailor your shirt and still maintain a natural contour in the shirt. If you have a large Chest, small Waist and wider Hips, it is not possible to take too much material in at the waist, or the shirt will lose its natural contour.

Fact: JFK wore a suit style called Updated American which featured a tapered waist.

Fact: In order to maintain a natural contour material is taken in at the waist.

Fact: All of JFK's actions in the motorcade were normal, casual movements of the body, which invariably cause fractions of an inch of fabric to move.

FACT: VArnell has no clue as to the ACTUAL state of jfk's shirt at the moment of the back shot. Without that piece of evidence...he has NO argument, which is why he is quaking in fear and trying in vain to cover his made up from thin air claims.

1.5 inches of fabric. Let me repeat. 1.5 inches of fabric.

That's all it takes to move a hole from 5 inches down from the collar to 2 inches down from the collar.

VERY simple math.

Clothing doesn't move that way, Craig. You're imagining things again.

Show us how this point on a shirt 5 inches down from the collar moves up to 2 inches down from the collar.

YOU claim this occurred, so the burden of proof is on YOU to show us.

Show us, Craig. And remember: no hands!

Again I've made no claims about the shirt. Stop making these false claims.

I have shown you with fold in JFK's jacket.

Very simple math and you can't refute it, which is why you are now tossing turds.

TOAST...that's the state of your arguments.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Calling Craig's bluff:

Demonstrate this, Craig. The burden of proof is on YOU.

I have cliff, more than once in the process of destroying your equally silly claim the jacket was flat on JFK's back in Betzner.

This thread is the first time you ever showed a photo of a man in a shirt with a raised arm.

You finally slipped up and showed us the truth, Craig. How inconvenient for you.

For four years I've challenged you to show us how shirts behave in the real world. You ducked. You dodged. You produced reams of non sequitur.

Then recently you quite reluctantly posted two photos which show exactly what I've pointed out all along: raising the arm causes the shirt fabric to INDENT.

I pointed this out to Glenn earlier in the thread.

You have corroborated my point.

Thank you, Craig. Better late than never.

You could not refute it then so I doubt you can refute it now. But feel free to try again. My point has been proven...1.5 inches of excess fabric is all that is needed. If you doubt me why not ask a third grader to use a towel and show you?

No, Craig, why don't you show us an adult with a tucked in custom-made dress shirt. Show us how you move a hole five inches below the shirt collar up to a point two inches below the shirt collar.

You make the claim -- you demonstrate it.

On the back of an adult, Craig.

Show us. According to the source you cited the shirt position must be "exaggerated" in order to produce 3+ inches of slack.

How does this "exaggeration" occur, Craig?

Your claim that almost all of the slack in the back of JFK's shirt was bunched up above the base of his neck is based on what?

Show us.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

My replies in GREEN bold

Flusser describes THEORY.

No, Flusser describes the cut of JFK's suit -- tapered waist.

What does your expert say about tapered waists, natural contours, and taking in material around the waist, Craig?

We know that JFK's right elbow was elevated, and as per your example what happens when the arm is elevated? The shirt INDENTS on the shoulder-line, the exact opposite of your claims.

The fact is the back of his shirt had 4 inches of evenly distributed slack, but according to your impossible-to-replicate scenario almost all of that slack was bunched up above the base of his neck!

No Flusser describes THEORY since he has no clue (nor do you) as to the actual amount of slack found in JFK's clothing. let me repeat that...Flusser nor VArnell has a clue as to the actual amount of slack in JFK's clothing.

And since I have posited NO scenario as to the state of JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot, it cannot be 'impossible"

Varnell has NO argument left.

He describes NOTHING about the ACTUAL condition of JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot. Now if you want to claim his shirt fit like a 'second skin" then please prove your claim with actual evidence, not a 'suggestion" from a book on clothing theory.

What about the source you cited? About how tapered waists feature a "natural contour" which is maintained by taking in material at the waist?

Your own source only allows for 3" to 4" of total slack -- and according to you almost all of that was bunched up above the base of JFK's neck.

Don't you see how idiotic this claim is, Craig?

My source was quite clear. There is no right or wrong amount of fabric slack. It is PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

The only idiotic claim here is yours...that I am makeng ANY claim about the state of JFK's shirt. I'm not. You simply have a hard time being honest.

[Cliff Varnell]

Please show the readers my REPEATED claims about the state of JFK's shirt. A few simple quotes will do just fine.

You haven't been claiming for four years that JFK's clothing was bunched up in accordance with the SBT?

Anyone familiar with this forum knows otherwise.

This is Craig at his blowing-smoke-while-back-pedaling best!

Beyond that, you are now claiming that the model is doing the exact same things as JFK, yet he is standing, JFK was sitting, he is having is shirt pulled tightly to one side, not so for JFK.

Doesn't matter. Sit down and raise your right arm, turn your head to the right and observe what happens to the fabric along your right shoulder-line.

Your shirt fabric INDENTS.

Now do this standing up. What happens? Your shirt fabric indents.

Now pull all of the fabric over to one side, and repeat. What happens?

The shirt fabric indents. I told you this years ago, you couldn't refute it then, and you sure as hell don't have a leg to stand on now.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Calling Craig's bluff:

Demonstrate this, Craig. The burden of proof is on YOU.

I have cliff, more than once in the process of destroying your equally silly claim the jacket was flat on JFK's back in Betzner.

This thread is the first time you ever showed a photo of a man in a shirt with a raised arm.

You finally slipped up and showed us the truth, Craig. How inconvenient for you.

For four years I've challenged you to show us how shirts behave in the real world. You ducked. You dodged. You produced reams of non sequitur.

Then recently you quite reluctantly posted two photos which show exactly what I've pointed out all along: raising the arm causes the shirt fabric to INDENT.

I pointed this out to Glenn earlier in the thread.

You have corroborated my point.

Thank you, Craig. Better late than never.

You could not refute it then so I doubt you can refute it now. But feel free to try again. My point has been proven...1.5 inches of excess fabric is all that is needed. If you doubt me why not ask a third grader to use a towel and show you?

No, Craig, why don't you show us an adult with a tucked in custom-made dress shirt. Show us how you move a hole five inches below the shirt collar up to a point two inches below the shirt collar.

You make the claim -- you demonstrate it.

On the back of an adult, Craig.

Show us. According to the source you cited the shirt position must be "exaggerated" in order to produce 3+ inches of slack.

How does this "exaggeration" occur, Craig?

Your claim that almost all of the slack in the back of JFK's shirt was bunched up above the base of his neck is based on what?

Show us.

Varnell continues to toss smelly turds instead of actual evidence.

He misrepresents the truth. He makes up claims from thin air. He gets caught and tries to erase his mistakes.

He tries to shift the argument to where none exists.

I have proven in a unimpeachable manner that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric in the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner. I have proven that it only takes 1.5 inches of fabric to move a location 5 inches down from the collar to a location 2 inches down from the collar.

Varnell, in all of these years cannot refute these.

I don't know the state of JFK's shirt inside his jacket at any point in the motorcade and most importantly at the moment of the back shot. Since I don't know I don't make claims.

Varnell has not been honest about this point either.

Varnell does make claims about the state of a shirt he cannot see. He makes up these claim from thin air, and instead of offering any actual proof he gives us suggestions and theory instead of fact. He claims these are 'prima facia" evidence about the state of JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot. IT IS NOTHING OF THE SORT. And of course he cannpt prove ANY of his claims. So he throws turds instead.

Varnell wants someone else to prove his case for him. He won't do it because he can't. He has no case.

His blatant attempts to shift the burden of proof are pathetic and quite transparent. Sleazy.

I have also proven Varnell claims about the amount of slack in a custom made shirt was made up from whole cloth. It was not honest.

Varnell is in a box. There is no way out.

I fully expect his statements to grow wilder with every post from now on. He can't admit he is wrong.

[Cliff Varnell]

My source was quite clear. There is no right or wrong amount of fabric slack. It is PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

And when that preference is for suits with tapered waists then material is taken in at the waist. That's how the shirt is explicitly tailored according to your own source.

What is it about this you don't grasp?

All of the slack in the back of JFK's shirt was NOT bunched up above the base of his neck.

That's not how the man preferred to roll.

Where do you come up with this stuff, Craig?

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Please show the readers my REPEATED claims about the state of JFK's shirt. A few simple quotes will do just fine.

You haven't been claiming for four years that JFK's clothing was bunched up in accordance with the SBT?

Anyone familiar with this forum knows otherwise.

This is Craig at his blowing-smoke-while-back-pedaling best!

No, I've been quite clear I don't give a fig about the SBT nor anything but JFK's jacket. You are making false claims and you know it, which is why you can't offer any direct quotes to back your false claim

Beyond that, you are now claiming that the model is doing the exact same things as JFK, yet he is standing, JFK was sitting, he is having is shirt pulled tightly to one side, not so for JFK.

Doesn't matter. Sit down and raise your right arm, turn your head to the right and observe what happens to the fabric along your right shoulder-line.

Your shirt fabric INDENTS.

Now do this standing up. What happens? Your shirt fabric indents.

Now pull all of the fabric over to one side, and repeat. What happens?

The shirt fabric indents. I told you this years ago, you couldn't refute it then, and you sure as hell don't have a leg to stand on now.

I don't care about shirt fabric since I can't see what JFK's shirt fabric does under his jacket. You continue to make all kinds of claims without a shread of actual proof. In fact we have now seen you have a problem with just making stuff up and calling it true when it is not. So it seems "what you have told me for years" is far less than reliable. Given this proven track record why should anyone believe a word you say without you providing actual proof?

We do know however what JFK's jacket fabric did in Betzner. You "indentation" was 3+ inches. Unimpeachable.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

My source was quite clear. There is no right or wrong amount of fabric slack. It is PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

And when that preference is for suits with tapered waists then material is taken in at the waist. That's how the shirt is explicitly tailored according to your own source.

What is it about this you don't grasp?

All of the slack in the back of JFK's shirt was NOT bunched up above the base of his neck.

That's not how the man preferred to roll.

Where do you come up with this stuff, Craig?

WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL STATE OF JFK's SHIRT AT THE INSTANT OF THE BACK SHOT? EXACT AND ACTUAL EVIDENCE PLEASE.

What IS it about this that you can't grasp?

Why do you continue to make stuff up out of whole cloth even after you have been caught?

[Cliff Varnell]

No, I've been quite clear I don't give a fig about the SBT nor anything but JFK's jacket. You are making false claims and you know it, which is why you can't offer any direct quotes to back your false claim.

When you thought the SBT required 2 inches of bunching -- you claimed to see 2 inches of bunching in the photos.

Then you found out that the SBT actually requires in excess of 3 inches, so then you started seeing 3+ inches in the photos.

Who do you think you're conning, Craig?

I don't care about shirt fabric since I can't see what JFK's shirt fabric does under his jacket.

I can't see your shirt but I can tell you as a matter of fact that when you raise your

right arm your shirt fabric indents along your right shoulder-line.

It's shown in your photo, Craig!

You continue to make all kinds of claims without a shread of actual proof.

You supplied the proof.

I made an observation to you years ago: when an arm is raised the shirt fabric indents along the shoulder line.

You have corroborated my observation.

I pointed out that JFK wore suits with a tapered waist, and you supplied the text describing how such shirts are tailored to achieve a "natural contour" by taking in material at the waist.

You have provided all the proof we need, Craig.

Thank you, again.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL STATE OF JFK's SHIRT AT THE INSTANT OF THE BACK SHOT? EXACT AND ACTUAL EVIDENCE PLEASE.

What IS it about this that you can't grasp?

His right elbow was raised throughout the motorcade -- therefore the shirt fabric was indented along his right shoulder-line.

Your photo demonstrates this FACT.

Due to his tapered waist the shirt maintained a natural contour -- according to your source.

What on earth would cause all the slack in the back of his shirt to ride up above the base of his neck?

We KNOW this did not happen. It's absurd.

Why do you continue to make stuff up out of whole cloth even after you have been caught?

I can admit when I make a mistake.

You are not so capable.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

No, I've been quite clear I don't give a fig about the SBT nor anything but JFK's jacket. You are making false claims and you know it, which is why you can't offer any direct quotes to back your false claim.

When you thought the SBT required 2 inches of bunching -- you claimed to see 2 inches of bunching in the photos.

Then you found out that the SBT actually requires in excess of 3 inches, so then you started seeing 3+ inches in the photos.

Who do you think you're conning, Craig?

Who are YOU trying to con Cliff? We have seen you con job in action on this very thread and you finally got caught.

SBT? I don't give a fig about the single bullet theory. This is about Cliff Varnell.

I don't care about shirt fabric since I can't see what JFK's shirt fabric does under his jacket.

I can't see your shirt but I can tell you as a matter of fact that when you raise your

right arm your shirt fabric indents along your right shoulder-line.

It's shown in your photo, Craig!

Really? I can't see the shirt of the model as he sits in the Presidental LIMO at the instant of the back shot. Nor can I see mine. Neither can you btw.

His shirt and mine are of ZERO value where JFK's shirt at the moment the bullet impacted it are concerned.

Once again your con job fails.

You continue to make all kinds of claims without a shread of actual proof.

You supplied the proof.

I made an observation to you years ago: when an arm is raised the shirt fabric indents along the shoulder line.

You have corroborated my observation.

I pointed out that JFK wore suits with a tapered waist, and you supplied the text describing how shirts are tailored to achieve a "natural contour" by taking in material at the waist.

You have provided all the proof we need, Craig.

Thank you, again.

I did not provide any proof whatsoever that shows us the exact state of JFK shirt at the moment of the backshot. Please show us your measurements of jfk's shirt and his body so we can see exactly what fabric slack existed.

And you STILL can't offer us a shread of evidence the support your claims about JFK's shirt. You NEVER will be able to do this, so instead you lob turds. What a pitiful existance.

Once again we see Varnell trying to take suggestions, theory and outright made up statements and call then fact. You would think he would learn, but he just can't help himself. He can't admit he is wrong. SO CT like.

Have the last word Cliff. If you are smart you would use this opportunity to admit your errors and move on. I suspect however you won't do that but will continue to live in LA LA land.

Enjoy it.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

I have proven that it only takes 1.5 inches of fabric to move a location 5 inches down from the collar to a location 2 inches down from the collar.

And what do you get when you shoot a bullet thru this configuration?

Two bullet holes. One two inches below the collar, and one five inches.

Sorry Craig, you need the entire 3+ inches to be above the base of the neck.

Wanna try again?

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell