The "Single Bullet Theory"

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

I can admit to making a mistake. You cannot. That's why you're blowing smoke about the SBT because your own citations demolish your hard held belief in it.

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

Now you're not telling the truth. You care deeply about the Single Bullet Theory. You came on this thread to challenge the clothing evidence, specifically the shirt evidence in regard to the Single Bullet Theory. From the beginning of this thread you've been claiming that the shirt and jacket were elevated 3+ inches.

Now you have to blow smoke because you shot yourself in the foot -- while it was still in your mouth.

[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

Craig, I didn't raise the subject of JFK's jacket with Glenn when he asked what was wrong with the SBT.

I raised the subject of the shirt, specifically.

And then you jumped in with Betzner and 3+" and your unimpeachable non sequiturs clearly arguing that JFK's shirt was bunched up 3+ inches along with the jacket.

Now you post proof to the contrary, and you want to back away from it?

Hilarious!

[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

Craig, I didn't raise the subject of JFK's jacket with Glenn when he asked what was wrong with the SBT.

I raised the subject of the shirt, specifically.

And then you jumped in with Betzner and 3+" and your unimpeachable non sequiturs clearly arguing that JFK's shirt was bunched up 3+ inches along with the jacket.

Now you post proof to the contrary, and you want to back away from it?

Hilarious!

I'm bumping this up to forstall Craig Lamson hi-jacking the Fetzer/Lifton thread.

Craig Lamson still wants to blow smoke over his FAILURE to show us what 3+ of tucked-in custom-made shirt fabric looks like when it's bunched up entirely above the base of a man's neck.

Pat Speer claims it was 2 inches of JFK's shirt bunched up above the base of the neck.

If either of those gentlemen have the goods they should demonstrate their claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The burden of proof is with Craig and Pat.

And Barb. :-)

Edited June 1, 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

Craig, I didn't raise the subject of JFK's jacket with Glenn when he asked what was wrong with the SBT.

I raised the subject of the shirt, specifically.

And then you jumped in with Betzner and 3+" and your unimpeachable non sequiturs clearly arguing that JFK's shirt was bunched up 3+ inches along with the jacket.

Now you post proof to the contrary, and you want to back away from it?

Hilarious!

I'm bumping this up to forstall Craig Lamson hi-jacking the Fetzer/Lifton thread.

Craig Lamson still wants to blow smoke over his FAILURE to show us what 3+ of tucked-in custom-made shirt fabric looks like when it's bunched up entirely above the base of a man's neck.

Pat Speer claims it was 2 inches of JFK's shirt bunched up above the base of the neck.

If either of those gentlemen have the goods they should demonstrate their claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The burden of proof is with Craig and Pat.

And Barb. :-)

Proof is there for all to see Varnell. 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner. Simply unimpeachable.

End of story. Game over. Varnell is simply toast.

The shirt? Who knows since we can't SEE it.

Time for you to get over it.

[Cliff Varnell]

I want to thank Craig Lamson for providing the graphic below. I know it's killing Craig that he finally broke down and showed us what happens to shirt fabric when an arm is raised -- it INDENTS.

Craig has known of this for four years, since I first pointed it out to him, that custom-made dress shirts indent along the shoulder-line when the arm is raised. A lot of his business is photographing guys in custom-made shirts. Craig has the opportunity to photograph what happens with a custom-made shirt when a guy raises his arm.

And yet after four years Craig has only now produced such a photo.

Thank you Craig!

Everything we need to know about JFK's shirt is discussed in this piece.

Start with the indentation of the fabric at the left base of the neck in the photo on the left. The model raised his left arm and the fabric in his shirt indented.

This occurs everytime Craig Lamson or anyone else raises their arm -- the shirt fabric indents along the shoulder-line.

This is the opposite of a multi-inch fabric bunch up.

Next, we read that 3 to 4 inches of slack is common for the front and back of the shirt,

and this is established by "exaggerating" the position of the shirt, pulling it to one side.

But pulling fabric is the opposite of bunching fabic. No one pulled up on JFK's shirt and jacket, they had to be pushed up by his posture changes.

Craig is claiming that all of JFK's available slack was somehow pushed up above the base of JFK's neck -- but Craig has FAILED to demonstrate how such a thing could occur.

The burden of proof is on you, Craig. You will, of course, continue to blow smoke and continue to FAIL to produce the goods.

I can show you a photo of INDENTATION, Craig. You supplied it!

Now show us a photo of this "bunch" you feverishly imagine.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Proof is there for all to see Varnell. 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner. Simply unimpeachable.

Only in your imagination, Craig. Pat Speer must agree with you to support his own pet theories, but he won't touch your collection of non sequiturs with a 20 foot pole.

I challenged John Dolva to show us where there was 2 inches of bunch in the Towner photo.

He clammed right up about it.

No one is going to follow you into LamsonLand, Craig.

End of story. Game over. Varnell is simply toast.

Puerile hand-waving.

The shirt? Who knows since we can't SEE it.

We don't have to. You can't get all the slack in the back of your shirt to bunch up in one spot without pulling on the fabric.

No one pulled on JFK's shirt.

You can't show us what this exaggerated shirt position was because it is impossible without pulling.

Every empty post you make reminds us of your FAILURE, Craig.

[Craig Lamson]

I want to thank Craig Lamson for providing the graphic below. I know it's killing Craig that he finally broke down and showed us what happens to shirt fabric when an arm is raised -- it INDENTS.

Craig has known of this for four years, since I first pointed it out to him, that custom-made dress shirts indent along the shoulder-line when the arm is raised. A lot of his business is photographing guys in custom-made shirts. Craig has the opportunity to photograph what happens with a custom-made shirt when a guy raises his arm.

And yet after four years Craig has only now produced such a photo.

Thank you Craig!

Everything we need to know about JFK's shirt is discussed in this piece.

Start with the indentation of the fabric at the left base of the neck in the photo on the left. The model raised his left arm and the fabric in his shirt indented.

This occurs everytime Craig Lamson or anyone else raises their arm -- the shirt fabric indents along the shoulder-line.

This is the opposite of a multi-inch fabric bunch up.

Next, we read that 3 to 4 inches of slack is common for the front and back of the shirt,

and this is established by "exaggerating" the position of the xxxx, pulling it to one side.

But pulling fabric is the opposite of bunching fabic. No one pulled up on JFK's shirt and jacket, they had to be pushed up by his posture changes.

Craig is claiming that all of JFK's available slack was somehow pushed up above the base of JFK's neck -- but Craig has FAILED to demonstrate how such a thing could occur.

The burden of proof is one you, Craig. You will, of course, continue to blow smoke and continue to FAIL to produce the goods.

I can show you a photo of INDENTATION, Craig. You supplied it!

Now show us a photo of this "bunch" you feverishly imagine.

Poor Varnell,

We are talking about a fold on JFKs BACK and Varnell shows us a shoulder.

Can Varnell get any more desperate?

I don't think so.

Oh and lets look at Varnell once again "overselling" to be polite ant sysing within forum rules:

This occurs everytime Craig Lamson or anyone else raises their arm -- the shirt fabric indents along the shoulder-line.

Like with his now proven false claim that ALL custom made dress shirts have on a fraction of an inch of slack, Varnell once again makes WILD claims without the slightest bit of support. OVERSELL is polite to to be sure.

Desperation....

ROFLMAO!

What we DO have however and proven in an unimpeachable manner is the large indentation on the back of JFK's jacket, as see in Betzner that consumes 3+ inches of fabric length down from the jacket collar.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Proof is there for all to see Varnell. 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner. Simply unimpeachable.

Only in your imagination, Craig. Pat Speer must agree with you to support his own pet theories, but he won't touch your collection of non sequiturs with a 20 foot pole.

I challenged John Dolva to show us where there was 2 inches of bunch in the Towner photo.

He clammed right up about it.

No one is going to follow you into LamsonLand, Craig.

End of story. Game over. Varnell is simply toast.

Puerile hand-waving.

The shirt? Who knows since we can't SEE it.

We don't have to. You can't get all the slack in the back of your shirt to bunch up in one spot without pulling on the fabric.

No one pulled on JFK's shirt.

You can't show us what this exaggerated shirt position was because it is impossible without pulling.

Every empty post you make reminds us of your FAILURE, Craig.

Cliff falls deeper into desperation mode.

Unimpeachable laws of light and shadow PROVE that there is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's jacket back in Betzner, Varnell has never been able to contest this fact.

Now..ONCE AGAIN...Varnell spins a tall tale about how fabric behaves. He offers no proof mind you. Just his word he is correct. We all saw how well that worked out for him and his "all custom dress shirts have only a fraction of an inch of slack" nonsense. Varnell made that one up from thin air. Given this track record why would anyone believe him again?

Again I make NO claims about the condition of JFK's shirt under his jacket because I can't see it.

Varnell heads once gain deep into fantasy land and tells us he KNOWS the condition of JFK's shirt...under his jacket.

Sadly for Varnell, he has no proof of the amount of slack present in JFK's shirt. He has no proof of how well tucked this shirt was. He has no proof on how htw material reacted as JFK sat and moved during the course of hte motorcade. All Varnell has is wildly waving hands and a mountiain of empty speculation.

And no way in the world to dispute the unimpeachable fact that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner.

BTW Varnell, your "ignore" button broken? LOL!

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm good with burgundy.

Poor Varnell,

We are talking about a fold on JFKs BACK and Varnell shows us a shoulder.

Poor Lamson.

We're talking about a fold on the back of JFK's NECK -- a 3+ inch shirt fabric fold entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of JFK's neck.

You're claiming that JFK's shirt was bunched up ABOVE the indentation in your photo!

You see, Craig, I can back up my claims. You can't.

Can Varnell get any more desperate?

I don't think so.

Oh and lets look at Varnell once again "overselling" to be polite ant sysing within forum rules:

This occurs everytime Craig Lamson or anyone else raises their arm -- the shirt fabric indents along the shoulder-line.

Please note that Craig does not contest this. If it weren't true Craig has the capacity to have a photo on the internet within seconds of his shirt bunching up.

But no. When Craig raises his right arm casually the fabric indents along the shoulderline, very close to where Craig claims JFK had 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket.

Poor Craig.

Like with his now proven false claim that ALL custom made dress shirts have on a fraction of an inch of slack,

Craig likes to overlook the fact that JFK preferred shirts with a tapered waist, which means that he had less than the customary 3" to 4" of slack in the back of his shirt.

There is a difference between pulling all the slack out of the shirt and bunching fabric in one location.

I stand by 3/4" of fabric as the amount of fabric that will bunch up at the base of the neck of a tucked in custom-made dress shirt.

And when the arm is raised that 3/4" bunch will INDENT.

Time to show us what 3+ inch of bunched up shirt looks like, Craig.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

My response in burgundy

On 6/1/2011 at 2:40 PM, Craig Lamson said:

Cliff falls deeper into desperation mode.

Unimpeachable laws of light and shadow PROVE that there is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's jacket back in Betzner, Varnell has never been able to contest this fact.

According to this the fold in the back of JFK's neck in the Jim Towner photo (see below) is almost 3 times the size of JFK's 1.25" jacket collar.

To any objective person this claim is absurd.

Now..ONCE AGAIN...Varnell spins a tall tale about how fabric behaves. He offers no proof mind you. Just his word he is correct.

YOU offered the proof. It's right here in this photo. When the arm is raised the fabric indents at the shoulder-line.

You claim that JFK's shirt and jacket bunched up ABOVE the shoulder-line.

Let's see it. Show us what this looks like, Craig.

The 3/4" inch figure refers to the amount of slack that can be "bunched" in any one location. Not pulled, bunched.

Prove me wrong, Craig.

The "ignore" button referred to the other thread.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

This is the best single piece of evidence in destruction of the single bullet theory.

How much available slack in the back of a custom-made shirt when you pull the fabric to one side -- 3 to 4 inches.

But how much fabric can "bunch up" when you casually move around like JFK in the motorcade?

A fraction of an inch.

This photo photo proves it. If Craig Lamson could produce proof otherwise, given his resources, he would.

But he can't.

Every time he posts without proof he reiterates his FAILURE.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

My response in burgundy

According to this the fold in the back of JFK's neck in the Jim Towner photo (see below) is almost 3 times the size of JFK's 1.25" jacket collar.

To any objective person this claim is absurd.

Silly Varnell wants you to think he understands how fabric responds ad yet he overstates the size of a fold required to consume 3+ inches of fabric by nearly 3 times. And he wants you to believe he knows what his is talking about...how absurd is that.

YOU offered the proof. It's right here in this photo. When the arm is raised the fabric indents at the shoulder-line.

Silly Varnell, still can't figure out that the shoulder and the back are too DIFFERENT location.

You claim that JFK's shirt and jacket bunched up ABOVE the shoulder-line.

Let's see it. Show us what this looks like, Craig.

The 3/4" inch figure refers to the amount of slack that can be "bunched" in any one location. Not pulled, bunched.

Prove me wrong, Craig.

The "ignore" button referred to the other thread.

Silly Varnell still wants to "oversell"the arguement. He wants to tell you I said something I've never said. How honest is that?

And no, your 3/4 inch figure was your claim for the TOTAL amount of available slack for EVERY custom made dress shirt, which we now know you simply made up from thin air....

...in any case you once again make a claim without a single piece of supporting evidence, which is why your entire argument lies in tatters on the floor.

All I know...and can prove is that JFK's JACKET had a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back in the Betzner photo. And of course the proof for that claim has been tested and the proof is unimpeachable, which is why Varnell is in full meltdown mode.

Oh, btw, please show the readers this mythical "ignore" button that only works for specfic threads. Or did you "oversell" once again?

[Craig Lamson]

This is the best single piece of evidence in destruction of the single bullet theory.

How much available slack in the back of a custom-made shirt when you pull the fabric to one side -- 3 to 4 inches.

But how much fabric can "bunch up" when you casually move around like JFK in the motorcade?

A fraction of an inch.

This photo photo proves it. If Craig Lamson could produce proof otherwise, given his resources, he would.

But he can't.

Every time he posts without proof he reiterates his FAILURE.

Gosh Cliff, you can't even read. The amount of available slack SUGGESTED (note that word...it very important) is not 3-4 inches but rather 6to 8 inches TOTAL. Sheesh and you want people to believe you know something about all of this. Remember readers Varnell is the guy who simply MADE UP FROM THIN AIR his claim that ALL CUSTOM MADE DRESS SHIRTS HAVE NO MORE THAN 3/4 " of total available slack.

Now he makes up an even sillier claim...."But how much fabric can "bunch up" when you casually move around like JFK in the motorcade? A fraction of an inch."

What does Varnell offer to support his newest wild claim? Why nothing of course, just like his other silly claims.

Again, I don;t know what JFK's shirt did under his coat nor how fit fit him. Neither does Cliff Varnell despite all of his now discredited bluster. All he can do is SPECULATE, abd last I checked speculation fails the rtest as prima facia evidece.

What I do know and can prove is that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in the Betzner photo. Varnell simply cannot refuted this evidence because it is unimpeachable.

That's why Varnell has melted down. His claims have been shown to be made up from thin air..."oversold" to use the Varnell term (that's a real hoot in itself). He is so far gone he is now trying to convince you that the top of the shoulder is the same as the center of the back....

Varnell has very little room to talk about supplying proofs given his track record of running away each time he is asked to supply proofs.

[Mike Williams]

Glenn,

I read some several pages of this thread, just to note that the subject quickly turned to angles yet again, which of course tossed your original question off track.

I do not know if your original question was answered, as I could not bear to wade through any more crap to find out.

The simple answer, is that NO there is nothing that says the bullet would travel a straight and perfect course.

I would offer that has the bullet struck at a 90 degree angle to the target the likely hood of a straight and true course might be greater.

You might want to read some of Sturdivan's testimony in regard to the yaw considerations of the bullet.

I might also suggest looking about for some examples of bullets striking ballistic gel at odd angles.

Hope this helps.

Mike

[Cliff Varnell]

On 6/1/2011 at 6:21 PM, Craig Lamson said:

Silly Varnell wants you to think he understands how fabric responds ad yet he overstates the size of a fold required to consume 3+ inches of fabric by nearly 3 times. And he wants you to believe he knows what his is talking about...how absurd is that.

What is this gibberish? The SBT requires 3+ inches of JFK's shirt and jacket to have been elevated entirely above an inshoot in the back of JFK's neck.

It should be obvious to any objective person that the fold at the back of JFK's neck in the following photo isn't nearly 3 times the size of the 1.25" jacket collar. The jacket collar is clearly bigger than the fold, which is closer to 3/4 inch.

Why does Craig Lamson make claims that are so obviously ridiculous?

Edited December 18, 2018 by Cliff Varnell