The "Single Bullet Theory"

[Cliff Varnell]

We'll stick with burgundy.

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.

Gosh Craig, you didn't read what I wrote:

"How much available slack in the back of a custom-made shirt when you

pull

the fabric to one side -- 3 to 4 inches."

That's 3 - 4 inches in the back of the shirt -- just like the graphic you provided demonstrates.

Sheesh and you want people to believe you know something about all of this.

What part of "in the back of the shirt" didn't you understand?

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.

Show us how you "bunch" all the available slack in the back of the shirt in one location. You can't. You can pull all the available slack, but you can't get more than a fraction of an inch of fabric to move by "bunching."

Prove me wrong, Craig. Put up or shut up.

How much slack can you "bunch" in one spot without pulling on the fabric, Craig?

A fraction of an inch, just like we see in the graphic.

Prove me wrong, Craig. Let's see this exaggerated bunch up you claim occurred.

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."

So you're claiming that casual movements of the body will cause multiple inches of clothing to move?

What is amazing in this claim is that Craig Lamson has spent most of his life wearing clothing -- that's decades upon decades he had one article of clothing on or another -- and yet he has no self-awareness about how his clothing moves when he moves.

Craig is actually claiming that casual body movement cause multiple inches of clothing to move.

This is simply un-true, as anyone can demonstrate for themselves.

How do you go through life not being aware of the clothing you wear, Craig?

And thus the burden of proof is on YOU, Craig to show us this magical event. It's time to demonstrate your claims. After four years, you're way past due.

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

Craig, you can easily prove me wrong by showing us how a custom-made shirt moves when a person moves casually.

Why don't you prove your claims once and for all?

Oh, that's right. You've tried and FAILED.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

No it didn't. The Single Bullet Theory fails on its trajectory -- the back wound is too low.

That goes to the heart of his original question as to what was wrong with the SBT.

[Cliff Varnell]

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

I didn't want your smoke blowing to interfere with the other thread, Craig.

When are you going to demonstrate how multiple inches of clothing fabric moves when you sit in a car and wave your arm?

I wanna see that one!

[Craig Lamson]

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?

Once again Varnell fails even simply math...

A fold in this jacket need only to rise about 1 1/4 to consume enough fabric move the hole in the back up 3 inches or so.

Once again Varnell, who claims he understands how all of this works, shows he does not have the first clue!

Varnell continues his total meltdown.

[Craig Lamson]

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

I didn't want your smoke blowing to interfere with the other thread, Craig.

When are you going to demonstrate how multiple inches of clothing fabric moves when you sit in a car and wave your arm?

I wanna see that one!

Of course you did Mr. Oversell.

Btw, everything you ask to see is visable in Betzner...and Croft for that matter.

The Varnell meltdown continues!

[Cliff Varnell]

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?

Once again Varnell fails even simply math...

A fold in this jacket need only to rise about 1 1/4 to consume enough fabric move the hole in the back up 3 inches or so.

No, Craig, all of the fabric must be above the inshoot at the base of the neck -- 3+ inches of fabric movement -- or else you get multiple bullet holes in the shirt.

You haven't thought this out, have you?

Once again Varnell, who claims he understands how all of this works, shows he does not have the first clue!

Varnell continues his total meltdown.

Craig continues to with-hold any demonstration of his claims, and indulges in contentless dismissals.

[Cliff Varnell]

Quote

I didn't want your smoke blowing to interfere with the other thread, Craig.

When are you going to demonstrate how multiple inches of clothing fabric moves when you sit in a car and wave your arm?

I wanna see that one!

Quote

Of course you did Mr. Oversell.

I did what?

Say, Craig, why can't you quickly take a photograph of your shirt as your wave your arm and show us, right now, today, how much your shirt moves. Please demonstrate your outstanding, incredible claim that normal body movement causes gross clothing movement.

This will be big news to every clothing designer in the world, Craig. Let's see it.

Quote

Btw, everything you ask to see is visable in Betzner...and Croft for that matter.

The Varnell meltdown continues!

There is nothing more than a fraction of an inch fold in any of the Elm St. photos, as the Towner photo clearly shows.

Until you demonstrate this massive "exaggerated" clothing position your claims stand debunked, Craig.

The word "exaggerated" comes from YOUR evidence, btw. Thanks again for the graphic!

That's a 3/4" in fabric fold in Towner, taken 10 seconds before the shooting.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

We'll stick with burgundy.

Gosh Craig, you didn't read what I wrote:

"How much available slack in the back of a custom-made shirt when you

pull

the fabric to one side -- 3 to 4 inches."

That's 3 - 4 inches in the back of the shirt -- just like the graphic you provided demonstrates.

Wow, now you are claiming that fabric slack can be confined to the front or the back of the shirt? Just how SILLY can Varnell get when he is in total meltdown? This just gets better and better!

Sheesh and you want people to believe you know something about all of this.

What part of "in the back of the shirt" didn't you understand?[

Ah yes the guy who thinks the shoulder and the back are the same thing now wants to tellus about the VARNELL MAGIC BACK SLACK! roflmao...again!

Show us how you "bunch" all the available slack in the back of the shirt in one location. You can't. You can pull all the available slack, but you can't get more than a fraction of an inch of fabric to move by "bunching."

Prove me wrong, Craig. Put up or shut up.

How much slack can you "bunch" in one spot without pulling on the fabric, Craig?

A fraction of an inch, just like we see in the graphic.

Prove me wrong, Craig. Let's see this exaggerated bunch up you claim occurred.

See Betzner...or Croft.

So you're claiming that casual movements of the body will cause multiple inches of clothing to move?

No need to "claim" anything. the photographs of JFK by Betzner and Croft for example PROVE it. Now lets watch the Varnell meltdown continue.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Continuing from the previous thread...

]

What is amazing in this claim is that Craig Lamson has spent most of his life wearing clothing -- that's decades upon decades he had one article of clothing on or another -- and yet he has no self-awareness about how his clothing moves when he moves.

Craig is actually claiming that casual body movement cause multiple inches of clothing to move.

This is simply un-true, as anyone can demonstrate for themselves.

How do you go through life not being aware of the clothing you wear, Craig?

And thus the burden of proof is on YOU, Craig to show us this magical event. It's time to demonstrate your claims. After four years, you're way past due.[/b]

Sure Cliff...no problem. Here you go. See Betzner or Croft. 3+ inches of fabric consumed by the fold.

Let your meltdown continue.

Craig, you can easily prove me wrong by showing us how a custom-made shirt moves when a person moves casually.

Why don't you prove your claims once and for all?

Oh, that's right. You've tried and FAILED.

I'm glad you brought that up Varnell. Upthread you told us that you understand how fabric moves and that everytime a person casually raises their arm the fabric on the top of the shoulder will indent.. Note you said "everytime". You imply you are an expert in this regard. To support your claim you point to the photo that contains a guy wear a blue shirt and say..see I'm right. But yet right there beide the photo you claim proves the fabric movement that happens EVERYTIME is a photo of the same guy, in a white shirt..with his arm casually raised with NO indentation on the top of the shoulder.

[Craig Lamson]

No, Craig, all of the fabric must be above the inshoot at the base of the neck -- 3+ inches of fabric movement -- or else you get multiple bullet holes in the shirt.

You haven't thought this out, have you?

Of course I have thought it out and tested it. And once again you get it totally wrong, which is par for the course for Varnell.

Craig continues to with-hold any demonstration of his claims, and indulges in contentless dismissals.

Well actually of the two of us I'm the only one who has demonstrated the validity of my claims. You on the other hand offer only your word, which has proven to be worthless.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

I didn't want your smoke blowing to interfere with the other thread, Craig.

When are you going to demonstrate how multiple inches of clothing fabric moves when you sit in a car and wave your arm?

I wanna see that one!

Of course you did Mr. Oversell.

I did what?

Say, Craig, why can't you quickly take a photograph of your shirt as your wave your arm and show us, right now, today, how much your shirt moves. Please demonstrate your outstanding, incredible claim that normal body movement causes gross clothing movement.

This will be big news to every clothing designer in the world, Craig. Let's see it.

Btw, everything you ask to see is visable in Betzner...and Croft for that matter.

The Varnell meltdown continues!

There is nothing more than a fraction of an inch fold in any of the Elm St. photos, as the Towner photo clearly shows.

Until you demonstrate this massive "exaggerated" clothing position your claims stand debunked, Craig.

The word "exaggerated" comes from YOUR evidence, btw. Thanks again for the graphic!

That's a 3/4" in fabric fold in Towner, taken 10 seconds before the shooting.

Poor Varnell, now even his EYES are overselling.

Towner shows us the fold is as tall as the top of the jacket collar which is 1.25 inches. Croft showws us the same thing, As does Betzner. 1.25 inches of height equals 3+ inches of fabric consumed when measured down from the jacket collar bottom.

Game. Set. MAtch.

Babble on to your hearts content Varnell, your meltdown contines.

I'm off to earn a couple of thousand bucks today....

[Cliff Varnell]

Wow, now you are claiming that fabric slack can be confined to the front or the back of the shirt? Just how SILLY can Varnell get when he is in total meltdown? This just gets better and better!

When it comes to "bunching," yes. Of course. "Bunching" isn't the same as "pulling," Craig. No one pulled on JFK's clothing.

If you think that the slack from the front of the shirt migrates to the back -- show us.

I'm talking about "bunching," fabric ease, where the fabric is pushed together.

Do you still think that pulling on fabric and pushing fabric is the same thing?

Ah yes the guy who thinks the shoulder and the back are the same thing now wants to tellus about the VARNELL MAGIC BACK SLACK! roflmao...again!

Craig, your fold is not in the back. It is in the neck. In the graphic you so generously provided the model shows an indentation at the base of the neck at the shoulder-line.

That is the general area you claim 3+ inches of fabric was elevated.

Get over it. Your own graphic is Exhibit A in the destruction of the SBT.

[Cliff Varnell]

Continuing from the previous thread...

]

What is amazing in this claim is that Craig Lamson has spent most of his life wearing clothing -- that's decades upon decades he had one article of clothing on or another -- and yet he has no self-awareness about how his clothing moves when he moves.

Craig is actually claiming that casual body movement cause multiple inches of clothing to move.

This is simply un-true, as anyone can demonstrate for themselves.

How do you go through life not being aware of the clothing you wear, Craig?

And thus the burden of proof is on YOU, Craig to show us this magical event. It's time to demonstrate your claims. After four years, you're way past due.[/b]

Sure Cliff...no problem. Here you go. See Betzner or Croft. 3+ inches of fabric consumed by the fold.

So you concede that you can't show us what 3+ inch of bunched up shirt fabric looks like?

Why can't you re-create this? You have dozens of guys come into your studio with suits on every month, don't you?

In the past 4 years I'd bet you've taken photos of hundreds of guys in their suits and custom made shirts.

How many of those guys have you asked to wave their arm with their jacket off? How many times have you tried to replicate your claims and FAILED, Craig?

I'm glad you brought that up Varnell. Upthread you told us that you understand how fabric moves and that everytime a person casually raises their arm the fabric on the top of the shoulder will indent.. Note you said "everytime". You imply you are an expert in this regard. To support your claim you point to the photo that contains a guy wear a blue shirt and say..see I'm right. But yet right there beide the photo you claim proves the fabric movement that happens EVERYTIME is a photo of the same guy, in a white shirt..with his arm casually raised with NO indentation on the top of the shoulder.

His arm is not casually raised in that photo, Craig. Look again. JFK had his right elbow up on top of the limo door -- a posture similar to the pose on the left.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

No, Craig, all of the fabric must be above the inshoot at the base of the neck -- 3+ inches of fabric movement -- or else you get multiple bullet holes in the shirt.

You haven't thought this out, have you?

Of course I have thought it out and tested it. And once again you get it totally wrong, which is par for the course for Varnell.

Why don't you show us those tests?

Did it involve "bunching" fabric -- pushing fabric together with posture changes -- or did you pull the fabric?

Here's what you wrote upthread:

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.

Craig, if you take that location 5 inches down from the collar and move it up to a location 2 inches below the collar and THEN fire a bullet you WILL have multiple holes in the shirt.

Hate to break it to you...

[John Dolva]

''...tiny fibers that comprise blood clots show extraordinary elasticity, on average stretching to almost three times their length while still retaining their ability to go back to their normal shape* and expanding to more than four times their length before breaking ... In some cases, fibrin fibers...''

http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/08/blood-clots-hold-natures-most.html

*which is achieved very rapidly when blood is outside the body where the fibres 'knit' the wound by glueing itself to skin and contracting as it 'clots' (dunno if that's the right word for the process), this can be seen to have happened to the shirt as a fibrous mesh being pulled by this contraction.