Glenn Viklund Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 With proof like that, and it is proof, not evidence, why would you want to argue the SBT? Show me the real bullet first. Because I want to know what rifle it was actually fired from. Then one can begin to talk about firing points and trajectories. Jim, I'm not defending the SBT. But it is one of the official explanations and as such a good reference point. I'm trying to understand what - if anything - is wrong with it. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Jim, you mentioned CE399. So let's assume for a moment that you are correct about this not being the bullet in question. Would that exclude the possibility of the SBT? No, it would not. It would certainly raise other questions, I agree. But conclusively rule out the SBT - not as far as I'm concerned. Excellent point. One of the leading current critics of CE399, John Hunt, is a single bullet theorist. Glenn, the bullet hole in JFK's tucked-in custom-made dress shirt is four inches below the bottom of the collar. That's 2-3 inches below the location advocated by both LNers and a lot of CTs, even those who are not single bullet theorists. The bullet holes in JFK's clothes align with the 3rd thoracic vertebra, too low to allow any possibility of the SBT. Bullets don't take 90 degree turns in mid-air. Don't buy the Big Lie about some multi-inch clothing "bunch" because tucked in custom made dress shirts are specifically designed NOT to bunch up more than a fraction of an inch. It's all right here (emphasis added): Alan Flusser, Clothes and the Man: the Principles of Fine Men's Dress http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7.htm Since the 1950s, while manufacturers' changes have been few, styles have changed radically. Paralleling the excesses of the Peacock Revolution, shirt collars grew to disproportionate lengths while colors took on the nightmarish hues of Day-Glo paints and subway graffiti. Today, the palette has sobered and the collar styles have returned to more traditional proportions that are more in keeping with the current conservative mood of the country. It's quite simple, really: fine-quality dress shirts are made of 100 percent cotton. Naturally, they cost more than polyester blends, but what you pay for is unrivaled comfort and a look that bespeaks luxury and tradition. As a natural fiber, cotton respects the natural needs of the body. It breathes, allowing the body to cool itself when necessary, and its absorbs moisture when the body perspires. As the article of clothing most in contact with the body, the shirt needs to act almost as a second skin. Cotton performs this function best. If you've got multiple inches of slack in your skin you've got problems. ibid. "Shirt Fit" http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7part3.htm Emphasis added: 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. If you do buy a shirt with too large a body, a seamstress can take in the side seams or put darts in the back to reduce the size. The darts are actually a bit more practical, since if you put on weight they can be removed. 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. It should not be so long, however, that it creates bulges in front of the trousers. Any high back wound theory requires a "bulge" in JFK's shirt that clearly didn't exist. Custom-made shirts only provide a fraction of an inch of slack. It's unimpeachable. Vince Bugliosi wears expensive threads and he knows this. He lied when the said that JFK's shirt would be expected to bunch up multiple inches. The man is a xxxx, pure and simple. Edited May 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) See, Glenn, this is what I can't understand. You say "what happened" is "indeed very complicated to explain." My question is why? Why is any aspect of this case complicated to explain? Lee, Fair enough, point taken. So let's forget about the WC. Then, Lee, please explain what happened. - Who shot President Kennedy? - How many shots were fired and from where were they fired? - How many shooters? - Where are the bullets? - How many shots missed their target? - How many bullets hit Connally? - Where are those bullets and from where were they fired? If we can sort these questions out in this thread I'll be happy to come down to Liverpool and have a pint with you, but let's make sure we don't blend the WC into the mixture. Edited May 1, 2011 by Glenn Viklund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Overhead!!! chris Chris, you are smarter than this. PERSPECTIVE! Try again, the foreshortening correction is a swag.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Call me Mickey or whatever you will...i call you by your name. Have you ever seen a negative contact sheet from the Allen photos, Liarson? Yea...right LOL! You are such a target rich environment mickey. It will be such a pleasure to destroy your creds. and show your incompetence (that has already been shown in this tread but so much more is yet to come) You would be wise to quit posting and slink away and maybe I will show some mercy on you. Or maybe not. LMAO! Thanks again for the grins mickey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Don't buy the Big Lie about some multi-inch clothing "bunch" because tucked in custom made dress shirts are specifically designed NOT to bunch up more than a fraction of an inch. It's all right here (emphasis added): Alan Flusser, Clothes and the Man: the Principles of Fine Men's Dress Don't buy Varnells make believe that JFK's shirt could not do something because he read about it in a book on clothing THEORY. Custom made implies just that....made to the SPECS of the CUSTOMER. What Varnell can't prove is that the shirt JFK wore that day was CUSTOM FIT to the SPECS VARNELL likes to tout. He can't prove the amount of slack present in the shirt AT THE TIME THE BACK WOUND WAS CREATED. Varnell waves his hand mightily, but he offers nothing. Heres the unvarnelled truth. There was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. Try as he might Varnell can't refute this singular fact. All he can do is cite clothing fit THEORY. He can't cite anything factual about the fit of JFK's shirt at the instant of the back wound. Varnell is all smoke and mirrors and his mirror is now broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted May 1, 2011 Author Share Posted May 1, 2011 See, Glenn, this is what I can't understand. You say "what happened" is "indeed very complicated to explain." My question is why? Why is any aspect of this case complicated to explain? Lee, Fair enough, point taken. So let's forget about the WC. Then, Lee, please explain what happened. - Who shot President Kennedy? - How many shots were fired and from where were they fired? - How many shooters? - Where are the bullets? - How many shots missed their target? - How many bullets hit Connally? - Where are those bullets and from where were they fired? If we can sort these questions out in this thread I'll be happy to come down to Liverpool and have a pint with you, but let's make sure we don't blend the WC into the mixture. Glenn, Your questions, in my opinion, are the wrong questions in trying to sort out this unholy mess. The reason, again, in my opinion, they're the wrong questions is because most of them have answers that are unknowable. The Warren Commission condemned Lee Oswald. The question is did he do it. The answer to that is an emphatic no. All the rest is the smokescreen diversion that political institutions rely upon to muddy the water. Who shot JFK? I don't know. How many shots were fired? I don't know. How many shots missed? I don't know. Etc, etc, etc... I do know that once Oswald was arrested on suspicion of shooting Tippit the investigation stopped. It came to a complete standstill. That is proved by the police radio transcripts. I do know the crime scene wasn't cordoned off after the shots were fired. And by crime scene I mean Dealey Plaza and not just the TSBD. Cars and buses continued to roll down Elm Street for a long time after the shots were fired. It took the vigilance of citizens to find pieces of the President's head in the street. There are several witnesses to at least one shot having hit the manhole cover and created something akin to a molehill in the grass next to it. I know that the FBI did their level best to completely ignore James Tague because they wanted three shots and three hits, oh and for the record that is still the official FBI conclusion concerning the assassination. Let's put it this way, Glenn, if it was Oswald then all of the lies told by many, many people in this case would be completely unnecessary. The truth would stand on its own two feet. But the amount of lies and shenanigans that are littered throughout this case are quite simply mindboggling. Who did it? Who knows? That question has its own cottage industry. Who didn't do it? Lee Harvey Oswald. Interesting, Lee. Because on the one hand you got my point precisely - those questions may well be un-answerable. On the other hand, however, I find that the WC's conclusions are an excellent reference point in the JFK case. So let's just agree to disagree about that. (As an aside - I do agree also with you about the astonishing amount of alleged lies, not only related to Oswalds guilt, but generally speaking in most conspiracy theories. Which is why I don't think there were as many 'liars and lies' as some of those theories requires. But that's a subject for another day...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 CE 399 is not the same bullet that was found at Parkland. Utter nonsense from DiEugenio (as usual). Of course CE399 is the exact same bullet found by Tomlinson at Parkland. And there are several reasons (based on common sense alone) to know that CE399 was not "planted" or "switched", as discussed below: http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399 Your reply shows a naivete to the way the WC diverted us from what actually occurred. The lack of provenance of CE 399 is a good example. Jim DiEugenio on the other hand has taken the time and effort to follow the twisted path of this bullet and chooses not to find the official version of events credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Jim DiEugenio on the other hand has taken the time and effort to follow the twisted path of this bullet and chooses not to find the official version of events credible. Whoopee for Jimmy! But every Govt. committee/Commission to examine the JFK case HAS found the SBT to be "credible". And those committees each found CE399 to be the exact bullet to have accomplished the SBT. Send your next complaint to Louis Stokes and Co. They must have blown it too, huh? Or were they all liars and cover-uppers too? Edited May 1, 2011 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Don't buy Varnells make believe that JFK's shirt could not do something because he read about it in a book on clothing THEORY. There is no such thing as "clothing theory." It is a straight-forward fact that shirt "bunch" ruins the lines of a suit jacket. There is no "theory" to this at all. Custom-made shirts are specifically designed NOT to bunch up. Period. Any excess fabric can ruin the jacket lines. No tailor makes a shirt that could ruin the jacket line. JFK was an elegant dresser. This is unimpeachable. Lamson is attempting to re-write history. Custom made implies just that....made to the SPECS of the CUSTOMER. So JFK specifically asked his tailors for poorly fitted shirts? Only a die-hard nutter could possibly claim such a thing. I hate to upset your world-view, Craig, but in the real world no one goes into a tailor and asks for a poorly fitted shirt. Least of all John F. Kennedy! What Varnell can't prove is that the shirt JFK wore that day was CUSTOM FIT to the SPECS VARNELL likes to tout. Your ignorance on this topic is in full display, Lamson. They are not "specs," they are the PRINCIPLES by which the shirts are designed. Custom-made dress shirts are designed not to bunch up. Excess fabric ruins the jacket lines, pure and simple. Nutters like Lamson think that their ignorance on this topic constitutes an argument. He can't prove the amount of slack present in the shirt AT THE TIME THE BACK WOUND WAS CREATED. It's the same amount of slack JFK always had in his shirts. It's the same amount of slack that every custom-made dress shirt has. The shirt must act "almost like a second skin," that is the principle behind the design of every custom made shirt. "Principles" are not "theories." All he can do is cite clothing fit THEORY. Clothing fit PRACTICE. JFK wore suits with a tapered waist, he popularized the fashion briefly in the 60's. Any excess material around his midriff would have RUINED THE JACKET LINES. Nice try re-writing history, Lamson. Edited May 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Jim DiEugenio on the other hand has taken the time and effort to follow the twisted path of this bullet and chooses not to find the official version of events credible. Whoopee for Jimmy! But every Govt. committee/Commission to examine the JFK case HAS found the SBT to be "credible". And those committees each found CE399 to be the exact bullet to have accomplished the SBT. Send your next complaint to Louis Stokes and Co. They must have blown it too, huh? Or were they all liars and cover-uppers too? Are you able to see that you are using an appeal to authority fallacy? There are actually at least two questions to ask about CE399-- 1 -- Did this bullet actually have anything to do with the assassination? 2 -- Is CE399 even the same bullet as the one without provenance found on a stretcher in dallas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) From Alan Flusser's Clothes and the Man: the Principles of Fine Men's Dress http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch2.htm (emphasis added) The sixties brought the Peacock Revolution - a phrase popularized in this country by George Frazier, a former columnist for Esquire magazine and the Boston Globe - which began on Carnaby Street in London and featured a whole array of new looks, including the Nehru jacket and the Edwardian suit. In contrast to the fifties, during which time choices were limited, a wide range of alternatives was now available as the focus moved to youth and protest. The designer Pierre Cardin even created an American version of the slim-lined European silhouette, which, along with the immense popularity of jeans, led to the acceptance of extreme fittedness in clothing - a far cry from the casual, comfortable elegance of preceding generations. During this period, the American designer Ralph Lauren was attempting to convince the American male that there was a viable alternative to this high-style clothing. This alternative was a version of the two-button shaped suit with natural shoulders that had been introduced by Paul Stuart in 1954 and briefly popularized by John Kennedy during his presidency. From Tony Ventresca's The Paul Stuart Variation: Classic American Style http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-paul-stuart-variation-classic-american-style (emphasis added) (Alan) Flusser credits the New York retail store Paul Stuart with introducing the Updated American style to American men in 19549. Located just around the corner from Brooks Brothers, Paul Stuart offered men “an alternative to the overtly stylish menswear from Europe and the repetitious predictability of the Ivy League look. 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. Here are Flusser’s comments: The last or fourth type of suit style was a blend of American and English, Brooks Brothers and Savile Row. Long the staple of fine dressers, from Fred Astaire to Cary Grant, this Updated American suit combined the Row’s trademark smartness with the understated comfort of the sack suit. Introduced to the Gotham gent in the middle sixties by Madison Avenue retailer Paul Stuart, this shaped, two-button suit was later offered to the general public through the fashions of designer Ralph Lauren. Featuring higher armholes and a smaller chest with darted fronts for a more shaped waist, the updated American suit’s longer rolled lapels opened the coat’s front to reveal more of the man’s furnishings while emphasizing his V-shaped torso. Whether Americanized by a center vent or anglicized with side vents, for several decades this soft-shoulder hybrid was the keynote of traditional American fashion, breathing fresh air into the East Coast Ivy League look. Flusser, Dressing The Man (p. 81-82). "Extreme fittedness". "V-shaped torso." The SBT requires multiple inches of bunched shirt fabric, an obvious fallacy given the fact that such a "bunch" would have ruined JFK's distinctive "look." This is the cardinal, salient fact of the entire JFK assassination -- just like Vincent Salandria pointed out so many decades ago. Edited May 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 There is no such thing as "clothing theory." It is a straight-forward fact that shirt "bunch" ruins the lines of a suit jacket. There is no "theory" to this at all. Custom-made shirts are specifically designed NOT to bunch up. Period. Any excess fabric can ruin the jacket lines. No tailor makes a shirt that could ruin the jacket line. JFK was an elegant dresser. This is unimpeachable. Lamson is attempting to re-write history. Show us exactly HOW JFK's shirt FIT at the exact moment of the back wound. If you can't you simply LOSE. You are history. Custom made implies just that....made to the SPECS of the CUSTOMER. So JFK specifically asked his tailors for poorly fitted shirts? Only a die-hard nutter could possibly claim such a thing. I hate to upset your world-view, Craig, but in the real world no one goes into a tailor and asks for a poorly fitted shirt. Least of all John F. Kennedy! How DID JFK ask his tailors to fit THE EXACT SHIRT he was wearing when he was killed? SHOW us. PROVE your claim. Oh yea, you have been asked this FOR YEARS and all you offer your clothing "fit" theory and suggest that substitutes for actual fact. LACKING this simple proof your claim fails. YOU are history. What Varnell can't prove is that the shirt JFK wore that day was CUSTOM FIT to the SPECS VARNELL likes to tout. Your ignorance on this topic is in full display, Lamson. They are not "specs," they are the PRINCIPLES by which the shirts are designed. Custom-made dress shirts are designed not to bunch up. Excess fabric ruins the jacket lines, pure and simple. Nutters like Lamson think that their ignorance on this topic constitutes an argument. The very name "custom - made" denotes that the CUSTOMERS has a shirt made to his PERSONAL specs. You can't show us how this shirt "fit" JFK. All you cna do is SPECULATE and then try and callit fact. THAT'S why you are HISTORY. He can't prove the amount of slack present in the shirt AT THE TIME THE BACK WOUND WAS CREATED. It's the same amount of slack JFK always had in his shirts. It's the same amount of slack that every custom-made dress shirt has. The shirt must act "almost like a second skin," that is the principle behind the design of every custom made shirt. "Principles" are not "theories." Always? ALL? Now you have totally lost it Varnell. But hey lets play along. Show us ALL of JFK's custom made dress shirts and show us the exact amount of slack EVERYONE had. Show us EVERY custom made dress shirt in the world and prove they ALWAYS have the same amount of slack. This argument by you clearly shows you have reached the bottom of the barrel. No one but fool would make such claims. This is abject silliness. All he can do is cite clothing fit THEORY. Clothing fit PRACTICE. JFK wore suits with a tapered waist, he popularized the fashion briefly in the 60's. Any excess material around his midriff would have RUINED THE JACKET LINES. This is really quite simple VARNELL. Simply PROVE it by showing us the EXACT amount of slack in JFK's shirt and the EXACT manner in which it was tucked in AT THE MOMENT of the back wound. If you can't you lose. Period. And since you have been asked this FOR YEARS and you can't produce this simple fact remains. Your argument FAILS and you are HISTORY. Nice try re-writing history, Lamson. No VARNELL I WROTE history. I destroyed your decades long and very silly claim about JFK and his jacket. You are OVER Cliff. Done. Toast. ... HISTORY. It was a real pleasure destroying your stupid claim. Thanks for the grins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Lamsonite logic: 30 pounds of potatoes can fit into a 7 pound potato sack. All high back wound advocacy is Lamsonite. Edited May 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) There is no such thing as "clothing theory." It is a straight-forward fact that shirt "bunch" ruins the lines of a suit jacket. There is no "theory" to this at all. Custom-made shirts are specifically designed NOT to bunch up. Period. Any excess fabric can ruin the jacket lines. No tailor makes a shirt that could ruin the jacket line. JFK was an elegant dresser. This is unimpeachable. Lamson is attempting to re-write history. Show us exactly HOW JFK's shirt FIT at the exact moment of the back wound. If you can't you simply LOSE. You are history. Fit doesn't change. Fit is constant. Your ignorance of what clothing "fit" entails is no kind of argument. JFK's specifications were obvious: his "V-shaped" jacket style would have been ruined by 3+" of excess shirt fabric. Are you claiming that JFK wore a tight-waisted jacket to accentuate the gross excess shirt fabric? Sure, according to this scenario JFK wanted to go around dressed like a clown. Lamsonite! Edited May 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now