The "Single Bullet Theory"

[Cliff Varnell]

The principles of fine men's dress destroy the Single Bullet Theory Fallacy.

It's unimpeachable.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Fit doesn't change. Fit is constant. Your ignorance of what clothing "fit" entails is no kind of argument.

PROVE IT by showing us EXACTLY how JFK's shirt "fit" at the exact moment of the backshot.

JFK's specifications were obvious: his "V-shaped" jacket style would have been ruined by 3+" of excess shirt fabric.

PROVE IT by showing us EXACTLY how JFK's shirt "fit" at the exact moment of the backshot.

BTW, it only takes 1.5 inchs of fabric to my the shirt hole 3" up JFK's back. How could you be so ignorant Cliff?

Are you claiming thaqt JFK wore a tight-waisted jacket to accentuate the gross excess shirt fabric?

I'm not claiming ANYTHING about JFK's shirt Varnell. YOU are. PROVE your claim. Since you have failed to do so FOR YEARS, one can safely assume you simply can't. You are all bluster and ZERO facts. In other words Varnell. YOU are history. And YOU know it.

Sure, according to this scenario JFK wanted to go around dressed like a clown.

LOL! Everyone...see Varnell grasping at straws as he sees the theory has been hawking for years circle down the drain.

Lamsonite!

Watching you in a panic is PRICELESS Varnell.

[Craig Lamson]

The principles of fine men's dress destroy the Single Bullet Theory Fallacy.

It's unimpeachable.

PROVE IT by showing us the EXACT fit of JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot Varnell.

Panic suits you...pun intended. ROFLMAO!

[David G. Healy]

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.

Oh come on, stop the inane accusations, Craigster. For 10 years now you've been somewhat the best lone nut trolls have concerning the Zapruder film. Yet, even then you needed Rollie Zavada to prop you up, and HE knew even less than YOU about film composition, and he admitted such, NOTHING-na-da, not his expertise as seen in JCostella excellent rebuttal to the trolls here http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/ .... especially concerning your Gang of 8 (see here... http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/thegang.html ) most of the of the 2002 era Z-film trolls have of course, faded into the sunset...

Say, isn't it correct David Lifton has spent more time than you operating a 35mm optical film printer? That, in fact, speaks volumes for your expertise.... but let me not interrupt your fantasy....

Ya haven't the chops Craigster to deal with film composition reality, in fact, no one, NO ONE, (currently or in the past) associated with the Gang of 8 knew what an optical film printer is/was till yours truly came along to tell them and YOU of course... been 12 years Craigster... you been flopping around like a beached fish outta water...

So, its not: "Varnell is all smoke and mirrors and his mirror is now broken", 'tis you laddie, the craigster! -- Carry on!

[Cliff Varnell]

Fit doesn't change. Fit is constant. Your ignorance of what clothing "fit" entails is no kind of argument.

PROVE IT by showing us EXACTLY how JFK's shirt "fit" at the exact moment of the backshot.

JFK's specifications were obvious: his "V-shaped" jacket style would have been ruined by 3+" of excess shirt fabric.

PROVE IT by showing us EXACTLY how JFK's shirt "fit" at the exact moment of the backshot.

BTW, it only takes 1.5 inchs of fabric to my the shirt hole 3" up JFK's back. How could you be so ignorant Cliff?

Are you claiming thaqt JFK wore a tight-waisted jacket to accentuate the gross excess shirt fabric?

I'm not claiming ANYTHING about JFK's shirt Varnell. YOU are. PROVE your claim. Since you have failed to do so FOR YEARS, one can safely assume you simply can't. You are all bluster and ZERO facts. In other words Varnell. YOU are history. And YOU know it.

Sure, according to this scenario JFK wanted to go around dressed like a clown.

LOL! Everyone...see Varnell grasping at straws as he sees the theory has been hawking for years circle down the drain.

Lamsonite!

Watching you in a panic is PRICELESS Varnell.

Watching you unable to intellectually respond is as per usual.

JFK's shirt fit "almost like a second skin" according to the preeminant men's clothing designer/historian, Alan Flusser.

What part of "almost like a second skin" don't you grasp?

JFK's specifications were dictated by his V-shaped suit jacket, the "silhouette" of which would have been ruined by your 3+ inch "bunch".

JFK's clothing style was called "Updated American Silhouette".

Craig Lamson don't know "silhouette" from "shinola."

Edited May 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

The principles of fine men's dress destroy the Single Bullet Theory Fallacy.

It's unimpeachable.

PROVE IT by showing us the EXACT fit of JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot Varnell.

Panic suits you...pun intended. ROFLMAO!

All custom-made dress shirts have a fraction of an inch of slack. Normal body movements cause fractions of an inch of clothing fabric to move. This is not "theory." This is the guiding principle of clothing design..

Your determined ignorance of this is not an argument.

Before you start asking about clothing fit, Craig, you should educate yourself.

Alan Flusser's Clothes and the Man: the Principles of Fine Men's Dress:

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7part3.htm

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.

Craig brings up JFK's specifications for clothing fit, but Craig can't process the fact that JFK's preferred clothing style would have been ruined by bulges of fabric.

You can't face reality, Craig.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Craig brings up JFK's specifications for clothing fit, but Craig can't process the fact that JFK's preferred clothing style would have been ruined by bulges of fabric.

You can't face reality, Craig.

Once again we see Cliff in full panic mode, left with one "clothing fit theory" and no hard facts.

Varnell has NO clue of the ACTUAL tailoring of JFK's shirt. None whatsoever. So instead he PRETENDS that ALL custom made shirts are tailored to the "theory" Cliff says not just some but ALL. Nothing about this silly attempt to substitute THEORY for cold hard fact is grounded in REALITY. But what else could we expect from Varnell but fantasy heaped upon fantasy and him then calling it fact. Heck he has been doing it for years.

You want "reality" Varnell? Prove to us that ALL of the custom made dress shirts ever made have been made to Flussers specs. EVERY CUSTOM DRESS SHIRT...This is beyond silly but par for the course for Varnell.

How about yet another dose of cold, hard reality Varnell? Show us exactly how JFK's shirt fit at the exact moment of the back wound. That is reality Varnell, not some esoteric quote from Flusser.

Prove it or lose it mr. panic...

[Craig Lamson]

Oh come on, stop the inane accusations, Craigster. For 10 years now you've been somewhat the best lone nut trolls have concerning the Zapruder film. Yet, even then you needed Rollie Zavada to prop you up, and HE knew even less than YOU about film composition, and he admitted such, NOTHING-na-da, not his expertise as seen in JCostella excellent rebuttal to the trolls here http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/ .... especially concerning your Gang of 8 (see here... http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/thegang.html ) most of the of the 2002 era Z-film trolls have of course, faded into the sunset...

Say, isn't it correct David Lifton has spent more time than you operating a 35mm optical film printer? That, in fact, speaks volumes for your expertise.... but let me not interrupt your fantasy....

Ya haven't the chops Craigster to deal with film composition reality, in fact, no one, NO ONE, (currently or in the past) associated with the Gang of 8 knew what an optical film printer is/was till yours truly came along to tell them and YOU of course... been 12 years Craigster... you been flopping around like a beached fish outta water...

So, its not: "Varnell is all smoke and mirrors and his mirror is now broken", 'tis you laddie, the craigster! -- Carry on!

You can always count on Healy for an interjection of nonsense.

I spent a few years early on working for an AV house running among other things an optical printer and a full tilt Oxberry animation stand. Lets review YOUR chops Dave. How may hours have YOU spent ...outside of film school doing film based composites?

And about Lifton. Did he actually RUN it or was he a just a bystander? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

Now back to our regular programing since Dave is sure NOT to answer....

[Craig Lamson]

Alan Flusser's Clothes and the Man: the Principles of Fine Men's Dress:

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7part3.htm

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.

BTW Varnell, please note that per your own quoting of Flusser, the shirt SHOULD ... not MUST have, and the material COULD ... not WILL.

It seems Mr. Flusser is not quite as definitive about all of this as you want to make him out to be.

Now what was it you said about ALL custom made dress shirts? ROFLMAO!

History Varnell...you are history and now even more so by your own hand....

PRICELESS!

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig brings up JFK's specifications for clothing fit, but Craig can't process the fact that JFK's preferred clothing style would have been ruined by bulges of fabric.

You can't face reality, Craig.

Once again we see Cliff in full panic mode, left with one "clothing fit theory" and no hard facts.

Varnell has NO clue of the ACTUAL tailoring of JFK's shirt.

Of course we do. Haven't you read the links and the quotes I've cited of the designer/historian Alan Flusser?

JFK's clothing style was called Updated American. It featured a "silhouette" with a "V-shaped torso."

Flusser specifically cited "bulging material" as the bete noire of custom made shirts.

Why can't Craig Lamson process this clear information?

None whatsoever.

Even when JFK's clothing style is clearly stated and described -- Updated American Sihouette, V-shaped torso, tapered waist -- Craig pretends that it isn't.

So instead he PRETENDS that ALL custom made shirts are tailored to the "theory" Cliff says not just some but ALL. Nothing about this silly attempt to substitute THEORY for cold hard fact is grounded in REALITY.

Principles are not theories. That you must conflate the two is telling.

The rest of your contentless dismissals are also quite telling.

&Yes, Craig, every modern tucked-in custom made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of slack.

Why can't you grasp "tapered waist"?

You are left with nothing but empty ridicule in the face of that fact.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Here we go again.

Lammy, Cliff and the shirt hijack another interesting thread.

Excuse me?

I've never before presented most of this material -- ever.

I've been waiting 14 years for Flusser's work to be posted on the internet, and here it is.

My previous discussions with Craig concerned photo interpretation of the jacket.

This discussion concerns the historical facts regarding JFK's clothing fit, a subject I would think a professional historian would take interest.

This thread concerns the Single Bullet Theory. Back in 1964 Vincent Salandra debunked the SBT by citing the bullet holes in JFK's clothes. Alan Flusser's work corroborates Salandria.

I understand this is an unpopular fact in the self-aggrandizing world of JFK assassination research, but don't scold me for defending the best evidence in the case.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Craig brings up JFK's specifications for clothing fit, but Craig can't process the fact that JFK's preferred clothing style would have been ruined by bulges of fabric.

You can't face reality, Craig.

Once again we see Cliff in full panic mode, left with one "clothing fit theory" and no hard facts.

Varnell has NO clue of the ACTUAL tailoring of JFK's shirt.

Of course we do. Haven't you read the links and the quotes I've cited of the designer historian Alan Flusser?

Did Flusser dress JFK the morning he was killed? Did he MAKE JFK"s shirt? Of course not to both counts.

YOU don't know anything about JFK's shirt fit at the moment of the back wound. ALL you have is THEORY.

JFK's clothing style was called Updated American. It featured a "silhouette" with a "V-shaped torso."

Flusser specifically cited "bulging material" as the bete noire of custom made shirts.

Why can't Craig Lamson process this clear information?

Because it tells us NOTHING about the fit nor condition of JFK's shirt at the instant the bullet impacted it.

You claim there was only a fraction of an inch of slack. Provide actual proof, not clothing theory.

Without that finite proof, your claims FAIL. Of course thata why you are waving your hands and hoping the world will not see that you have NO ACTUAL evidence to support your flimsy claims.

None whatsoever.

Even when JFK's clothing style is clearly stated and described -- Updated American Sihouette, V-shaped torso, tapered waist -- Craig pretends that it isn't.

Varnell pretends this is a substitute for actual and factual evidence of the state of JFK's shirt on the day he was killed. It also makes a grand point about his lack of intellectual honesty.

So instead he PRETENDS that ALL custom made shirts are tailored to the "theory" Cliff says not just some but ALL. Nothing about this silly attempt to substitute THEORY for cold hard fact is grounded in REALITY.

Principles are not theories. That you must conflate the two is telling.

No, you have a THEORY of clothing fit. Why? because you don't have any ACTUAL and factual evidence of how JFK's shirt was actually tailored and it's condition on the day he was shot. Waving your hands so hard you look like a bird is becoming of you, but its pointless.

The rest of your contentless dismissals are also quite telling.

&Yes, Craig, every modern tucked-in custom made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of slack.

That's quite an extraordinary claim so it requires extraordinary proof....where is that proof?

Flusser says a shirt SHOULD have only a fraction of an inch of slack...he does not say must...

"'Should' expresses a personal opinion and is much weaker and more personal than 'must' or 'have to'. It is often introduced by ' I think'."

Every custom made dress shirt? ROFLMAO! Only someone as intellectually dishonest as Cliff Varnell would make such a stupid claim.

Why can't you grasp "tapered waist"?

Can you say backbrace and elastic bandage? And you think 1.5 inches of shirt fabric is a problem? LMAO!

You are left with nothing but empty ridicule in the face of that fact.

And you are left with NOTHING. No facts, No evidence, no intellectual honesty. Quotes from Flusser are simply meaninglees.

It has been a pleasure destroying you.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is dispositive, SBT debunked.

The provenance of CE399 is in no way dispositve on the issue of the SBT. Magic Bullet critic John Hunt has stated that he believes that one bullet went thru JFK and JBC.

Feeling physical evidence envy, Jim?

You play into the hands of the nutters when you try to promote secondary evidence that has nothing to do with the killing of Kennedy.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Because it tells us NOTHING about the fit nor condition of JFK's shirt at the instant the bullet impacted it.

You haven't grasped the meaning of the word "fit". Fit is a fixed condition: just enough slack to allow a man to sit down and stand up comfortably. His back brace had no impact on the fit of the shirt.

Bulging fabric is what the tailor is responsible for avoiding.

Your ignorance is not a rebuttal.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

What did you expect them [the HSCA] to say [re CE399 and the SBT]?

Well, Lee, since the HSCA was desperately LOOKING FOR A CONSPIRACY in the Kennedy case (and they "found" a bogus one too, via the acoustics charade), I'd expect them to say exactly what YOU guys have been saying for years about CE399 & the SBT--if such things were true and could be backed up with something other than sheer CTer speculation and wishful thinking.

That's what I would expect the HSCA to say re these matters.

Unfortunately, however, for the CTers who think the SBT is a fraud and that CE399 was planted/subbed, the HSCA came to the same conclusion (generally) about 399 and the SBT that the WC came to -- i.e., the HSCA agreed with the WC that one bullet wounded both limo victims and that that ONE BULLET was Warren Commission Exhibit No. Three-Niner-Niner.

So, Lee Farley, I guess you'll just have to live with the undeniable fact that BOTH of the official committees who were assigned to thoroughly investigate John Kennedy's murder came to the very same conclusion regarding these two important questions:

1.) Is the Single-Bullet Theory a valid theory?

WC answer: Yes.

HSCA answer: Yes.

and

2.) Was CE399 the bullet that wounded both JFK and John Connally on 11/22/63?

WC answer: Yes.

HSCA answer: Yes.

Maybe a third official investigation will be the charm for the anti-SBT conspiracy mongers. Ya think? Or do you think that a third panel would be just as corrupt and dishonest as the first two were?

Edited May 2, 2011 by David Von Pein