The "Single Bullet Theory"

[Craig Lamson]

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.

The TAILOR is responsible for creating clothing to the SPECS of the customer. FIT is the desired result of the customers specs. You have failed to show exactly what JFK spec'd for the fit of the shirt he was killed in.

Regardless of your continued bloviation, you still LOSE unless you can provide exact and concrete evidence of the amount of slack present in JFK's shirt at the moment of the back wound.

I must say it's really cool to destroy you after you waited 14 years...for NOTHING!

It's the end of the line for you Varnell and I'll keep hammering your every time you try and pass off the clothing fit theory as actual fact.

BTW, since you claim 1.5 inches of shirt fabric will cause a bulge, please show us. LOL!

[Cliff Varnell]

Here we go again.

Lammy, Cliff and the shirt hijack another interesting thread.

I don't get this.

Does the attention of relentless trolls diminish the value of a researcher's case? Does a steady drum beat of non sequitur and willful ignorance somehow diminish the significance of historical fact?

If such were the case the worth of Jim D's work would be less than zero.

[Craig Lamson]

I mean can't you and he have a cease fire on this?

Sure, when you declare the same with DVP.

[Cliff Varnell]

I mean can't you and he have a cease fire on this?

Sure, when you declare the same with DVP.

Big difference Lammy.

DVP and I argue about just about everything in this case.

You and Cliff argue about one thing over and over.

I've discussed the work of Alan Flusser with Lamson twice. 2 times.

Compare that with the round and around discussions you have with any number of these clowns. Ad infinitum ad nauseum.

At least I'm defending the prima facie case, not a rabbit hole like CE399.

Physician heal thyself.

I started a thread devoted to the subject called The Salient Fact of Conspiracy.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, thanks, I am glad you didn't take it personally. "Willful ignorance", "non sequitir", really Cliff.

You mis-understand.

The "willful ignorance" and "drumbeat of non sequitur" refers to the noise generated by Craig Lamson, David Von Pein, Vince Bugliosi, et al.

I did not direct that at you, but at your LN detractors.

You and Lammy have been arguing this point for how long now?

This is the second thread in which Craig and I have discussed the historical facts surrounding JFK's clothing fit.

I cited the work of the preeminant historian on the matter, and cited passages that make it quite clear that shirt "bunch" was quite impossible. That you are dis-interested in these historical facts strikes me as puzzling.

Have both you and Tink Thompson come down with an allergy to the clothing evidence?

I have actually joined in on your side more than once, a fact you seem to have either forgotten or not appreciated.

But when the same thing happens time after time, month after month, year after year..I mean it does get a bit old and tired.

I mean can't you and he have a cease fire on this?

Your lack of appreciation for the clothing evidence is stunning. Are you promoting a false equivalence between the historical facts of the case as observed in Flusser -- and Lamson's smoke blowing?

We both have an equal argument and we should call it a draw?

No thanks, Jim.

What happened to you, man?

[Cliff Varnell]

I am glad you did that.

I hope Lammy moves there.

Nevertheless, this thread concerns the Single Bullet Theory and, as Vincent Salandria observed back in 1964, the bullet holes in the clothes make the prima facie case against the SBT.

Glenn wanted to know what was wrong with the SBT, and I think I've been able to answer his question on this thread far better than you have, Jim.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Glenn Viklund]

I am glad you did that.

I hope Lammy moves there.

Nevertheless, this thread concerns the Single Bullet Theory and, as Vincent Salandria observed back in 1964, the bullet holes in the clothes make the prima facie case against the SBT.

Glenn wanted to know what was wrong with the SBT, and I think I've been able to answer his question on this thread far better than you have, Jim.

Cliff,

Thanks for your posting. It's not out of neglect or disrespect I haven't commented on it. It is however and area where my knowledge is very limited and I need to do some catch up...

[Pat Speer]

Craig, your reading comprehension is TERRIBLE, LOL. In the post above I acknowledged that Myers' explanation for the size differential made sense. I also claimed, however, that it made no sense for a relatively big-budget documentary to FEATURE animation filmed off a screen at an angle. I then claimed that the strange strange coincidence (?) that the trajectory lines added over this distorted image of Kennedy and Connally just so happened to point back to the sniper's nest suggested that their using the distorted images was no accident.

But do you address,this? NO. Instead you attack me for saying "Myers made Connally a midget as a deliberate lie" and PRETEND I was claiming Myers made Connally a midget, when I said NO such thing.

Several years ago, I raised questions about the midget. Myers failed to acknowledge this until some of his devoted followers begged him to respond. He then responded by admitting I was right, but claimed it was the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet who made Connally a midget, and not him. He claimed, furthermore, that this was obvious to everyone. It was NOT. Not one of his followers knew that the Connally figure had been distorted due to its being filmed at an angle.

When I pointed out that this distortion demonstrated that Kennedy and Connally's wounds did NOT align, furthermore, Myers offered instead that his animation as depicted in Beyond the Magic Bullet was of no value, one way or the other. This aroused the ire of one David Von Pein...who continued to insist that the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet proves the wounds aligned, in spite of the fact Myers had disavowed this animation...

I missed you admission, such that it is, my bad. But boy you have fallen even deeper into your rabbit hole Pat. You "logic" once again shows how intellectually hollow your arguments really are.

Lets head deep into the burrow of Speerian "logic" and see his utter folly.

Lets review.

Speer says the distorted views created by the off angle camera was a deliberate lie, designed to fool the viewer. And since the the distorted view, when overlaid with a line in post production that connected JFK, JBC and the 6th floor, the animation as produced by Myers was faulty and Myers was a xxxx.

Pretty amazing stuff. Too bad its a total load of bull hockey. But sadly, that just the kind of stuff Speer produces, bull hockey based on ignorance.

ANYONE would do screen captures and try to debunk the work is just beyond silly. It's shows a complete lack of graphic intelligence of those who tried.

And then there is the overlaid line. This is CLASSIC blunder on Speer's part. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows you can't draw a line between items on a 2d depiction of a 3d scene and expect it to prove anything other than you can draw a line. This is basic stuff, and Speer fails completely.

All you have proven...once again...is you don't have the first clue what it is you are talking about.

Of course NONE of this proves anything one way or the other about the validity of the actual Myers animation.

What nonsense, Craig. If Kennedy and Connally's wounds were in a straight line leading back to the sniper's nest, as claimed by single-assassin theorists, it can be demonstrated via an overhead shot showing their relative positions in the car. Myers does just that in both Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet. He does so, however, by sliding Connally's seat inboard 6 inches from the door, when it was only 2 1/2 inches inboard. When I brought this deception to the attention of some of his followers, he tried to cover his rump by blaming a dead man, PETER JENNNINGS, for the error in Beyond Conspiracy. I then pointed out that Myers himself performed the narration in Beyond the Magic Bullet, and it was equally deceptive. He then claimed the deception was done for "clarity" and that Connally had actually been sitting on the left side of the seat, 6 inches inboard of the door. Unless he is so disgustingly stupid that he thought his placing the seat in the wrong location was not deceptive, and that people being sold that his animation accurately depicted the positions of Kennedy and Connally in the limo did not have the right to know that, in his analysis, Connally's left butt cheek was half off the seat, he is a xxxx.

I don't think he's so stupid.

Don't try and shift the goalposts Speer. You know we are NOT talking about an "overhead diagram" but rather the 2d depiction of the animation in the tv show. Talk about being deceptive...sheesh.

So you don't like the fact that he moved Connally, seat and all. Does the fact that the SEAT EDGE was incorrect change the ACTUAL POSITION of Connally? OF course not. Nothing DECEPTIVE at all, you just don't like the results. Your very silly nitpicks make you look very SMALL. Of course that's not news.

Now if you can prove the actual positioning of Connally (not his seat) was wrong then you MIGHT have something. But of course you can't do that so you resort to your patented and very silly "speersian" logical leaps".

Myers handed you your head on a platter. Since your head has been removed from your body, it impossible for you to understand how badly you have been beaten and how silly this makes you look.

LOL. Myers handed me my head on a platter... Priceless. As I caught him in not one but two smelly deceptions, I think I got the best of him... But let the reader decide for himself. From patspeer.com, chapter 12c:

MYERS LIE #1

On his website, Dale Myers asks: "Isn't it true that you incorrectly modeled the presidential limousine, positioning Connally's jump seat six inches from the inside of the door rather than the actual distance of 2.5 inches?

Myers answers: "No. One critic claimed that I "used the incorrect limo measurement of a 6 inches clearance between JBC jump seat and door. The actual measurement was 2.5 inches. So whatever trajectory [Myers] thought he proved was not what 'a single bullet' could have taken."

"This particular criticism stems from a comment made during the ABC News broadcast. At one point in the program, a computer animated sequence compares a diagram of how conspiracy theorists believe Kennedy and Connally were seated in the limousine with how they actually were seated as seen in the Zapruder film. Peter Jennings notes in voiceover narration that Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy, as some conspiracy theorists believe, but was "six inches" to Kennedy's left. However, the six inch figure mentioned in narration did not refer to the distance between the jump seat and the inside of the limousine door, as presumed by this critic, but instead referred to the distance between the center of Kennedy and Connally's body. Kennedy was seated to the extreme right side of the limousine. Connally was turned to his right and had shifted left on the jump seat in front of Kennedy. Projecting an imaginary line forward from the center of the both men shows that the difference between their two center points is six inches. Connally's jump seat, which was about 20.5 inches wide, was correctly located 2.5 inches from the inside of the right-hand door."

Godzilla! I'd accepted the possibility that Myers felt his animation was "close enough" and had, step by step, made it more and more convincing, without his fully realizing that it was now yards if not miles away from an accurate depiction of the shooting. But I hadn't fully expected him to LIE in such a manner. I figured he would say that he'd mistakenly trusted the Warren Commission testimony of Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley, but that this mistake was of no importance.

After all, on June 4, 1964, during the sworn testimony of Thomas Kelley (5H129-134, the same Arlen Specter-orchestrated testimony in which Kelley falsely stated that CE 386 was used to mark the back wound during the re-enactment), the following exchange took place:

Mr. SPECTER. On the President's car itself, what is the distance on the right edge of the right jump seat, that is to say from the right edge of the right jump seat to the door on the right side?

Mr. KELLEY: There is 6 inches of clearance between the jump seat and the door.

When blaming his mistake on Kelley, moreover, Myers could also have pointed to the 1979 HSCA trajectory report, in which Thomas Canning claimed : "Connally, on the other hand, was seated well within the car on the jump seat ahead of Kennedy; a gap of slightly less than 15 centimeters separated this seat from the car door." (As Canning was a NASA scientist, and meticulous in the presentation of his findings, his representation of a gap of 2.5 inches (roughly 5 cm) as only "slightly less" than 15 cm (roughly 6 inches) is thoroughly out-of-character and suggestive that he, or the committee itself, was trying to hide that Kelley had testified incorrectly to the Warren Commission.)

But no, Myers never even mentions these deceptive assertions in his response. Apparently, we're to believe it's just a coincidence that Kelley falsely testified that the seat was six inches in from the door, Canning helped cover up that Kelley falsely testified, and that Myers' animation just so happened to shift Connally's seat inboard 6 inches to its "actual" location.

Even more troublesome is Myers' own deceptive assertion that he bears no responsibility for the inaccurate perception that he placed the seat six inches from the door. No, he claims, it stems not from anything he'd said or done but from a misinterpreted voice-over by the now-deceased Peter Jennings on 2003's Beyond Conspiracy.

Nothing could be further from the truth. When discussing Oliver Stone's movie JFK, Jennings says: "In the Stone film diagrams have Governor Connally sitting directly in front of the President, facing forward at the time of the second shot. Not true. Governor Connally was sitting 6 inches inboard of the President, and turned sharply to his right." (During this pronouncement we see an animated Governor Connally siting in front of an animated President, then slid inboard, and turned to his right.) Now compare this to Myers' exact words from Beyond the Magic Bullet, a year later. (Note: he's looking at the overhead view on the slide above): "Here's the position that most critics believed they were occupied at the time of the single bullet, with Connally directly in front of Kennedy. But that's not true. Actually, Connally's seated about six inches inboards (Here, he slides Connally over, as depicted on the second image in the slide up above). And turned to his right."

It is therefore Myers who is responsible for the mis-perception that his animated jump seat was six inches inboard of the door, and not Jennings!

MYERS LIE #2

Even worse, and as already discussed, it is not actually a mis-perception! When one compares the edge of the jump seat in in Myers' overhead views of the seat before and after he slides it inwards, it's absolutely and devastatingly clear that he slides the SEAT inwards six inches in both Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet. He does not slide the middle of Connally's body over six inches on the seat. He slides the seat. Unless one is to believe that Connally's seat, in Myers' first image, is actually 3 1/2 inches outside the interior of the limousine, it is strikingly clear that Myers moves the seat 6 inches in from the door, and not 2 1/2. This fabrication by Myers--blaming his own deception on a dead man--in my opinion, marks a new low and reveals the depths that he will travel before he will admit the obvious--that his animation deceptively depicts an under-sized Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the seat occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and that, when these mistakes are corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the middle of his back.

(Later)

Let's recall here that, on Myers' website, he defends the accuracy of his animation by stating:

"Connally was turned to his right and had shifted left on the jump seat in front of Kennedy. Projecting an imaginary line forward from the center of the both men shows that the difference between their two center points is six inches. Connally's jump seat, which was about 20.5 inches wide, was correctly located 2.5 inches from the inside of the right-hand door."

Now let's point out that, as a response to my demonstrating that this last statement is untrue, and that the seat on his overhead views is in fact 6 inches in from the door, rather than refute my demonstration, Myers now claims:

"The location of the jumpseat has no bearing on the alignment of any trajectory plotted in my computer reconstruction. The figures of JFK and JBC were matched to the Zapruder film perspective, not to the location of the jumpseat. Frankly, you could eliminate the entire limousine from the reconstruction and the alignments of JFK and JBC would still be valid since their position in space is based on Zapruder's view of the scene and the relationship of JFK to JBC, and their combined relationship to the TSBD and the surrounding buildings. In short, the position and size of the jumpseat has no bearing on the single bullet theory."

He has also offered this explanation for his placing the seat 6 inches from the door when, as he now admits, it was not:

"I don’t know how many ways to say it, but Connally was situated six inches inboard of Kennedy at the time they were both hit. Connally’s jumpseat, however, was fixed to a track in the floor of the limousine, the outside edge of the jumpseat cushion measured at 2.5 inches from the inside door panel, according to body drafts produced by Hess & Eisenhardt Company.

To demonstrate the difference between a rather common (and inaccurate) drawing purporting to show Connally seated directly in front of Kennedy at the time of the single bullet shot and their actual positions as deduced from the Zapruder film and other photographs, the models of Connally and the jumpseat were moved as a single unit during presentations for ABC News and the Discovery Channel.

The relationship between Connally and the jumpseat are identical in both positions. Moving Connally and the jumpseat in unison was simply easier than moving the two separately given the television time available – especially given the fact that the position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single bullet theory."

So...according to Myers, it was "easier" to depict Connally incorrectly on the middle of his jumpseat, than to depict him sitting leftward in his seat, where Myers insists he was actually sitting. That this deliberate misrepresentation deceived people into believing Kennedy and Connally were in "perfect" alignment for the single-bullet theory to be true, was, according to Myers, never a consideration. Apparently, he believes an overhead view demonstrating the single-bullet theory with Connally sitting on the left side of his seat would be just as believable to the viewers of Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet as an overhead view of Connally sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat.

Myers, who claims to have studied the Zapruder film intensely, and to have figured out Kennedy's and Connally's locations in the film with precision, never even offers us the frame number in which Connally suddenly slides to the left in his seat. If he had isolated such a moment, one would think he would mention this on his website or on his television appearances.

Methinks the boy's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Craig Lamson]

LOL. Myers handed me my head on a platter... Priceless. As I caught him in not one but two smelly deceptions, I think I got the best of him... But let the reader decide for himself. From patspeer.com, chapter 12c:

Smart people already have Speer. They HAVE your number and Myers has your head.

So despite you own smelly verbosity, can you prove us that Myers has the position of Connally's body materially wrong compared to JFK? Because if you can't you continue to be headless.

[Craig Lamson]

I mean can't you and he have a cease fire on this?

Sure, when you declare the same with DVP.

Big difference Lammy.

DVP and I argue about just about everything in this case.

You and Cliff argue about one thing over and over.

Reality not your strong suit? EVERYBODY argues about the same things OVER and OVER.

Sheesh.

[Craig Lamson]

I cited the work of the preeminant historian on the matter, and cited passages that make it quite clear that shirt "bunch" was quite impossible.

Why don't you cite something that actually MATTERS, like the exact amount of slack available in JFK's shirt at the time of the back wound.

Flusser is MEANINGLESS unless he actually MADE JFK's short or dressed him the morning he was killed.

You don't have prima facia evidence Varnell. You don't have any evidence AT ALL.

You are history.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

LOL. Myers handed me my head on a platter... Priceless. As I caught him in not one but two smelly deceptions, I think I got the best of him... But let the reader decide for himself. From patspeer.com, chapter 12c:

Smart people already have Speer. They HAVE your number and Myers has your head.

So despite you own smelly verbosity, can you prove us that Myers has the position of Connally's body materially wrong compared to JFK? Because if you can't you continue to be headless.

You still don't get it, Craig. Myers himself proves the trajectory doesn't work. The only time the trajectory "worked" on the overhead view was when the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet added a digital line OVER Myers' animation...when viewed at an angle, with a midget Connally. It follows then that if these figures had been filmed straight on, and not distorted, the trajectory would not have worked.

If you disagree, feel free to create your own overhead image, with the bullet heading in at 10 degrees right to left... (Some have created overhead images that look reasonable, but they invariably have the bullet heading in at a shallower angle. When CourtTv took their swing at it, they had the limo lurch quickly to the left and cross the lines on the left side of the lane just before the bullet was fired, and then lurch back just after. This, of course, did not happen.)

[Craig Lamson]

You still don't get it, Craig. Myers himself proves the trajectory doesn't work. The only time the trajectory "worked" on the overhead view was when the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet added a digital line OVER Myers' animation...when viewed at an angle, with a midget Connally. It follows then that if these figures had been filmed straight on, and not distorted, the trajectory would not have worked.

Really? Have you viewed his work directly ..NOT ON A TV broadcast? If not you simply have NOTHING left but your usual uninformed mindgames.

Gotta love speerian "logic" "it follows...." ROFLMAO!

Oh wait you can't play mindgames, MYERS took your head...

Edited May 2, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

LOL. Myers handed me my head on a platter... Priceless. As I caught him in not one but two smelly deceptions, I think I got the best of him... But let the reader decide for himself. From patspeer.com, chapter 12c:

.

Wow, Speer, I just spent time reading your MYERS study on your website. What a bunch of wasted time from my life I will never get back.

I must say your decided and total lack of photographic knowlege really shows. You could not figure out perspective if it bit you on the butt. Non a single one of your "illustrations" where you claim some angle or another is incorrect ...is correct! You have have the photogrammetry skills of an infant...well worse than that, maybe a fetus.

Your work is simply beyond bad. And that you think its correct is so telling.

i was most entertained with your abject display of photographic ignorance when you attempted to project a line from the limo to the dal-tex and claimed you had it correct and Myer had it wrong! You work on this subject eclipses your previous display of photographic ignorance in your paper bag debacle. At the time I did not think you could fall any lower. I was totally wrong.

Just to give this some red meet, lets show the readers your folly.

At the left is the corrected image with Myers line at 9.5 degrees ( well within his margin of error) and your lame attempt showing 11 degrees. The right image is the incorrect and uncorrected image you published. Using YOUR 'speersian" logic, a perfect example of Pat Speer being highly deceptive.

You are just a giggle a second Speer.

[Cliff Varnell]

I cited the work of the preeminant historian on the matter, and cited passages that make it quite clear that shirt "bunch" was quite impossible.

Why don't you cite something that actually MATTERS, like the exact amount of slack available in JFK's shirt at the time of the back wound.

Three-quarters of an inch. Tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only require three quarters of an inch of slack to enable a man to move comfortably. If there is less slack the garment may bind uncomfortably to the body. If there is more slack the excess material bulging around the waist might destroy the jacket line, the "silhouette."

This is universal. To deny that JFK's clothing was tailored according to the principles of fine men's dress is...pathetic.

Flusser is MEANINGLESS unless he actually MADE JFK's short or dressed him the morning he was killed.

A statement of staggering ignorance. It's good to see you drop your mask, Craig. All those years you claimed you didn't care about the assassination, that you could care less about the Single Bullet Theory, that you were only here as an objective photo expert.

Now you claim JFK didn't know how to dress, a condition required by the SBT.

Thanks for dropping the act.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Cliff Varnell