The "Single Bullet Theory"

[Don Jeffries]

Cliff, I admire your patience and tenacity. The SBT is impossible. Period. The condition of the bullet (CE399) alone proves this. There is no bullet anywhere, in the history of the world, that caused seven wounds and came out in that kind of nearly perfect conditon. The WC's own "evidence" proves this; look at the test rounds from the same ammunition, fired into cotton watting, the wrist of a cadaver, a human goat, etc., and see their condition. Only the bullet fired into cotton wadding is anywhere nearly as pristine at CE399.

As Cliff has posted regularly, the bullet holes in JFK's clothing, which match precisely the location where Boswell orginally placed the back wound in his autopsy face sheet, as well as where Burkely reported it in the death certificate, and where FBI agents Sibert & O'Neill described it as being, clearly prove the entrance wound was far too low to have exited from JFK's throat, no matter how far he was bent over. No need to argue over the fantastic trajectory- the condition of the bullet and the abundant evidence for the lower location of the entrance wound closes this issue, for all who do not have an ulterior motive in arguing for it.

Further discussion of the SBT at this point is ridiculous.

[Glenn Viklund]

LOL. Thanks for the joke, Craig. The lines appear to be the same. More importantly, they both strike Connally in the back and pass through the middle of his body, almost certainly piercing his heart, when the SBT bullet supposedly hit him in the armpit and exited below his right nipple.

This demonstrates Myers' failure to accurately align the wounds. By "correcting" me you have further confirmed this failure. Thanks. I hope your doing so doesn't get you kicked out of the LNer club...

P.S. If you'd actually read my webpage, you'd have have known that the animation used in this slide was the Beyond the Magic Bullet animation subsequently disowned by Myers.

No Pat the lines "are not the same", and that's not really the point but I'm not suprised you can't grasp it. Your ignorance in these matters is very well know as is your continued claims that your are correct even when you have it all wrong. A sure sign of a charlatan. How many people have you mislead with your disinformation Speer?

As for Myers "disowning" the animation, he does no such thing. He is steadfast his animation is correct and nothing you have done has shown it to be incorrect. All you do is draw meaningless lines on a 2 d representation of a 3d scene, the most rookie mistake possible. And then par for the course you claim, no, its you who have it correct even though you break all the rules of photogrammetry.

That you think the most basic of photo analysis rules don't apply to your work is simply astounding, arrogant and most importantly willfully deceptive.

You simply have no business commenting on these matters since your ignornace of how it all works is beyond imagination.

Yes, Craig, they are the same. You screwed up and used the same image twice and aren't big enough to admit it. All your whining about my being a charlatan, etc, fools no one. You know I'm right about MYERS' depiction of the overhead view, but are constitutionally incapable of admitting I am right about anything.

In case, you didn't grasp that, let's go back. The overhead view on your slide was MYERS' overhead view...created to show that the wounds aligned. I merely pointed out that they DID NOT. So all your nonsense about a 2d depiction of a 3d image is just SMOKE. Myers created the overhead view for television. He was undoubtedly paid handsomely for it. He even won an Emmy award for it. It was designed to show that the wounds aligned. It failed to show that the wounds aligned...even though it depicted Connally's seat 3 1/2 inches further inboard than its actual location!

NOW, if you want to say that MYERS should never have used his animation to claim the wounds aligned, as that was a violation of your beloved "rules" of photogrammetry, that's one thing. But trying to blame ME for what you clearly believe was HIS mistake is just nonsense...smoke

As far as your claim he never disavowed his animation, that's more smoke. I never said he disavowed his animation. I said he disavowed his animation as presented in Beyond the Magic Bullet, as it was filmed off a screen at an angle, and distorted the shapes and relative positions of his models. I point this out, furthermore, not to ridicule Myers, but to ridicule those LNers still clinging to the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet as the end-all be-all. It's a joke.

P.S. Here's where Myers disowned the animation as presented in Beyond the Magic Bullet:

"In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. [Patrick J.] Speer writes, “No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the animation – the animation shown round the world to convince people the single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle from a computer monitor."

Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world there is no need to acknowledge something that is self evident--namely, that Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation being given from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the presentation screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program sequences that show a wide-angle view of the studio in which the presentation was being given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and now claims that the Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to deceive everyone about the single bullet theory.

The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms, the path of the bullet) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-dimensional lines into three-dimensional space."

Pat,

With all due respect to Myers, I seriously doubt that what he tried to do can be done.

This is one of the conclusions deriving from Myers animation:

"The relative positions of JFK and JBC at Zapruder frame 223-224, and their subsequent movements, are consistent with the theory that both men were struck by a single bullet fired from the sixth floor sniper's nest of the Texas School Book Depository."

Two problems solved, in other words.

(1) A single bullet passed through both men.

(2) This single bullet came from the TSBD.

Zapruder 223:

The only thing visible of JFK is his left shoulder and parts of his left arm. Z-224 shows a just little bit more of JFK, including his left hand. And, of course, President Kennedy has already been hit prior to 223.

I would very much like to know how Myers, based on these two photos, figured out the relative position of the two men. Their relative position is of course of critical importance. And by 'relative position' it will have to be the exact positions of both men. By this, it is probably necessary to get down to within a few mm (<1/4 of an inch). The slightest error - of one man alone - of say, 1 cm (appr. 1/3 inch) immediately changes the trajectory quite drastically.

Moreover, the relative and absolute positions of JFK and Connally is not the only problem one would have to get this right. The next factiod that needs to be correctly placed is of course the limo itself. This applies primarily to where the shot could have come from. With the same high standards of correctness. A miniscule error and the entire equation changes significantly.

Maybe I'm wrong, but can this really be done, to:

(1) get the exact relative position of Kennedy and Connally, based on Z223-224?

(2) get the exact position of the limousine at the time of impact (which itself is difficult enough to exactly establish)?

I strongly doubt it. In my view, Myers animation has not proved the validity of the SBT.

[Pat Speer]

Yes, Craig, they are the same. You screwed up and used the same image twice and aren't big enough to admit it. All your whining about my being a charlatan, etc, fools no one. You know I'm right about MYERS' depiction of the overhead view, but are constitutionally incapable of admitting I am right about anything.

No Pat, they are not the same, and NO the images are NOT the same. You are a chalatan Pat. You have been told and shown how ... repeatedly..how you can't do the things to photos that you do yet you continue to ignore this unimpeachble fact. Your failure to either learn your lesson or simply shut up, shows your deception is willful.

You can't draw the lines you did on the Myers overhead and expect them to be accurate for the same reason the producers could not expect a different result. I can't help it you are totally ignorant as to why.

In case, you didn't grasp that, let's go back. The overhead view on your slide was MYERS' overhead view...created to show that the wounds aligned. I merely pointed out that they DID NOT. So all your nonsense about a 2d depiction of a 3d image is just SMOKE. Myers created the overhead view for television. He was undoubtedly paid handsomely for it. He even won an Emmy award for it. It was designed to show that the wounds aligned. It failed to show that the wounds aligned...even though it depicted Connally's seat 3 1/2 inches further inboard than its actual location!

'

And that's your problem. YOUR silly line proved NOTHING. It was a line drawn on a 2d representation of a 3d subject and as such your stupid line could never come close to doing what you claim it does. How could it, it can't take into account the downward slope of the alignment nor the positioning of the camera ...in 3d space over the limo. No you made a MAJOR error and you just can't admit it, or you are too ignorant of the process to understand. You choose.

You think you have proven something. All you have proven is your abject ignorance.

NOW, if you want to say that MYERS should never have used his animation to claim the wounds aligned, as that was a violation of your beloved "rules" of photogrammetry, that's one thing. But trying to blame ME for what you clearly believe was HIS mistake is just nonsense...smoke

Why would I say something like that. Myer's animation fits perfectly with the rules of photogrammetry. He claims the would align beceacusse thats what his animation shows his. His animating is a 3d depiction of a 3d scene. The animation in the tv shows is just fine.

As far as your claim he never disavowed his animation, that's more smoke. I never said he disavowed his animation. I said he disavowed his animation as presented in Beyond the Magic Bullet, as it was filmed off a screen at an angle, and distorted the shapes and relative positions of his models. I point this out, furthermore, not to ridicule Myers, but to ridicule those LNers still clinging to the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet as the end-all be-all. It's a joke.

But he DID NOT disavow his animation as seen in BEYOND the MAGIC BULLET. You NEED to learn to read as well as learn the very basics of how photography works. You are truly embarrassing yourself.

All of this is truly beyond your very limited abilities. Heck you think you can just break the well established scientific rules of photogrammetry just because you want too. Sorry Speer, but you CAN'T.

P.S. Here's where Myers disowned the animation as presented in Beyond the Magic Bullet:

"In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. [Patrick J.] Speer writes, “No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the animation – the animation shown round the world to convince people the single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle from a computer monitor."

Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world there is no need to acknowledge something that is self evident--namely, that Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation being given from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the presentation screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program sequences that show a wide-angle view of the studio in which the presentation was being given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and now claims that the Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to deceive everyone about the single bullet theory.

The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms, the path of the bullet) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-dimensional lines into three-dimensional space."

Sorry, Craig, but you once again betray your ignorance. Myers' animation was created to demonstrate whether or not the single-bullet theory was feasible. The recreation of the film and the shooting, etc, led up to one moment...the decisive moment...the moment of the single-bullet shot. Now, to prove this shot was feasible, Myers had to show 1) that the vertical trajectory made sense. To get Kennedy's back wound above his throat wound, Myers totally distorted Kennedy's neck and forward lean. This is demonstrated on my website, and all over the internet. Myers also had to show 2) that the horizontal trajectory made sense. To do this, he--NOT ME--offered up an overhead view of Kennedy and Connally in the limo, with a line connecting their wounds. MILLIONS of people have seen this animation. Many of them were fooled into thinking it proved something, namely, that Kennedy and Connally were in alignment. Now, while it's true an overhead view taken from a few feet above the figures would distort the relationship of the Kennedy and Connally models, it makes no sense that Myers would create an overhead view from so close to the figures that their relationship would be distorted. This is HIS MOMENT, after all, to show the world they were in alignment. If you wanna claim his images were taken from too close to the figures to show their relationship as seen from far above, however, please do so, and ADMIT the entire segment--probably the most important segment of Myers' animation--was deceptive and dishonest, and did not depict the actual trajectory of the bullet.

When I pointed out that Myers had Connally's seat in the wrong position, moreover, he asserted that he knew this, but that it didn't matter because Connally wasn't necessarily sitting on the middle of his seat. This is, almost certainly, a big fat lie. Myers consulted on Bugliosi's book. As part of his publicity blitz, Bugliosi--in EVERY interview--stressed that the SEAT, not Connally, was 6 inches inboard. He almost certainly got this from Myers. It also seems WAY too much a coincidence that SS agent Thomas Kelley told the WC the seat was 6 inches inboard, and that Myers later concluded Connally sat 6 inches inboard, even though the seat was only 2 1/2 inches inboard.

As far as the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet...uhh...what part of this doesn't compute? The ONLY footage used in the program was shot at an angle off a monitor. It is ALL distorted. There is not one second of Myers' animation in the program, therefore, in which the figures and trajectory of the single-bullet shot reflects Myers' animation as it would otherwise be viewed. So, of course, he disowns it. He has no choice. If he was to claim the trajectory line drawn over the distorted images of his animation proved the wounds were in alignment he would have to admit his animation actually suggested the wounds were not.

[Craig Lamson]

Sorry, Craig, but you once again betray your ignorance. Myers' animation was created to demonstrate whether or not the single-bullet theory was feasible. The recreation of the film and the shooting, etc, led up to one moment...the decisive moment...the moment of the single-bullet shot. Now, to prove this shot was feasible, Myers had to show 1) that the vertical trajectory made sense. To get Kennedy's back wound above his throat wound, Myers totally distorted Kennedy's neck and forward lean. This is demonstrated on my website, and all over the internet. Myers also had to show 2) that the horizontal trajectory made sense. To do this, he--NOT ME--offered up an overhead view of Kennedy and Connally in the limo, with a line connecting their wounds. MILLIONS of people have seen this animation. Many of them were fooled into thinking it proved something, namely, that Kennedy and Connally were in alignment. Now, while it's true an overhead view taken from a few feet above the figures would distort the relationship of the Kennedy and Connally models, it makes no sense that Myers would create an overhead view from so close to the figures that their relationship would be distorted. This is HIS MOMENT, after all, to show the world they were in alignment. If you wanna claim his images were taken from too close to the figures to show their relationship as seen from far above, however, please do so, and ADMIT the entire segment--probably the most important segment of Myers' animation--was deceptive and dishonest, and did not depict the actual trajectory of the bullet.

No Speer, the abject ignorance being displayed here is YOURS. I must say you do try really hard to shift the goalposts when you are cornered like rat. The animation as shown in the TV special is not incorrect at least based on your analysis, primitive line drawing and limited understanding of simple perspective. The animation is not "distorted". The distance from the virtual camera to the occupants in the virtual limo does not "distort the relationship between JFK and JBC. Shoot the resulting 3d images displayed on a computer screen FROM ANY ANGLE you want and you will not 'DISTORT the underlying data and spacial relationships. This is photography 101 stuff Speer and you fail miserably. And its not the first time.

Why the post production line was chosen was anyone's guess, but you unless you can prove MYERS had EDITORIAL CONTROL over a program where he was just a small part, you offer nothing more than baseless speculation built on a crumbling foundation of your WILLFUL photographic ignorance.

When I pointed out that Myers had Connally's seat in the wrong position, moreover, he asserted that he knew this, but that it didn't matter because Connally wasn't necessarily sitting on the middle of his seat. This is, almost certainly, a big fat lie. Myers consulted on Bugliosi's book. As part of his publicity blitz, Bugliosi--in EVERY interview--stressed that the SEAT, not Connally, was 6 inches inboard. He almost certainly got this from Myers. It also seems WAY too much a coincidence that SS agent Thomas Kelley told the WC the seat was 6 inches inboard, and that Myers later concluded Connally sat 6 inches inboard, even though the seat was only 2 1/2 inches inboard.

what exactly does the edges of the seat have to do with the actual spacial relationship between JFK and JBC? Can you prove that the relationships are incorrect. You don't just get to wave your hands wildly. Why don’t you model it yourself and lets see how you do? Of course all of this is the standard ploy of a cornered ct. Lets nitpick a "recreation" because they think one small aspect or another is incorrect. Never mind that an exact 'recreation' is next to impossible to create.

And Bugliso's statements..those are HIS statements not Myers. And Myers has zero control what comes from Bugs mouth. Your failed attempt to paint Myers with this brush speaks VOLUMES about your intellectual honesty ...or lack thereof.

As far as the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet...uhh...what part of this doesn't compute? The ONLY footage used in the program was shot at an angle off a monitor. It is ALL distorted. There is not one second of Myers' animation in the program, therefore, in which the figures and trajectory of the single-bullet shot reflects Myers' animation as it would otherwise be viewed. So, of course, he disowns it. He has no choice. If he was to claim the trajectory line drawn over the distorted images of his animation proved the wounds were in alignment he would have to admit his animation actually suggested the wounds were not.

There is NO “distortion” in the Myers animation as shown in BTMB...NONE. ZERO, NADA. PERIOD. The correct spacial relationships hold throughout. He does not “disown” his animation nor the depiction in BTMB. He knows it is simply viewed in perspective. Normal, natural, scientifically proven perspective. The post production animation lines are just that, lines added in post production as a visual guide in a fast paced TV entertainment program. This was NOT forensics.

And its also very clear to educated readers that your infantile attempts at image analysis did not even close close to proving one single point. Your ignorance of the subject matter is simply mind blowing.

Well I take that back. You have proven that you willfully disregard the established science of photogrammetry and wander off the reservation to create your own faulty methods that have zero connection to reality.

Good job on that proof Speer.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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.

Craig, just wandering through ... and I think this is an important point. Just what evidence is there that JFK wore personally tailored shirts at all? His suits were tailored.But his shirts?

According to the JFK library ....

"There is nothing in the library files to indicate John F. Kennedy's exact personal preferences or with whom he ordered his clothing; however, according to Dave Powers, the President's friend and assistant, President Kennedy wore Brooks Brothers shirts and single-breasted, conservatively cut suits from Saville Row. He seemed to also prefer them blue pin-striped in design.

This is not to say that he did not use other "brands" or tailors, but according to Mr. Powers, these were the most popular choices."

Link to page: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Miscellaneous-Information/Shirt-and-Suit-Preferences.aspx

That JFK wore Brooks Brothers brand shirts is mentioned on assorted sites about Brooks Brothers. He wore tailored suits, of course ... but tailored shirts? Is there any evidence of that?

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Craig, just wandering through ... and I think this is an important point. Just what evidence is there that JFK wore personally tailored shirts at all? His suits were tailored.But his shirts?

According to the JFK library ....

"There is nothing in the library files to indicate John F. Kennedy's exact personal preferences or with whom he ordered his clothing; however, according to Dave Powers, the President's friend and assistant, President Kennedy wore Brooks Brothers shirts and single-breasted, conservatively cut suits from Saville Row. He seemed to also prefer them blue pin-striped in design.

This is not to say that he did not use other "brands" or tailors, but according to Mr. Powers, these were the most popular choices."

Link to page: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Miscellaneous-Information/Shirt-and-Suit-Preferences.aspx

That JFK wore Brooks Brothers brand shirts is mentioned on assorted sites about Brooks Brothers. He wore tailored suits, of course ... but tailored shirts? Is there any evidence of that?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Yes, Barb, the label on his shirt reads:

Charles Dillon, Shirt Maker, 444 Park Ave NY NY

This is real silly season stuff, Barb. Do you honestly believe JFK would wear off the rack dress shirts with his tailored suits??

But given the "fits" this info causes with you high back wound folks, your question isn't surprising.

Shirt fit is universal. If the body of the shirt only allows a half-inch of slack, the shirt will fit too tightly and be uncomfortable.

If there is an inch of slack or more then this excess could form an unsightly bulge, which could ruin the jacket line, the "silhouette."

3/4 of an inch of slack is the "sweet spot" that all shirt-makers aim for.

I know this is inconvenient to your theories of the case, Barb. I'm quite confident you'll someday get over it.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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.

Craig, just wandering through ... and I think this is an important point. Just what evidence is there that JFK wore personally tailored shirts at all? His suits were tailored.But his shirts?

According to the JFK library ....

"There is nothing in the library files to indicate John F. Kennedy's exact personal preferences or with whom he ordered his clothing; however, according to Dave Powers, the President's friend and assistant, President Kennedy wore Brooks Brothers shirts and single-breasted, conservatively cut suits from Saville Row. He seemed to also prefer them blue pin-striped in design.

This is not to say that he did not use other "brands" or tailors, but according to Mr. Powers, these were the most popular choices."

Link to page: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Miscellaneous-Information/Shirt-and-Suit-Preferences.aspx

That JFK wore Brooks Brothers brand shirts is mentioned on assorted sites about Brooks Brothers. He wore tailored suits, of course ... but tailored shirts? Is there any evidence of that?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Yes, Barb, the label on his shirt reads:

Charles Dillon, Shirt Maker, 444 Park Ave NY NY

This is real silly season stuff, Barb. Do you honestly believe JFK would wear off the rack dress shirts with his tailored suits??

But given the "fits" this info causes with you high back wound folks, your question isn't surprising.

Shirt fit is universal. If the body of the shirt only allows a half-inch of slack, the shirt will fit too tightly and be uncomfortable.

If there is an inch of slack or more then this excess could form an unsightly bulge, which could ruin the jacket line, the "silhouette."

3/4 of an inch of slack is the "sweet spot" that all shirt-makers aim for.

I know this is inconvenient to your theories of the case, Barb. I'm quite confident you'll someday get over it.

Not interested in any snot, did not espouse any theory, not having any fits ... I

do thank you for answering the question I did ask. :-)

According to one who knew him, and to Brooks Bros, he did where their shirts as well.

[Pat Speer]

Sorry, Craig, but you once again betray your ignorance. Myers' animation was created to demonstrate whether or not the single-bullet theory was feasible. The recreation of the film and the shooting, etc, led up to one moment...the decisive moment...the moment of the single-bullet shot. Now, to prove this shot was feasible, Myers had to show 1) that the vertical trajectory made sense. To get Kennedy's back wound above his throat wound, Myers totally distorted Kennedy's neck and forward lean. This is demonstrated on my website, and all over the internet. Myers also had to show 2) that the horizontal trajectory made sense. To do this, he--NOT ME--offered up an overhead view of Kennedy and Connally in the limo, with a line connecting their wounds. MILLIONS of people have seen this animation. Many of them were fooled into thinking it proved something, namely, that Kennedy and Connally were in alignment. Now, while it's true an overhead view taken from a few feet above the figures would distort the relationship of the Kennedy and Connally models, it makes no sense that Myers would create an overhead view from so close to the figures that their relationship would be distorted. This is HIS MOMENT, after all, to show the world they were in alignment. If you wanna claim his images were taken from too close to the figures to show their relationship as seen from far above, however, please do so, and ADMIT the entire segment--probably the most important segment of Myers' animation--was deceptive and dishonest, and did not depict the actual trajectory of the bullet.

No Speer, the abject ignorance being displayed here is YOURS. I must say you do try really hard to shift the goalposts when you are cornered like rat. The animation as shown in the TV special is not incorrect at least based on your analysis, primitive line drawing and limited understanding of simple perspective. The animation is not "distorted". The distance from the virtual camera to the occupants in the virtual limo does not "distort the relationship between JFK and JBC. Shoot the resulting 3d images displayed on a computer screen FROM ANY ANGLE you want and you will not 'DISTORT the underlying data and spacial relationships. This is photography 101 stuff Speer and you fail miserably. And its not the first time.

Why the post production line was chosen was anyone's guess, but you unless you can prove MYERS had EDITORIAL CONTROL over a program where he was just a small part, you offer nothing more than baseless speculation built on a crumbling foundation of your WILLFUL photographic ignorance.

LOL. Craig, you just don't get it. The "underlying data" doesn't matter one bit. What matters is what the world was shown. And the world was shown a trajectory line from the TSBD at roughly 224 through Kennedy and into Connally, supposedly connecting their wounds.

Just one problem, actually three. 1. The jump seat was in the wrong location. 2. The Connally model AS PRESENTED WORLDWIDE ON TV was the wrong size. 3. The Connally model AS PRESENTED WORLDWIDE ON TV was in the wrong location.

As demonstrated, Myers refuses to defend the animation as presented in Beyond the Magic Bullet. So why should you?

You do serious damage to the LN position when you defend the indefensible. I mean, why not defend the Beyond Conspiracy animation Myers still stands by?

Bizarre.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Not interested in any snot, did not espouse any theory, not having any fits

You're a die-hard high back wound advocate, Barb. The testiness of the above speaks volumes.

[Craig Lamson]

How much baloney can Varnell serve in his knucklehead sandwich?

Answer...LOADS!

Shirt fit is universal.

UH no its not. The quote by your own expert proves that custom shirt fit is PERSONAL. The CUSTOMER decides of how much slack will be required to provide COMFORT.

SO far you have offer ZERO proof of how much slacl was present in JKF's shirt at the moment of the back shot.

If the body of the shirt only allows a half-inch of slack, the shirt will fit too tightly and be uncomfortable.

ONLY if the CUSTOMER decides it it too little....

If there is an inch of slack or more then this excess could form an unsightly bulge, which could ruin the jacket line, the "silhouette."

.25 inches of shirt fabric will could cause an 'unsightly buldge? I suggest you SHOW us how unsightly that would really be. No hand waving allowed. Real..actual proofs required

3/4 of an inch of slack is the "sweet spot" that all shirt-makers aim for.

Really? All? I guess this custom made dress shirt maker did not get your "rules for shirtmakers" memo....

"Your torso (Chest/Waist/Hips) should have some extra fabric to ensure a comfortable fit. In the photos above the arms are extended horizontally and we have pulled all the fabric over (exaggerated) to one side of the torso to get a total measurement; the fabric is flush (not tight) on the side of the torso not visible in the photos. The photos above illustrate checking the additional fabric in the Chest area but you would copy this procedure in the Waist & Hips as well.

Using the methodology described above you should easily measure about 3-4" on the one side. The White Shirt has 6+" or about 2" extra of measured fabric, to correct this problem you would indicate "Chest -4"; since we are only measuring the front half of the shirt and need to also take into account the other side.

Remember, how much additional fabric you have in the torso area is really a matter of personal preference, there is not a right or wrong here. Customers trying to get an "extreme" taper where the contour of the shirt closely matches their frame can do that in most, but not all circumstances. If you have a "V" shaped torso with large Chest and small Waist/Hips we can tailor your shirt and still maintain a natural contour in the shirt. If you have a large Chest, small Waist and wider Hips, it is not possible to take too much material in at the waist, or the shirt will loose its natural contour."

(Bold and font changes mine}

I know this is inconvenient to your theories of the case, Barb. I'm quite confident you'll someday get over it.

it is indeed silly season. Witness Varnell, trying in vain, to make shirt fit SUGGESTIONS into prima facia evidence!

We know why Varnell has been pushed t such silly extremes, and is in a state of major panic. His decades old argument has been tossed into the crapper and flushed.

you are done Varnell...

Edited May 6, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

LOL. Craig, you just don't get it. The "underlying data" doesn't matter one bit. What matters is what the world was shown. And the world was shown a trajectory line from the TSBD at roughly 224 through Kennedy and into Connally, supposedly connecting their wounds.

Just one problem, actually three. 1. The jump seat was in the wrong location. 2. The Connally model AS PRESENTED WORLDWIDE ON TV was the wrong size. 3. The Connally model AS PRESENTED WORLDWIDE ON TV was in the wrong location.

As demonstrated, Myers refuses to defend the animation as presented in Beyond the Magic Bullet. So why should you?

You do serious damage to the LN position when you defend the indefensible. I mean, why not defend the Beyond Conspiracy animation Myers still stands by?

Bizarre.

Your ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy is simply astounding Speer. Of course the underlying data matters. Its the very basis for the images you so wrongly interpret. As I've shown, you fail to account for the very basic rules of perspective in your fatally flawed argument.

Lets review.

Speer says the junp seat is in the wrong position. Its the only thing you get correct. Too bad its a meaningless detail

Speer says Connally as presented in BTMB is the worng size. Sadly all that is wrong here is the ability of Speer to understand perspective. Connally is not the wrong size in BTMB

Speer says Connally is in the wrong position in BTMB. Again the only thing wrong is Speer's infantile attempt at image analysis. He has not come close to proving the positioning of Connally is incorrect. Once again its Speer's abject ignorance of how perspective works that seals his defeat.

Your photo interpretation skills are non existant Speer. Your continued misuse of the very basics cast a pale over all CT's. No wait, your photo ignorance is pretty much stand fare for ct's everywhere.

Why don't you get back to us when you have a handle on how all of this stuff works.

In th meantime you should be ashamed of yourself for willfully misleading your readers. You owe then an apology. Actually you owe Myers one too.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Not interested in any snot, did not espouse any theory, not having any fits

You're a die-hard high back wound advocate, Barb. The testiness of the above speaks volumes.

I was replying to testy .... and made it clear I am neither impressed nor interested. :-)

[Pat Speer]

LOL. Craig, you just don't get it. The "underlying data" doesn't matter one bit. What matters is what the world was shown. And the world was shown a trajectory line from the TSBD at roughly 224 through Kennedy and into Connally, supposedly connecting their wounds.

Just one problem, actually three. 1. The jump seat was in the wrong location. 2. The Connally model AS PRESENTED WORLDWIDE ON TV was the wrong size. 3. The Connally model AS PRESENTED WORLDWIDE ON TV was in the wrong location.

As demonstrated, Myers refuses to defend the animation as presented in Beyond the Magic Bullet. So why should you?

You do serious damage to the LN position when you defend the indefensible. I mean, why not defend the Beyond Conspiracy animation Myers still stands by?

Bizarre.

Your ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy is simply astounding Speer. Of course the underlying data matters. Its the very basis for the images you so wrongly interpret. As I've shown, you fail to account for the very basic rules of perspective in your fatally flawed argument.

Lets review.

Speer says the junp seat is in the wrong position. Its the only thing you get correct. Too bad its a meaningless detail

Speer says Connally as presented in BTMB is the worng size. Sadly all that is wrong here is the ability of Speer to understand perspective. Connally is not the wrong size in BTMB

Speer says Connally is in the wrong position in BTMB. Again the only thing wrong is Speer's infantile attempt at image analysis. He has not come close to proving the positioning of Connally is incorrect. Once again its Speer's abject ignorance of how perspective works that seals his defeat.

Your photo interpretation skills are non existant Speer. Your continued misuse of the very basics cast a pale over all CT's. No wait, your photo ignorance is pretty much stand fare for ct's everywhere.

Why don't you get back to us when you have a handle on how all of this stuff works.

In th meantime you should be ashamed of yourself for willfully misleading your readers. You owe then an apology. Actually you owe Myers one too.

What nonsense, Craig. If your reading comprehension was worth a nickel you'd have learned long ago that Myers won an Emmy for a program in which it was claimed he'd performed a frame by frame re-creation of the Z-film, when he later admitted he'd skipped most of the frames. The viewers of this program were then told conspiracy theorists always mis-represent the location of Connally in the car, and that Connally was actually sitting inboard of Kennedy. Myers then slid the seat over to its supposed actual location, only it wasn't its actual location; it was more than twice as far inboard as its actual location. When confronted with this, moreover, he actually had the nerve to claim this was done for clarity--something no one in their right mind would ever believe.

If anyone owes anyone an apology--it's Myers. Some would say he owes AMERICA an apology, and should return his Emmy, pronto.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Craig Lamson]

What nonsense, Craig. If your reading comprehension was worth a nickel you'd have learned long ago that Myers won an Emmy for a program in which it was claimed he'd performed a frame by frame re-creation of the Z-film, when he later admitted he'd skipped most of the frames. The viewers of this program were then told conspiracy theorists always mis-represent the location of Connally in the car, and that Connally was actually sitting inboard of Kennedy. Myers then slid the seat over to its supposed actual location, only it wasn't its actual location; it was more than twice as far inboard as its actual location. When confronted with this, moreover, he actually had the nerve to claim this was done for clarity--something no one in their right mind would ever believe.

If anyone owes anyone an apology--it's Myers. Some would say he owes AMERICA an apology, and should return his Emmy, pronto.

The "nonsense" is all yours ... splattered all over your website.

So lets review...again since you once again try and move the goalposts when you are cornered.

Does Myers work cover the entire z-film? In other words (ones maybe even YOU can understand) does the recreation cover the entire length of he Zapruder film? If it does, its a frame by frame recreation. Scratch one more silly bit of Speersian logic.

'

Does the position of the seat have any actual bearing on the location Myers has for Connally? Of course not. It's yet another nitpick complaint from the guy who for example totally misrepresents his own recreation photos in his faulty study of the paper bag. You are a major league hypocrite Speer.

You post gross misinformation ...<deleted>...about the Myers animation and you want HIM to offer an apology? What a total crock. Man are you a hack of the highest order.

Your work here is simply garbage.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Craig Lamson
Edited by Moderator

[Cliff Varnell]

You're a die-hard high back wound advocate, Barb. The testiness of the above speaks volumes.

I was replying to testy ....

You bet. My testiness speaks volumes as well.

and made it clear I am neither impressed nor interested. :-)

For you to jump into one of my discussions with some strange notion indicates you are both.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Cliff Varnell