The "Single Bullet Theory"

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Which of course leaves the slightly elongated hole which is located just below the bottom edge of the collar as being the bullet entrance point for the third/last/final shot impact.

Factually incorrect.

There is no "slightly elongated hole."

That's a slice and a puncture point.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/jacket.htm

Since it is a complete waste of time to argue with someone such as yourself, who actually knows virtually nothing relative to the factual evidence, then for those who may have curosity as to whether or not the hole is in fact slightly "elongated":

Might I recommend that they do as I long ago did, acquire a Carcano & ammo, and then proceed to shoot the bullets through a coat similar to that worn by JFK.

A true/almost straight-on hit is almost impossible to see, other than close-up.

And, if they will also acquire the laboratory notes of Henry Heiberger* they will see that Henry ran a spectrographic analysis test on the liner portion of this hole and came up with a "positive" for copper.

*Henry is now long deceased and it is most unlikely that anyone here has the necessary qualifications to bring him back from the dead in order to fully qualify where he took his "control" sample from.

But, for those who can read, his notes will tell that he took it from UNDER the collar.

Lastly, one can not help but notice that CE393 does not show the underside of the collar from where Henry Heiberger actually took his "control" sample.

P.S. The "Control" sample location for the back wound penetration was taken from within the left inseam of the coat.

There are those who may be a self-proclaimed expert on how tailored clothing fits, and there are those of us who actually examined the factual evidence.

Tell us about exactly how many times it was that you spoke with and questioned Henry Heiberger,no doubt, inquiring minds want to know.

[Cliff Varnell]

My comments in burgandy

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."

Where do you get the idea that "some extra fabric" equals 3+ inches of slack?

"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."

Where do you get 3+ inches of excess fabric here, Craig? That amount of slack has to be distributed around the entire torso.

"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."

No one PREFERS to have 3+ inch of slack fabric around their waist, least of all JFK. This is a mark of your desperation, Craig, to claim that JFK wanted to look like a clown with ill-fitting shirts.

Now here's the part that Craig can't wrap his head around...

"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.

John F. Kennedy's preference was for V-shaped Updated American suits, which featured a tapered waist.

3+" of bulging fabric would destroy the lines of the jacket -- but according to Craig Lamson that was the look JFK preferred.

Silly season with the nutters...

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Since it is a complete waste of time to argue with someone such as yourself, who actually knows virtually nothing relative to the factual evidence,

You can insult me all you want, Tom, but it doesn't change the fact that the upper defect in this close-up photo puts the lie to your claim it's a bullet hole.

Another nutter imagination run wild!

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/jacket.htm

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Where do you get the idea that "some extra fabric" equals 3+ inches of slack?

From the rest of the text you decided to chop off. Oh and the photos... btw the slack shown is actually 6 to 8 inches since the measurement only counts one side of the shirt.

"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."

What part of "flush" don't you grasp, Craig? There is nothing here about fabric bulging around the waist-line.

LOL funny Cliffy. See photo above to highlight your incompetence. FLUSH on one side , SLACK on the other...to meausre.

"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."

No one PREFERS to have 3+ inch of slack fabric around their waist, least of all JFK. This is a mark of your desperation, Craig, to claim that JFK wanted to look like a clown with ill-fit clothing.

Gotta hand to cliffy, he sure can shuck and jive when cornered like a rat. First he tells us ALL shirt makers ai for only 3/4 of an inch of slack and when he is proven totally wrong on that chestnut he goes out on his limb and cuts it off behind him by saying NO ONE perfers 3 inches of slack around their waist. Of course like his previous failed claim cliffy can't prove this one either. He is simply flapping his hand wildly.

And I don't have the first clue the state of slack in JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot. Neither does cliffy. His attempts to call clothing fit suggestions fact have failed completely. Varnell has no argumentleft.

Now here's the part that Craig can't wrap his head around...

"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.

John F. Kennedy's preference was for V-shaped Updated American suits, which featured a tapered waist.

3+" of bulging fabric would destroy the lines of the jacket -- but according to Craig Lamson that was the look JFK preferred.

Silly season with the nutters...

Oh I can totally wrap my head around yet another clothing fit SUGGESTION, but it's really MEANINGLESS.

We need to know how much ACTUAL slack was in JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot. Cliff Varnell does one know, that's why he is making wild statement about clothing fit and trying his darnedest to pass off SUGGESTIONS as cold hard fact.

He FAILS on all counts.

The ONLY thing that can revive your totally destroyed argument is an ACTUAL measuremetn of the slack found in JFK's shirt at he exact moment ofhe back shot.

Since you can't even come close. YOU LOSE!

Gotta love the ignorance of ct's

Thanks for the grins cliffy!

[Cliff Varnell]

delete

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

delete

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

How much baloney can Varnell serve in his knucklehead sandwich?

Answer...LOADS!

This bears repeated analysis.

Quoting from Craig's cite, emphasis mine:

"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."

When all the slack in the shirt is pulled to the front there will be "about 2" extra of measured fabric," but when the shirt is worn normally and that 2" is distributed around the torso.

Amount of available slack on a normally worn shirt, according to this example, is one inch.

For JFK to have had 3+" of slack shirt ride up above the base of his neck he needed to have well over 6 inches of total slack[/], three times the amount cited by Craig's expert.

Thank you, Craig. I suppose there are those who will ask for as much as an inch of slack in their shirts, but nothing like the multiple inch scenario you relentlessly pimp.

Is reading really that hard for you? Can you look at a photo and understand what it is you see?

I guess not since you fail once more.

In the illustration above there is 6 inches of extra fabric ON EACH SIDE OF THE SHIRT...12 inches total. They SUGGEST removing 2 inches of fabric on EACH SIDE, leaving a total of 8 inches of slack.

You are totally incompetent.

BTW it only take 1.5 inches of fabric to create a 3 inch fold. Please try again next time.

[Craig Lamson]

LOL funny Cliffy. See photo above to highlight your incompetence. FLUSH on one side , SLACK on the other...to meausre.

Yes, I did mis-understand the exercise when I first responded. Then I saw what they were driving at -- a total of 2" of excess slack when the shirt is exaggerated to one side.

That 2" of slack becomes 1" of slack when the shirt is worn normally.

Unless you want to argue that JFK was pulling all his slack shirt fabric to his upper back, Craig?

Thank you for destroying your own claims, Craig.

No cliffy you just destroyed yourself...again.

[Cliff Varnell]

Gentle reader,

Please look at the left shoulder-line of the model in the left photo.

Please note the indentation of the shirt fabric, and note that his left arm is elevated.

That's what happens to shirt fabric when you raise your arm -- some fabric indents, some

pushes up.

According to Craig the shirt should ride up 3+ inches above the base of the neck.

Good luck with that, Craig.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

And I don't have the first clue the state of slack in JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot. Neither does cliffy. His attempts to call clothing fit suggestions fact have failed completely. Varnell has no argument left.

The blue shirt in the following has a total of 4 inches of available slack for the entire torso. You're claiming that nearly all the available slack in JFK's shirt was bunched up entirely above the base of his neck.

Yet in your example when the arm is raised the shirt fabric toward the base of the neck on the left shoulder-line INDENTS.

Thank you for finally posting a photo of a guy in a dress shirt with a raised arm.

You could have done this four years ago and spared the forum the rest of your nonsense.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

And I don't have the first clue the state of slack in JFK's shirt at the moment of the back shot. Neither does cliffy. His attempts to call clothing fit suggestions fact have failed completely. Varnell has no argument left.

The blue shirt in the following has a total of 4 inches of available slack for the entire torso. You're claiming that nearly all the available slack in JFK's shirt was bunched up entirely above the base of his neck.

Yet in your example when the arm is raised the shirt fabric toward the base of the neck on the left shoulder-line INDENTS.

Thank you for finally posting a photo of a guy in a dress shirt with a raised arm.

You could have done this four years ago and spared the forum the rest of your nonsense.

Varnell launches yet another turd.

Oh and has this model been sitting in a cramped car seat squirming around? Oh, you missed that one too? Corner closing in a bit tighter??

BTW, I'm NOT claiming ANYTHING about JFK's shirt. I NEVER have.

The one making claims about JFK's shirt is YOU. Claims I might dd you can never prove, which is why you continue quaking in fear and tossing even more turds over the transom

1.5 inches of fabric. Let me repeat. 1.5 inches of fabric.

That's all it takes to move a hole from 5 inches down from the collar to 2 inches down from the collar.

VERY simple math.

BTW, your attempt to eliminate your gross mistakes by deleting them failed. LOL....no make that ROFLMAO!

[Cliff Varnell]

Gotta hand to cliffy, he sure can shuck and jive when cornered like a rat. First he tells us ALL shirt makers ai for only 3/4 of an inch of slack and when he is proven totally wrong on that chestnut he goes out on his limb and cuts it off behind him by saying NO ONE perfers 3 inches of slack around their waist.

Thanks for the grins cliffy!

I stand corrected. I over-stated my case.

When I discussed this matter with a San Francisco tailor in 1997, Mr Shirt he called himself, he said that his shirts had 3/4" of slack that would bunch up. Located just off Union Square, he may have had a more elegant clientele.

What needs to be understood here is that "bunching" fabric is the opposite of pulling on fabric. Bunching occurs when fabric is pushed together. Push is the opposite of pull. "Ease" is the opposite of "stretch."

The four inches of fabric pulled out from the body is distributed around the torso when it's worn normally.

In order to get 3+ inches of fabric entirely above the base of JFK's neck someone had to pull it up.

When did that happen, Craig?

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Gotta hand to cliffy, he sure can shuck and jive when cornered like a rat. First he tells us ALL shirt makers ai for only 3/4 of an inch of slack and when he is proven totally wrong on that chestnut he goes out on his limb and cuts it off behind him by saying NO ONE perfers 3 inches of slack around their waist.

Thanks for the grins cliffy!

I stand corrected. I over-stated my case.

When I discussed this matter with a San Francisco tailor in 1997, Mr Shirt he called himself, he said that his shirts had 3/4" of slack that would bunch up. Located just off Union Square, he may have had a more elegant clientele.

What needs to be understood here is that "bunching" fabric is the opposite of pulling on fabric. Bunching occurs when fabric is pushed together. Push is the opposite of pull. "Ease" is the opposite of "stretch."

The four inches of fabric pulled out from the body is distributed around the torso when it's worn normally.

In order to get 3+ inches of fabric entirely above the base of JFK's neck someone had to pull it up.

When did that happen, Craig?

Overstated? No...you DON'T HAVE A CASE.

What was the exact state of JFK's shirt at the exact moment of the back shot Cliff?

What needs to be understood here is that Varnell has built his entire argument on a house of cards that has fallen down around his ears.

Now he reverts to "pushing and pulling", yet another pile of turds he heaves over the transom in hopes it will stick.

I don't know what happened with JFK's shirt inside his jacket.

And despite his years of "overstating" his case, neither does Cliff Varnell.

His claim that the clothing is prima facia evidence is vanquished.

Thanks so much for the grins Cliff. It has been a real pleasure.

[Cliff Varnell]

My comments in bold burgandy

(snip for brevity)

Varnell launches yet another turd.

Craig Lamson, on the other hand, has launched an absolute gem! Thank you for posting the above, Craig!

We see in your photos and text that by PULLING all the slack out of the shirt there's 3" to 4" of excess fabric in the front of the shirt. Same thing with the back of the shirt.

So according to Craig's repeated claims almost all of the slack in the back of JFK's shirt was bunched up above the base of his neck.

But how did it get there? No one pulled up on the shirt, as required in the example you have so generously provided us, Craig.

Did JFK's shirt ride up 3+ inches when he raised his right arm to wave?

Not according to the example Craig has graciously brought to our attention.

When the arm is raised the fabric along the shoulder line will INDENT.

Thanks for providing this example, Craig!

Oh and has this model been sitting in a cramped car seat squirming around?

JFK wasn't sitting in a "cramped car seat." Besides, how would sitting in a cramped car seat cause almost all the slack in the back of his shirt to bunch up above the base of his neck?

And JFK wasn't "squirming" in the limo, he was casually waving to the crowd. Besides, how would "squirming" cause almost all of the slack in the back of his shirt to bunch up above the base of his neck?

Oh, you missed that one too? Corner closing in a bit tighter??

BTW, I'm NOT claiming ANYTHING about JFK's shirt. I NEVER have.

Sure you have.

You've spent the last 4 years insisting that JFK's shirt and jacket were bunched up above the base of his neck. When you thought that the SBT required only 2 inches of bunched up clothing, you claimed the Dealey Plaza photos showed 2 inches of bunched up jacket.

Then you found out that the SBT actually requires 3+ inches of bunched clothing, so then you changed your story and said the photos show 3+ inches of bunch up.

After 4 years of challenging you to show us what a shirt looks like when the arm is raised, you've finally come through. Like a champ!

When JFK sat down in the limo and rested his right arm on top of the door -- the shirt fabric along his right shoulder INDENTED. Just like we see in your photograph.

The one making claims about JFK's shirt is YOU. Claims I might dd you can never prove, which is why you continue quaking in fear and tossing even more turds over the transom.

This is the part of the text Craig Lamson has yet to think through. Emphasis added:

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 lose its natural contour.

Fact: JFK wore a suit style called Updated American which featured a tapered waist.

Fact: In order to maintain a natural contour material is taken in at the waist.

Fact: All of JFK's actions in the motorcade were normal, casual movements of the body, which invariably cause fractions of an inch of fabric to move.

1.5 inches of fabric. Let me repeat. 1.5 inches of fabric.

That's all it takes to move a hole from 5 inches down from the collar to 2 inches down from the collar.

VERY simple math.

Clothing doesn't move that way, Craig. You're imagining things again.

Show us how this point on a shirt 5 inches down from the collar moves up to 2 inches down from the collar.

YOU claim this occurred, so the burden of proof is on YOU to show us.

Show us, Craig. And remember: no hands!

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Overstated? No...you DON'T HAVE A CASE.

What was the exact state of JFK's shirt at the exact moment of the back shot Cliff?

It was fitting almost like a second skin, Craig. Just as Flusser describes it.

The fact you can't bring yourself to face is that JFK's suit style called for a "tapered waist," which according to the text you put into evidence calls for material to be taken in at the waist, in order to maintain a "natural contour."

Going by your example, there was an indentation in JFK's shirt along his right shoulder-line.

Your claim that almost all of the available slack on the back of JFK's shirt was bunched up above the base of his neck is truly idiotic.

Show us how you get a hole from 5 inches below the collar to 2 inches below the collar.

Demonstrate this, Craig. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Cliff Varnell