Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

[Jake Hammond]

Which it was, as the photos show. Not as much as in the other image, I never said that, that was merely a supporting example. 

[Sandy Larsen]

What makes you think that the shirt was bunched up in Dealey Plaza?

 

[Jake Hammond]

The images of JFK with his jacket bunched up. As I mentioned in my previous posts ,which I'm not convinced you've read, and conveyed in the supporting image which you then supplied a better version of, the shirts he wore were very loose and would have bunched up at least as much as the jacket, which as he rode down Elm had a 1" crease in it.  I would also remind you that clothing has been my trade for a long time and I can tell you that a loose cotton shirt inside a suit which is more fitted , which they are by a long shot, will bunch up more than the suit. 

[Cory Santos]

8 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

When faced with the Weaponized Fact -- the bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound -- both Franciois Carlier and Lance Payette told a big whopping lie:

They both claimed to have casually elevated their shirt and jacket (a la JFK in the motorcade) in tandem 2 inches entirely above the top of their backs.

The single bullet fraud requires all of that occurring without pushing up on the jacket collar resting just above the base of JFK's neck.

It's an event that has never been demonstrated.

Carlier and Payette are l-i-a-r-s.

Cliff come down to Vegas I’ll get a crew let’s do a YouTube on it. 

[Cory Santos]

7 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

 

I am a staunch single shot theory supporter and have to step in here, despite being a noob. When first becoming involved with the case, lesson 101 is that two shots caused the damage to Kennedy and Connally. Obviously ! bullets don't move sideways in mid air LOL, one bullet can't cause all that damage ! what a joke, the back wound doesn't line up with the throat wound , duh, the throat is like totally above the back...  and so on. ...

 The problem is of course that it does all work, and whats more , unless the stabilised and HD'd Zapruda film is a complete CGI creation then there is no more evidence you need. You CANNOT watch the best Z film and draw any other conclusion than it was one shot. 

 However, I remain open minded always and in light of the company on this forum am open to a mature debate using some bullet point facts or questions. If there is something I have missed. Like for example proof of a sub sonic bullet used which could have entered JFK's throat, then stopped, at the same time one entered his back, silently, then also stopped I would be willing to change my mind. I am aware of the tenuous evidence of a bullet being removed from JFK's back and also aware of JC's statement ( which I will happily explain as evidence of a single shot).

 Thank you

Simple point in physics. If the second shot hit his back and exited the throat why is there no sign of his head whiplashing back?  Remember it broke bones allegedly.       Instead his head goes forward and he raise his arm. 

[Cory Santos]

See when force strikes it causes the head to go back. We don’t see that with the back shot. But I’m sure that doesn’t matter to some here with blinders on. 

 

[Jake Hammond]

I am unable to upload more images but there are at least 10 images of JFK that day with a bunched up shirt which ripples at least 1" just under the collar. 1"of course doubles to two inches, and thats conservative. 

[Jake Hammond]

Just now, Jake Hammond said:

Simple point in physics. If the second shot hit his back and exited the throat why is there no sign of his head whiplashing back?  Remember it broke bones allegedly.       Instead his head goes forward and he raise his arm. 

1 minute ago, Jake Hammond said:

Simple point in physics. If the second shot hit his back and exited the throat why is there no sign of his head whiplashing back?  Remember it broke bones allegedly.       Instead his head goes forward and he raise his arm. 

I'm not sure what you are arguing, are you arguing that he wasn't hit in the back at all ?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

7 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

Apologies for the multiple responses it wouldn't let me upload images easily...

JFK was slumped in his seat before paying attention to his son -- look at the disheveled hair at the back of his head.

Note that the shirt is bunched up above the bottom of his collar.  On Elm St. the jacket collar was in a normal position, a normal amount of shirt collar visible above the jacket collar.

You are claiming that 4 inches of wadded shirt/jacket occupied the same physical space as the jacket collar?

Show us how it's done -- the burden of proof is on you.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

Which it was, as the photos show. Not as much as in the other image, I never said that, that was merely a supporting example. 

Show us, don't tell us.

Show us how you elevate 2 inches of shirt and 2 inches of jacket entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar.

You can't see how ridiculous this claim is?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

Did you not look at the pictures or read my posts ? What do you mean by 'spontaneously' ? , I don't think his shirt was bunched, the photographs show it. 

The airplane photo shows a bunch above the bottom of the collar.

This proves there was no significant elevation on Elm St. since the Croft photo you posted shows the jacket collar in a normal position.

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

The images of JFK with his jacket bunched up. As I mentioned in my previous posts ,which I'm not convinced you've read, and conveyed in the supporting image which you then supplied a better version of, the shirts he wore were very loose and would have bunched up at least as much as the jacket, which as he rode down Elm had a 1" crease in it.  I would also remind you that clothing has been my trade for a long time and I can tell you that a loose cotton shirt inside a suit which is more fitted , which they are by a long shot, will bunch up more than the suit. 

Show us how 4 inches of fabric elevates entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar.

The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Don't apologize - I didn't even have that excuse when I was sucked into it.  If you will try the same little at-home experiment with a suit coat and shirt that Francois and I independently tried, then you too will be thrust into the L-I-A-R-S Club by the Vortex Master (a/k/a The Weaponizer).  When the membership reaches five, I'm going to have some tee shirts and mugs made up at my own expense!

If you could demonstrate this event you would.

But you can't.

So you lie about it.

[Jake Hammond]

I'm really not sure what you are getting at. From what I can tell you are making the normal mistake of assuming that  he was standing up straight with his head back, and that shirt collars wrap horizontally around the neck.  You then seem to have inserted into my argument that I have said that 4" was sticking up above his collar, or that that would be necessary somehow. My line through the croft photo is all you need to see. All anyone needs to see really.  I'll bullet point the EVIDENCE for clarity once again. 

 - Fracture on T1

 - hole in shirt , far below where T1 would be, because that's really easy to determine on a slouching middle age man with a stoop and a shirt and tie on from an old photo. 

- He must have been shot by a bullet made of cheese from somewhere in Connallys seat, then shot by an invisible bullet on his back which then coincidentally left a mark that lines up with the other injuries to the two men, then John C was hit by a bullet fired from such a position that the trajectory ( between the armpit and wrist) took it through Kennedys neck yet instead of doing that it kindly swerved around the neck so to not interfere with the invisible bullet.

Did I get it right this time ?

 P.S The reason JC reacted at exactly the same time was because the two bullets, the cheese and the kind swerving one , were fired at the same time. 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Jake Hammond

[Kirk Gallaway]

22 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Lance, In your verbose quest to go out and win  friends and influence people, you never did answer my question concerning my "World Peace " photo below.  Is there any basis for hope of a similar "2 peas in a pod" reconciliation meeting of minds between you and Jim D. after all? Question in bold print at the bottom below.

 

As far as the onlooker I actually gave you a hint under the link. That was:

"I see another ambitious fellow prosecutor there as well, who really just likes to look.".

 

Yes, a long way from Kansas, I mean Arizona. That guy also ran for President under the Republican ticket. An ex prosecutor, ex governor way over there in New Jersey. His name is Chris Christie, and he apparently just interviewed for Trump's chief of staff and Christie probably rejected him. Anyway it's sort of an uplifting picture. I  suspected that maybe Trump had it in him, if he was so moved to defer to someone else...

I would be more inclined to see it as a beacon for World Peace if it weren't for that mysterious guy in the beach chair. 

I'm not sure how relevant Christie is, except as a humorous add in for those who are familiar.. So you see them as beacon for World Peace and Trump is being thwarted by a MSM and political"Deep State"? And so is Putin, whose really a good guy, whose very tolerant to those that disagree with him,because after all he's so popular, why does he need to fear anybody? And all this Russian  interference is just the same old Cold War propaganda of the MSM "Deep State". Because if you do, I think you and Mr. Scowly Face as you call him, have a lot more in common than you think.

You understand I'm only trying to bring people together..