David Von Pein Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: JFK was slumped in his seat before paying attention to his son... You think the boy in that picture is JFK's son?! WTF??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Yeah I was warned about him early on but honestly, the 'ease' thing shows for anyone reading this the extent of the madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 (edited) Quote n clothing design it's used as both a verb and a noun. There is vertical ease, horizontal ease, and diagonal ease. There is also "gross ease" and "normal ease." Gross ease results from exaggerated body movements; normal ease results from casual body movements. Gross ease involves more than an inch of fabric; normal ease only induces fractions of an inch of clothing fagbric. I'm related to a 2-time winner of the LA Drama Critics Circle Award for Costume Design. wiki ..."In sewing and patternmaking, ease is the amount of room a garment allows the wearer beyond the measurements of their body.[1] For example, if a man has a 40-inch chestmeasurement, a jacket with a 40-inch chest would be very tight and would constrict movement. An ease of 3 or 4 inches might be added to the pattern (making a 43-44 inch chest), or more to enhance comfort or style. Ease is not generally included in sizing measurements. To use the example again, a man with a 40-inch chest will likely buy a jacket advertised as size 40, but the actual measurements of the garment will almost always be somewhat larger. Ease is most important for woven garments cut on the straight or crossgrain, allowing little or no stretch. A sloper pattern or block pattern is a simple pattern with very little or no ease made for the purpose of fitting the body accurately, from which more finished or stylized patterns may be developed.[2]" Edited December 15, 2018 by Jake Hammond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: You think the boy in that picture is JFK's son?! WTF??? I missed that ! In case you missed what I'd said, Ive used a mannequin, shirt, tape measure and paint to silence the weapons. Only I have no image allowance so I'll start a new thread with those images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said: Did you not read the wikipedia page ? No, I spoke to an authority on the subject of clothing design and they used the word "ease" in the manner I described. Quote Ease is solely the description of the excess of material in a given area of fabric allowing movement . No, it isn't. The word is used by the world's leading textile conservator/award-winner in the manner I described in my previous post. Quote More specifically the difference between the body measurement and the measurement of the clothing. When I speak to the lady making a waistcoat about a customer who feels restricted under the armpit by a stock model she says " I'll add half an inch of ease into the armhole then for his order". She doesn't say " oh its fine there'll be loads of gross ease when he starts moving around". You're making up stuff. When you imitate JFK waving his raised right hand the fabric of your shirt "eases" along your right shoulder-top. This is called "normal horizontal ease." I've been schooled on this subject by a supreme authority. Quote Your complete fabrication about the term 'ease' and failure to read wikipedia or respect another man's trade have really exposed you here. I really will sign off now. Wikipedia isn't authoritative -- my source is. Edited December 15, 2018 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Quote Wikipedia isn't authoritative -- my source is. Superb. Wikipedia also agrees with my exact experience of 10 years in clothing design and production. Quote When you imitate JFK waving his raised right hand the fabric of your shirt "eases" along your right shoulder-top. This is called "normal horizontal ease." Pure Gold . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said: Yeah I was warned about him early on but honestly, the 'ease' thing shows for anyone reading this the extent of the madness. As far as Cliff is concerned, everything revolves around the clothing of JFK. Nothing else matters to Cliff. He's truly a one-trick Weaponizer. Edited December 15, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said: In case you missed what I'd said, I've used a mannequin, shirt, tape measure and paint to silence the weapons. Only I have no image allowance so I'll start a new thread with those images. Nice! If you've got a Blogger.com account, you can upload unlimited photos (and post the links here). Edited December 15, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Jake Hammond said: Superb. Wikipedia also agrees with my exact experience of 10 years in clothing design and production. Yes, it does. But that doesn't mean the word "ease" isn't used in other ways. Look, anytime there is a famous piece of clothing that needs repair they hire my source to conserve it 1 minute ago, Jake Hammond said: Pure Gold . That is what was explained to me. The fact you have to pick a bone about semantics measures the bankruptcy of your claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 The horrible irony of this is that as we speak I am actually measuring mens clothing from the 1950's and 60's . I should have just asked Cliff what the measurements were ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Quote Yes, it does. But that doesn't mean the word "ease" isn't used in other ways. The word ease is not used to describe fabric stretching if you move. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Just now, Jake Hammond said: The word ease is not used to describe fabric stretching if you move. Ever. It's the opposite of "stretching." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said: The horrible irony of this is that as we speak I am actually measuring mens clothing from the 1950's and 60's . I should have just asked Cliff what the measurements were ! My source was hired to conserve Napoleon's coat, Lincoln's hat and gloves, the Cowardly Lion costume, Jim Morrison's cape, the green dress Vivian Leigh wore in Gone With The Wind...etc etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: My source was hired to conserve Napoleon's coat, Lincoln's hat and gloves, the Cowardly Lion costume, Jim Morrison's cape, the green dress Vivian Leigh wore in Gone With The Wind...etc etc... Great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 45 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said: 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. FWIW, I'll weigh in one last time, Jake. The issue that Cliff is highlighting (weaponizing?) is, of course, a very legitimate one, as is the pristine condition of the magic bullet. However, a jury could have reasonable doubt about the bunching explanation for the alignment of the holes in the shirt, jacket and back, yet still conclude that Oswald's guilt as the lone gunman had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Oswald's guilt as the lone gunman must be determined in the context of a vast amount of other evidence. A jury could legitimately conclude "the alignment of the holes in the shirt, jacket and back is a puzzle and we have substantial doubt about the bunching explanation, but we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald acted alone." Cliff simply doesn't grasp this or perhaps doesn't want to grasp this. He insists the alignment of the holes is "prima facie" evidence the Single Bullet Theory is wrong and that the existence of a conspiracy is "irrefutable." The video that I linked is sufficient to rebut Cliff's supposed "prima facie" case and show that his position isn't "irrefutable." We will never know all of the precise angles, alignments and trajectories associated with the actual event at the moment of impact, but the video alone shows what could have occurred in terms of bunching. At trial, there would be demonstrations and expert testimony on both sides, and the jury would weigh the evidence and testimony on this issue - simple as that. Perhaps the prosecution's bunching demonstration wouldn't bring the holes into perfect alignment but would bring them much closer - close enough for the other unknown variables to easily account for the difference. The jury could conclude that Cliff's explanation was more likely, the bunching explanation was more likely, or perhaps that they were equally likely (or unlikely). The jury could conclude there was reasonable doubt about the bunching explanation but that the Single Bullet Theory was still the most plausible explanation for what occurred in light of the mountain of other evidence. Perhaps if the jury found Cliff's explanation utterly convincing and agreed it disproved the SBT beyond reasonable doubt, this would indeed be sufficient to raise reasonable doubt that Oswald had acted alone - but I haven't delved into this possibility in sufficient depth to say with certainty that this is the case (in other words, I don't know that the SBT is absolutely, positively essential to the Lone Nut explanation). In short, it's a simple matter of Cliff overstating (weaponizing?) to a considerable degree the significance of an issue that is nevertheless indeed significant. At this point, Juror Lance believes the bunching explanation is very likely (don't forget the possible effect of the back brace) and that the SBT remains a plausible explanation even if bunching doesn't provide a complete explanation simply because there were so many unknown variables at the moment of impact that could have affected the alignment of the holes. Contrary to what Cliff keeps saying ad nauseam (weaponizing?), Juror Lance doesn't have the burden to prove anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now