Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Ok, lets simplify, my Toddler says that sleeping is so you can get more treats for breakfast. He is an expert on sleeping, THE expert. I provide no evidence of him saying this and what he is saying is of course wrong. Does that make it easier ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 My toddler uses different nomenclature. 1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said: I discussed the case with a preeminent authority. I see nothing objectionable with that. Has it ever occurred to you that museums might use different nomenclature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Face it Jake, you have to dress up a mannequin because you can't physically replicate your claims. All this hand waving of yours isn't debate. 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: My toddler uses different nomenclature. Meaning what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Also, to clarify, you replied too quickly to have asked anyone and you are trying to cover your tracks. What happened was you used a term incorrectly and then rather than admit it you made up some crazy argument about 'gross ease' and the movemnet of the fabric and museums and nomenclature. You dug a massive, embarrassing hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said: Ok, lets simplify, my Toddler says that sleeping is so you can get more treats for breakfast. He is an expert on sleeping, THE expert. I provide no evidence of him saying this and what he is saying is of course wrong. Does that make it easier ? Makes no sense at all. Are you comparing all people preeminent in their field to toddlers? Edited December 15, 2018 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said: Also, to clarify, you replied too quickly to have asked anyone and you are trying to cover your tracks. What happened was you used a term incorrectly and then rather than admit it you made up some crazy argument about 'gross ease' and the movemnet of the fabric and museums and nomenclature. You dug a massive, embarrassing hole. No, I'm related to an expert on clothing. I agreed not to use their name. You're hysterically blowing this out of proportion because you can't physically replicate your claims. 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 3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Face it Jake, you have to dress up a mannequin because you can't physically replicate your claims. All this hand waving of yours isn't debate. Is a mannequin not physical and the act of dressing it not physical ? 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: Is a mannequin not physical and the act of dressing it not physical ? Nope. You have to replicate it on a human body moving casually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said: Nope. You have to replicate it on a human body moving casually. Right, because mannequins are not human like ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Hammond Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 Also since the experiment I did does not qualify in your eyes, will you refrain from commenting on the thread ? 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: Right, because mannequins are not human like ? You have to demonstrate how JFK's body movement elevated 2 inches of his shirt and 2 inches of his jacket entirely above the top of his back without pushing up on the jacket collar. Spare us the mannequin scams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 15, 2018 Share Posted December 15, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Jake Hammond said: Also since the experiment I did does not qualify in your eyes, will you refrain from commenting on the thread ? Hell no. You're implicitly bashing the witnesses who described the back wound in the vicinity of T3. Attacking witness bashing is my hobby. 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 1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said: You have to demonstrate how JFK's body movement elevated 2 inches of his shirt and 2 inches of his jacket entirely above the top of his back without pushing up on the jacket collar. Spare us the mannequin scams. I really don't get the 2" thing, almost all of the photos of that day in the car show a heavy crease / fold ' bunching above where the bulet entered or at least 1", which doubled equals 2". Why do you ignore all of these images ? 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: I really don't get the 2" thing, almost all of the photos of that day in the car show a heavy crease / fold ' bunching above where the bulet entered or at least 1", which doubled equals 2". Why do you ignore all of these images ? You're ignoring the Altgens photo I posted. https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=5985&fullsize=1 The jacket is both flat and elevated, but not into the hairline. The jacket was elevated about 3/4s inch. Then it dropped and revealed the shirt collar, but the jacket fabric below it dropped slower. The jacket was elevated 1/8 inch at the time of the back shot. 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