Shirt bunching experiment (SBT)

[Jake Hammond]

Below is a simple yet accurate series of photos which I took yesterday to try to visually help a certain member understand how the 'slouch angle', the crease in JFK's jacket and the migration of the shirt collar up into the neckline make huge differences to the relative height and alignment of the shirt, back and throat wound. 

 Being new to the forum I made the error of jumping in to a debate and accidentally stood on the landmine or 'Vortex' as one more accurately described it, of the shirt hole and back wound. Just to check that my understanding of some basic physics was correct and to visualise this for others I grabbed a mannequin and shirt and some kids paint. All were within arms reach at the time coincidentally and my wife is away...

 I would like to preface this by adding that this isn't the area of the JFK case that I study or have a desire to spend great deal of time on but the single bullet theory has a few myths attached to it, of which the shirt entry wound is one. The challenge from the member was that the T1 vertebrae, which had a small fracture, is way too high to allow an exit wound in the throat AND an entry wound in the shirt, where we see it. Like many aspects of that fateful day the science and facts are fairly straight forward if you only discount the absurd and include the variables. 

The below series of photographs are not meant to suggest any more than that the points can and do line up, very easily. In the debate yesterday we kept to the clothing only and didn't discuss wider issues of the shot. 

 Firstly we see a group of images showing the amount of bunching that day. I prefer the term 'fold' because the jacket actually has a single fold in it, at minimum 1" (doubled). The black and white image of JFK on a plane shows not only the same ( exaggerated admittedly by his previous sitting position and lack of jacket) fold but also the looseness of the cotton shirt he was wearing. This is important because one rebuttal of this experiment could be that a jacket crease is not a shirt crease.  I have worked for 10 years buying and selling mens clothing, managing and owning several shops supplying traditional menswear. We are now online only, as is the fashion, but still have many memories of pinning customers in to jackets by way of their shirts. It always surprised me the regularity this would happen because you don't instinctively assume that the shirt follows the jacket. Well, it does. The looseness of the shirt would actually require a force applied to it for this to not be true when you think about it, and there is no force acting on a shirt to pull it tight on the body under a jacket which is both more fitted and stiff.

When applied to JFK and more specifically the 'Croft' photo we can see that a bullet passing on the lower side or just under that crease would easily line up the known data points. In brief, the Z film shows very clearly the men reacting at the exact same time. Early versions of the Z film were blurred enough that many theories arose but now we have stabilized and HD version the myth that they react at different times needs to be put to bed, unless you want to suggest that the Z film is a complete CGI fabrication, which it isn't. But to focus on the shirt and its data points lets look at the images.

One more thing .... The bunching is greater on the right sidebecause of his arm position, in fact it is entirely caused by this. The bullet entered right of centre so if anything there is more bunching on the non Croft side. Or , the Croft photo is deceiving as we are looking at the tail end of the fold, not where the bullet entered. 

The first set , as mentioned show the 'fold' AKA bunching. Then of course a basic line on the croft photo showing the path of a bullet satisfying the known points of impact. 

 Image 1 - Bullet hole marked with paint

 Image 2 - Vertical position

 Image 3 - Slouch ( this is fairly conservative I feel and does not account also for the compression within the neck)

 Image 4 - Slouch with fold and raised neckline, as per Croft. (1" fold, 1" raise of shirt , relative to upright standing position - conservative if anything)

 

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by Jake Hammond

[Jake Hammond]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Jake Hammond

[Guest]

Super work, Jake, although the Weaponizer will never give an inch because this is his religion.  DVP and I have previously mentioned the possible effect of JFK's back brace, which was a pretty elaborate contraption even if it did end at the lower part of his back.  There is also the undeniable fact that we will simply never know the precise trajectory of the bullet, JFK's precise alignment and posture, or the precise arrangement of the clothing at the moment of impact.  Put it all together, and I'm satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that bunching and the other variables are the explanation.

I didn't respond to C-l-I-f-f's challenge to demonstrate my own experiment (which then made me a l-I-a-r) partly because I knew it would infuriate him (he is more predictable than my watch and thus kind of fun to tweak) but mostly because, like you, I saw that the bunching occurred so quickly and easily that it was frankly startling.  The video clip and my own 5-minute experiment showed me that Cliff's Irrefutable Solution just didn't hold water.

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

 

 Firstly we see a group of images showing the amount of bunching that day. I prefer the term 'fold' because the jacket actually has a single fold in it, at minimum 1" (doubled).

 

This is the classic logical fallacy called -- "begging the question."  The "truth" of Hammond's conclusion is embedded in his premise.

How does Hammond establish the Croft fold involved 2 inches of elevated fabric?

He doesn't.  He's content to say so.

 

 

[Jake Hammond]

1" x 2 as it is at least as big as the collar which is a known quantity. Thanks for high lighting that. Collars are almost always 1.5". so may be more like 3". I should have added this image of the fold too...

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Jake Hammond

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

The hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar -- why did you mark it higher?  Why is the top of the tape above the bottom of the collar?

Quote

Significant exaggeration of JFK's posture.

Quote

Please note the visible shirt collar above the top of the jacket collar.

Quote

Please note the jacket collar occludes the shirt collar at the back of the neck.

Quote

The jacket collar rode up above the top of the shirt collar.

Quote

Bingo!  The jacket collar dropped on Houston St. into a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck.

How could there be a wad of clothing above the top of the back if the jacket collar dropped?

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Jake Hammond]

The top of the tape appears about 1mm above the bottom of the collar because the tape is not sitting flat on the curved back and the camera angle. Tough details to understand I know. The rest is just waffle and irrelevant. I'm happy to answer any constructive questions or criticism but if thats all you've got then I won't reply again as I have a few things to get on with. 

Edited December 16, 2018 by Jake Hammond

[Cliff Varnell]

10 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

1" x 2 as it is at least as big as the collar which is a known quantity.

What makes you think it's as big as the collar?

Because you say so?

10 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

 

Thanks for high lighting that. Collars are almost always 1.5". so may be more like 3". I should have added this image of the fold too...

 

10 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

This doesn't get the lower mark anywhere near T1!

[Jake Hammond]

see image 4.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 minute ago, Jake Hammond said:

The top of the tape appears about 1mm above the bottom of the collar because the tape is not sitting flat on the curved back and the camera angle. Tough details to understand I know. The rest is just waffle and irrelevant. I'm happy to answer any constructive questions or criticism but if thats all you've got then I won't reply again as I have a few things to get on with. 

The circular logic is egregious -- the shirt was elevated 2+ inches because Jake Hammond says so.

Why can't you measure an even 4 inches?

[Cliff Varnell]

2 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

see image 4.

What about it?

You put a shirt on a mannequin and drew a black line over it.

Proving what?

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

1" x 2 as it is at least as big as the collar which is a known quantity. Thanks for high lighting that. Collars are almost always 1.5". so may be more like 3". I should have added this image of the fold too...

 

Jake,

How did the shirt get bunched up like that?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

Super work, Jake, although the Weaponizer will never give an inch because this is his religion. 

Jake Hammond says JFK's shirt was elevated 2 inches because Jake Hammond says so.

Only a religious fanatic would buy this.

Quote

 

DVP and I have previously mentioned the possible effect of JFK's back brace, which was a pretty elaborate contraption even if it did end at the lower part of his back.  There is also the undeniable fact that we will simply never know the precise trajectory of the bullet, JFK's precise alignment and posture, or the precise arrangement of the clothing at the moment of impact.  Put it all together, and I'm satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that bunching and the other variables are the explanation.

I didn't respond to C-l-I-f-f's challenge to demonstrate my own experiment (which then made me a l-I-a-r) partly because I knew it would infuriate him (he is more predictable than my watch and thus kind of fun to tweak)

You didn't produce your experiment because it never happened.

Quote

 

but mostly because, like you, I saw that the bunching occurred so quickly and easily that it was frankly startling.  The video clip and my own 5-minute experiment showed me that Cliff's Irrefutable Solution just didn't hold water.

The video clip shows the jacket collar riding above the top of the shirt collar -- a fact Hammond cannot take into consideration.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Jake Hammond]

I folded it 1", hence the 2" of difference from image 1 measurement. 

Quote

Jake,

How did the shirt get bunched up like that?

I folded it 1", hence the 2" of difference from image 1 measurement. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 minute ago, Jake Hammond said:

I folded it 1", hence the 2" of difference from image 1 measurement. 

I folded it 1", hence the 2" of difference from image 1 measurement. 

Nice circular logic.  Your experiment proves JFK's shirt was bunched up 2 inches because JFK's shirt was bunched up 2 inches.