Shirt bunching experiment (SBT)

[Jake Hammond]

2 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Not all the time.  Examine the wounds in the autopsy photo No. 1 and No. 2.  They are a carbon copy of each other except for size.

Are we sure these are wounds though ? I'm pretty sure this has been debunked as dried blood and a mole. 

[John Butler]

Blood spots are amorphous.  No. 1 and No.2 have structure that appears to come from a tumbling bullet or as the anthropologists say "a bit of morphology".  Magnify the images and that becomes clearer.

Edited December 21, 2018 by John Butler

[Jake Hammond]

2 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I posted these mainly for myself to take a better look at the argument.  No one is going to change their position on the SBT.  They basically haven't in 55 years.  The argument is basically a useless endeavor but, it goes on endlessly.

What I posted may help someone new to the argument.

 It is useless because really its not significant. It used to be used to show that there was more than one shooter but its so obvious now that there was a shooter at the front that we perhaps don't need to argue. I think its more a 'game' to play. Rather than debate the more serious issues you can gauge a persons cognitive ability through a well known topic with lots of images to help. UNtil I see any proof that all of those wounds, which line up perfectly, were caused by three separate ' blood soluable' bullets ,as one has suggested, were fired at the same exact time and the shooters of said shots then didn't fire again.... I'm sticking with what it looks like on the Z film and what the evidence shows. A single shot from up high. 

 Crenshaw was mistaken, he was not experienced with a full range of gunshot wounds. Most importantly a fast paced FMJ round.  There is no big conspiracy with the trach. wound, it is standard procedure and was done quite normally. No one tried to hide that fact at Parkland. 

[Jake Hammond]

8 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Blood spots are amorphous.  No. 1 and No.2 have structure that appears to come from a tumbling bullet or as the anthropologists say "a bit of morphology".  Magnify the images and that becomes clearer.

i can't conclude from that image that there are several or even two gunshots. Also, it just doesn't make any sense, why not cover up those marks or crop the image. I mean it would take a second to do and cost nothing. If I was trying to disguise multiple shots and went to the incredibly complex and costly nefarious extremes that some cTers suggest then SURELY the first thing you'd do is crop that back image or airbrush the other ' wounds ' out. Thats CIA cover up 101. 

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

In order to speak about the SBT or a throat shot from the front one needs to agree on where the bullet struck.  For the SBT, one needs to connect the hole in the tie (throat wound) to an area on John Connally.  This spot would be just below the right nipple of John Connally where the bullet exited his chest.  This angle would look something like this.

This was posted in another thread.  It is an approximation that is close enough to suggest that the bunched jacket and shirt really isn't much of an argument.

Except most people make this mistake. If you take this angle which appears to fit and then account for the slope in Dealey it becomes an issue so this picture is not really accurate. 

[Michael Griffith]

On 12/16/2018 at 6:16 AM, Jake Hammond said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I came across this post while doing some research. I'm certain that others have already pointed this out, but the four photos that show a shirt do not, of course, show a coat worn over the shirt, and that the mild bunches shown in photo #4 and in the JFK shirt photo are not nearly large enough and high enough to account for JFK's rear clothing holes, both of which were over 5 inches below the top of their respective collars. 

Moreover, if a bullet struck the bunch seen in the final photo, the JFK shirt photo, it would have made three holes in the shirt, two in the overlapping layers of the bunch and one in the fabric beneath the overlapping layers.

Finally, a word about the front shirt slits. They look nothing like a bullet hole. They are not the same shape or length or thickness. Part of the left slit (viewer's right) extends into the neckband, while the right slit (viewer's left) does not. The right slit is roughly half vertical and half diagonal, while the left slit is not as irregular. The initial FBI lab report did not attribute the slits to a bullet but stated that the slits could have been caused by a fragment. Also, the FBI found no metallic traces around the slits but did find metallic traces around the rear clothing holes. Moreover, the slits have no fabric missing from them, unlike all the other clothing holes. 

[Jake Hammond]

Hi ! I just got back on the forum to touch base and saw the reply to the topic I started years ago.... 

 Anyway, I urge you to look closely at the angle JFK is sitting at in that car, he is bent way forwards. Much arguing is caused by the assumption that JFK is sitting bolt upright in the car with GJC sitting bolt upright on the level, directly in front of him. This is of course massively incorrect. JFK's body was almost at 45 degrees and as I said previously a bullet leaving the hole where it did at the angle of the shot from the TSBD lines up perfectly with the exit wound in the neck. 

[Charles Blackmon]

There have been studies done that show JFK would have had to have his head in his lap for the bullet trajectory to work out like the WC claimed. Michael Griffith has done some great work explaining how the tree branches created a very tight window and ultimately it was not possible for Oswald to get that magic bullet shot off when it is supposed he did. Maybe Michael can repost it again.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Charles Blackmon

[Jake Hammond]

On 12/21/2018 at 3:08 PM, Jake Hammond said:

That line is way too low on JC, which is the known data point. I mean, you say its just below his nipple but then the image you post shows it exiting JFK's chest and exiting JC's stomach, raise the line up to where the throat wound is on kennedy, where the jacket hole is, and if a little bunching is added and where the shirt hole is. Bunching does not need to be proved on the shirt as the hole location is the same as the jacket, and we can see the jacket. 

 That was a strange choice of  image to use as evidence to disprove the SBT. 

I've heard claims of trees being in the way but not seen any real convincing presentation of evidence so that would be interesting. I looked back over the thread and found this. Pictures speak a thousand words so I won't go further. Black line works perfectly. Red line was an argument against a single shot and doesn't work at all. I can't debate too much due to time constraints I'd just say that I'm convinced now that the single bullet happened and want to clarify that for a few years I didn't. 

[Charles Blackmon]

5 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

I've heard claims of trees being in the way but not seen any real convincing presentation of evidence so that would be interesting.

From Griffith post on another JFK Forum:

-- Even the HSCA admitted that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit with a shot at around Z186-190. JFK's cheeks puff at Z188. At around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; his right hand also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays there until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207; and his head moves rapidly from the right toward his wife on his left. The HSCA's photographic experts detected a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z189-197. Here's the problem for the lone-gunman theory: The sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window.

If you claim not to know anything about a tree in the line of site from the 6th floor window in Nov 1963, then you probably need to do some more reading.

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Charles Blackmon
typo

[Jake Hammond]

Z189-197 show him waving. Its a sort of a Straw man argument is what I concluded previously, i.e  " LOOK ! THE TREES ARE IN THE WAY !!! ...... of a shot at <z189> ". I don't believe he was hit around 190 but I'm happy to be proven wrong with sound argument.