Shirt bunching experiment (SBT)

[John Butler]

And, more of the single hole in the tie problem:

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

I'll try to get some video then but obviously that won't upload on to here. Secondly, I must re-emphasise that It is not me who needs to ' prove to others' what happened.

This is an admission that Jake Hammond can't replicate his claims.

[Jake Hammond]

Excuse my ignorance but what is the general hypothesis with the tie ?

[John Butler]

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od

noun

noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    

   There is no general hypothesis concerning the holes in the shirt and tie.  There is no way to test a hypothesis of any kind.  I do not have access to the original materials and no one else does for testing. 

   I am at the stage of observation and analyzation of the photos (not the real material) and can only make a general observation that the facts presented by the photos of the shirt and tie gives one contradictory evidence concerning their nature.  This contradictory evidence leads me to believe that the photos and material photographed are frauds.  This is something I have suspected for a long time due to the belief that President Kennedy was shot in the back multiple times.  This is based on the autopsy photo I have posted and some of the questions about it.

   You might ask this question.  Does the FBI manufacture evidence?  Do they have a history of corruption?  Is the 302 their most corrupt tool or is it photo editing or evidence manufacture in the Kennedy Assassination investigation. 

    

Edited December 18, 2018 by John Butler

[Jake Hammond]

Quote

There is no general hypothesis concerning the holes in the shirt and tie.  There is no way to test a hypothesis of any kind

It was more the tie specifically i was interested in, Its something I've never looked into. Just the basics really. 

[Cliff Varnell]

9 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

I'll try to get some video then but obviously that won't upload on to here. Secondly, I must re-emphasise that It is not me who needs to ' prove to others' what happened. The images all show a heavy fold running from right to left

Such is the power of denial.

JFK's silhouette is symmetrical in the Willis 5 photo.

Why does Jake Hammond habitually misrepresent the evidence?

[Cliff Varnell]

The Nix film captures the moment the jacket collar fell. JFK was talking with Nellie and when he leaned back the jacket collar dropped.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Jake Hammond]

Great info Cliff thank you. Do you have some details of the position just before he was shot ? like, after this image, more near the actual time we're concerned with .

 The image here is just before the freeway sign and is very blurry, but you can see he is turning to his right and has hand flat on the car door, it may well have moved. This is the latest image though as far as I understand.

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Jake Hammond

[Jake Hammond]

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od

noun

noun: scientific method; plural noun: scientific methods

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    

   There is no general hypothesis concerning the holes in the shirt and tie.  There is no way to test a hypothesis of any kind.  I do not have access to the original materials and no one else does for testing. 

   I am at the stage of observation and analyzation of the photos (not the real material) and can only make a general observation that the facts presented by the photos of the shirt and tie gives one contradictory evidence concerning their nature.  This contradictory evidence leads me to believe that the photos and material photographed are frauds.  This is something I have suspected for a long time due to the belief that President Kennedy was shot in the back multiple times.  This is based on the autopsy photo I have posted and some of the questions about it.

   You might ask this question.  Does the FBI manufacture evidence?  Do they have a history of corruption?  Is the 302 their most corrupt tool or is it photo editing or evidence manufacture in the Kennedy Assassination investigation. 

    

It would still be good though for this topic if someone came forward and gave an alternative hypothesis of what what caused the damage in JFK's neck, shirt, jacket and back at the same time JC was hit. It would genuinely move this topic forward , at the moment there is a lot of negativity and ridiculing of evidence and not much in the way of an alternative to the single bullet from the TSBD. Not looking for an argument at all. 

[Cliff Varnell]

31 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Great info Cliff thank you. Do you have some details of the position just before he was shot ? like, after this image, more near the actual time we're concerned with .

The timing of the back shot can be established by Secret Service SA Glenn Bennett's well corroborated account.

From Bennett's statement 11/23/63:

<quote on, emphasis added>

About thirty minutes after leaving Love Field about 12:25 P.M., the Motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few; the motorcade continued down this grade enroute to the Trade Mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit" and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw S/A Hickey had the AR15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shots. The President's car immediately kicked into high gear and the follow-up car followed.

<quote off>

Willis 5 at Z202 shows Bennett facing to the right; Altgens 6 at Z255 shows Bennett with blurred features, consistent with his head moving forward; and the bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars.

We can safely place the back shot between Z255 and the head shot/s.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

19 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

It would still be good though for this topic if someone came forward and gave an alternative hypothesis of what what caused the damage in JFK's neck, shirt, jacket and back at the same time JC was hit. It would genuinely move this topic forward , at the moment there is a lot of negativity and ridiculing of evidence and not much in the way of an alternative to the single bullet from the TSBD. Not looking for an argument at all. 

JFK shot in the throat from the front circa Z190.  Phil Willis stated he snapped his 5th photo (at Z202) in a startle response to gunfire.

JFK shot in the back right before the headshot/s as per SS SA Bennett.

The slits in the shirt were the result of Nurse Bowron and Nurse Henchliffe cutting off the tie to prep for the trach.

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Jake Hammond said:

On 12/17/2018 at 7:42 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Video is required because that's the only way to prove to others that the shirt will rise up the way you think it did.

 

I must re-emphasise that It is not me who needs to ' prove to others' what happened. The images all show a heavy fold running from right to left ( apart from the blurry , cropped Altgens 5 which is the ONLY image showing Kennedy waving his right hand over to the left side and has obviously pulled the jacket tight. He wasn't in this position behind the freeway sign) across the shoulder.

 

Most of us see that as being folded jacket fabric, not shirt fabric bunching up. That's why you need to prove that your theory is viable. I mean, if you want to persuade others.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Most of us see that as being folded jacket fabric, not shirt fabric bunching up. That's why you need to prove that your theory is viable. I mean, if you want to persuade others.

But there is no truth to the highlighted statement.

None of the Dealey Plaza photos show the fold in the jacket seen earlier in the motorcade.

Jake stipulates to the fact the Altgens photo shows the jacket flat on the back.  He stipulates that the jacket collar then dropped.

He asks us to believe that even though the jacket collar dropped, the fabric below the collar elevated into a massive fold that doesn't show up in any of the other Dealey Plaza photos.

I swear, this thread may be the most idiotic in the history of internet JFK discussions.

And that's saying a lot...

[Jake Hammond]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Most of us see that as being folded jacket fabric, not shirt fabric bunching up. That's why you need to prove that your theory is viable. I mean, if you want to persuade others.

 

 

Yes, I agree, its only my experiences that suggest that, and of course the JFK evidence. I'll make sure I test this properly in the new year and new experiment. Again though, its not me who needs to persuade, I am trying to explain an anomaly in the null hypothesis( as it were). I am not trying to persuade anyone of a new hypothesis. Speaking of which, no one has put one forward yet despite several requests so I'll put one forward in a new post....

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The slits in the shirt were the result of Nurse Bowron and Nurse Henchliffe cutting off the tie to prep for the trach.

 

Cliff,

Why is it that you believe the slits in the shirt are due to cutting the tie off and not from a high-tech projectile penetrating the shirt before hitting the throat?

I have a hard time believing that the nurses would use a scalpel so close to the throat when it would have been so easy to pull the tie loop away from the throat before cutting. Plus it seems like too much of a coincidence that they would cut/nick the shirt right where the bullet entered the throat.