Jump to content
The Education Forum

Shirt bunching experiment (SBT)


Jake Hammond
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

30 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...

Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 10.03.53.png

 

Okay.

How do you suppose the shirt got bunched up like that on 11/22/63?

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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

Only a religious fanatic would buy this.

If you say so, it must be true.

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

If you say so, it must be true.

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

If you say so, it must be true.

Cliffaroo, get a dog or take up bowling or something.  Really, there are other things in life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

the ones I posted, Croft ( despite being from the much less bunched side ) and all the others. I have posted several. 

Except for Croft all the motorcade photos you posted show the jacket collar riding above the top of the shirt collar.

What makes you and Lance incapable of understanding the significance of the visible shirt collar?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:
6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What images show the shirt bunched up like that on 11/22/63?

 

the ones I posted, Croft ( despite being from the much less bunched side ) and all the others. I have posted several. 

 

How can you see that the shirt is bunched up with it being covered by the jacket the way it is?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Go on then explain....

 And Cliff please if you have a grievance can you form a coherent question like Sandy has ?

My question was rhetorical.

You claim that the shirt and jacket moved in concert -- but clearly if the jacket collar rode above the top of the shirt collar, and then rode below the top of the shirt collar, there was no movement in concert.

The jacket collar couldn't drop if there was a wad of clothing in the same location.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

 

How can you see that the shirt is bunched up with it being covered by the jacket the way it is?

 

I explained this in the written section. you see the shirt, as detailed by the black and white image, in those days, was a very loose fitting item, measuring approximately 6" larger across the chest than the body and obviously with plenty of excess length. It is impossibly for a shirt to sit tight against the body therefore. As I outlined in the written section , I have pretty specific knowledge of this from my trade. It may have been scrunched slightly but from experience the cotton shirt creases in a similar way to the jacket and follows its creases. 

 I must however state thats this is an explanation of the evidence, and it works. This is not a hypothesis or conspircay theory. You seem to take the stance that this is a theory. The hole in the shirt is a known quantity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...