Jump to content
The Education Forum

Shirt bunching experiment (SBT)


Jake Hammond
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From Alan Flusser's Clothes and the Man, chapter 7:

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7part3.htm

<quote on, emphasis added>

FIT

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines of the jacket. If you do buy a shirt with too large a body, a seamstress can take in the side seams or put darts in the back to reduce the size. The darts are actually a bit more practical, since if you put on weight they can be removed. The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang at least six inches below the waist so that it stays tucked in when you move around. It should not be so long, however, that it creates bulges in front of the trousers.

<quote off>

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch7.htm

<quote on, emphasis added>

Since the 1950s, while manufacturers' changes have been few, styles have changed radically. Paralleling the excesses of the Peacock Revolution, shirt collars grew to disproportionate lengths while colors took on the nightmarish hues of Day-Glo paints and subway graffiti. Today, the palette has sobered and the collar styles have returned to more traditional proportions that are more in keeping with the current conservative mood of the country. It's quite simple, really: fine-quality dress shirts are made of 100 percent cotton. Naturally, they cost more than polyester blends, but what you pay for is unrivaled comfort and a look that bespeaks luxury and tradition. As a natural fiber, cotton respects the natural needs of the body. It breathes, allowing the body to cool itself when necessary, and its absorbs moisture when the body perspires. As the article of clothing most in contact with the body, the shirt needs to act almost as a second skin. Cotton performs this function best.

<quote off>

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Cliff I have no idea what you are talking about. 

You can't look at a photo of JFK and tell whether or not his shirt collar is visible at the back of his neck?

The fold we see in Croft resulted from the jacket collar dropping.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Cliff look at the images of JFK in a shirt and tie, very loose, or just look at my post and the black and white image.

Jake look at the Altgens photo and the Towner photo and see that the jacket was only elevated a fraction of an inch.

How could the shirt collar move independently of the jacket collar while the fabric below the collars acted in concert?

This is idiotic...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cliff Varnell said:

Jake look at the Altgens photo and the Towner photo and see that th jacket was only elevated a fraction of an inch.

How could the shirt collar move independently of the jacket collar while the fabric below the collars acted in concert?

This is idiotic...

Cliff can you please make your point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Butler said:

Here is a note I made while working on something else.  It may or may not help in your discussions.

amipa-bunched-jacket-possible-hole.jpg

The jacket collar rode above the top of the shirt collar, but not into the airline.

On Houston St. the jacket collar dropped into a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck, leaving a garden variety fabric fold in the jacket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why are you incapable of observing the Towner and Altgens photos which clearly show a fraction of an inch of jacket elevation?

And this means what ? I really don't follow, can you explain to me and reveal this secret meaning we don't see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jake Hammond said:

And this means what ? I really don't follow, can you explain to me and reveal this secret meaning we don't see. 

You claim -- do you not? -- that JFK's shirt and jacket moved in concert 2 inches.

But the jacket collar clearly moved independently of the shirt collar, and the Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket only elevated a fraction of an inch.

Your claims are bunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You claim -- do you not? -- that JFK's shirt and jacket moved in concert 2 inches.

But the jacket collar clearly moved independently of the shirt collar, and the Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket only elevated a fraction of an inch.

Your claims are bunk.

No I never said that but if I did, what is the signicancy of this movement ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jake Hammond said:

No I never said that but if I did, what is the signicancy of this movement ?

You didn't claim the shirt and jacket acted in concert?

You didn't claim that the shirt was elevated 2 inches?

Sure about that?

The Altgens and Towner photos put the lie to such claims.

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=6289&amp;fullsize=1

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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...