Kennedy's Suit

Post by RichardT
Does anyone know the make of the suit and shirt Kennedy was wearing in
Dallas? It may seem a frivolous question but I'm trying to track down
similar clothing from the period for reference. The make of tie would
be helpful also. Thanks in advance.

I'll do some more checking, but I think they were always Brooks Brothers.

http://www.retrotogo.com/2006/10/brooks_brothers.html

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/John+F+Kennedys+Shirt+and+Suit+Preferences.htm

There is nothing in the library files to indicate John F. Kennedy's
exact personal preferences or with whom he order his clothing; however,
according to Dave Powers, the President's friend and assistant,
President Kennedy wore Brooks Brothers shirts and single-breasted,
conservatively cut suits from Saville Row. He seemed to also prefer them
blue pin-striped in design.

This is not to say that he did not use other "brands" or tailors, but
according to Mr. Powers, these were the most popular choices.

claviger

2009-02-13 01:45:34 UTC

John F. Kennedy Miscellaneous Information - John F. Kennedy ...
http://www.jfklibrary.org / Historical+Resources / Archives / Reference
+Desk / John+F.+Kennedy+Miscella... - 96k

John F. Kennedy's Shirt and Suit Preferences

There is nothing in the library files to indicate John F. Kennedy's exact
personal preferences or with whom he order his clothing; however,
according to Dave Powers, the President's friend and assistant, President
Kennedy wore Brooks Brothers shirts and single- breasted, conservatively
cut suits from Saville Row. He seemed to also prefer them blue pin-striped
in design.This is not to say that he did not use other "brands" or
tailors, but according to Mr. Powers, these were the most popular choices.

RichardT

2009-02-13 18:46:31 UTC

Thanks for the information. Very helpful. The tie was a blue silk
"Monsieur" by Christian Dior: http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce395.htm
Suit probably Brooks Brothers. The shirt's a mystery.

Spiffy_one

2009-02-14 03:57:15 UTC

Thanks for the information. Very helpful. The tie was a blue silk
"Monsieur" by Christian Dior: http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce395.htm
Suit probably Brooks Brothers. The shirt's a mystery.

Were his condoms custom made?? :-)

Cliff

2009-02-14 04:21:34 UTC

Thanks for the information. Very helpful. The tie was a blue silk
"Monsieur" by Christian Dior: http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce395.htm
Suit probably Brooks Brothers. The shirt's a mystery.

According to this article, JFK bought his suits from Paul Stuart, at
least when he was in the Senate.

http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-paul-stuart-variation-classic-american-style

His shirts were sea island cotton numbers custom-made by Charles
Dillon of NYC. The stripes were not blue, but gray and
auburn...Right, Tony?

Cliff Varnell

t***@gmail.com

2009-02-16 15:59:20 UTC

Thanks for the information. Very helpful. The tie was a blue silk
"Monsieur" by Christian Dior: http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce395.htm
Suit probably Brooks Brothers. The shirt's a mystery.

Here's something re the shirt. From page 171 of William Manchester's
*The Death Of A President*, Pan Books edition:

QUOTE ON:

While he (ie JFK) showered and shaved, George (ie George Thomas, JFK's
valet) laid out his clothes: a blue-grey, two-button suit, a dark blue
tie, and a white shirt with narrow grey stripes. The shirt was
striking, the gem of George's foot locker. During a conference with
Ambassador Alphand the President had noticed that the French diplomat
was wearing one like it. *Nice,* he had remarked with a puckish grin.
*From London?* Alphand, springing to the honour of Paris tailors,
replied that it was from Cardin's, and the White House had placed an
order with Cardin's the next day. Kennedy counted on his wife to show
Dallas what real style was, but he intended to prove that he knew
something about good taste himself.

QUOTE OFF

Manchester interviewed George Thomas on 7 May, 1964, when he was
researching his book.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

slats

2009-02-18 13:53:00 UTC

Thanks for the information. Very helpful. The tie was a blue silk

http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce

Post by RichardT
395.htm

Suit probably Brooks Brothers. The shirt's a mystery.

Here's something re the shirt. From page 171 of William Manchester's
While he (ie JFK) showered and shaved, George (ie George Thomas, JFK's
valet) laid out his clothes: a blue-grey, two-button suit, a dark blue
tie, and a white shirt with narrow grey stripes. The shirt was
striking, the gem of George's foot locker. During a conference with
Ambassador Alphand the President had noticed that the French diplomat
was wearing one like it. *Nice,* he had remarked with a puckish grin.
*From London?* Alphand, springing to the honour of Paris tailors,
replied that it was from Cardin's, and the White House had placed an
order with Cardin's the next day. Kennedy counted on his wife to show
Dallas what real style was, but he intended to prove that he knew
something about good taste himself.
QUOTE OFF
Manchester interviewed George Thomas on 7 May, 1964, when he was
researching his book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

But that's not what he wore that morning. He wore a plain white shirt
and a skinny black tie at the Fort Worth COC Breakfast (and during
his remarks in front of the hotel). For some unknown reason, he must
have switched his shirt and tie (and maybe his suit) on the plane ride
to Dallas.

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-19 03:18:22 UTC

Post by RichardT
Thanks for the information. Very helpful. The tie was a blue silk

http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce

Post by RichardT
395.htm

Post by RichardT
Suit probably Brooks Brothers. The shirt's a mystery.

Must have? Known that he did. Unknown reason? Please.

slats

2009-02-19 03:54:39 UTC

Post by RichardT
Thanks for the information. Very helpful. The tie was a blue silk

http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce

Post by RichardT
395.htm

Post by RichardT
Suit probably Brooks Brothers. The shirt's a mystery.

diplomat

Post by RichardT
was wearing one like it. *Nice,* he had remarked with a puckish grin.
*From London?* Alphand, springing to the honour of Paris tailors,
replied that it was from Cardin's, and the White House had placed an
order with Cardin's the next day. Kennedy counted on his wife to show
Dallas what real style was, but he intended to prove that he knew
something about good taste himself.
QUOTE OFF
Manchester interviewed George Thomas on 7 May, 1964, when he was
researching his book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Must have? Known that he did. Unknown reason? Please.

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you babbling about? If he didn't do a
quick wardrobe change in AF1, then where? And if it happened someplace
else, who cares?

t***@gmail.com

2009-03-10 17:20:49 UTC

Thanks for the information. Very helpful. The tie was a blue silk

http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce

Post by RichardT
395.htm

Suit probably Brooks Brothers. The shirt's a mystery.

Hmmm, say, that's right! Never noticed that before. Looks like a
mistake in Manchester's book.

Still, he appears to be wearing *the gem of George's foot locker* in
the photo taken of he, Jackie and Connally in the white convertible on
their way to the Fort Worth airport. A citation here would be pages 10
and 11 of the *The torch is passed* book.

Perhaps he changed at the FW hotel after the breakfast? Looks like it.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

slats

2009-03-11 00:38:40 UTC

Thanks for the information. ?Very helpful. ?The tie was a blue sil

?http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce

Post by RichardT
395.htm

Suit probably Brooks Brothers. ?The shirt's a mystery.

Here's something re the shirt. From page 171 of William

Manchester's

Post by RichardT
While he (ie JFK) showered and shaved, George (ie George Thomas, JFK's
valet) laid out his clothes: a blue-grey, two-button suit, a dark blue
tie, and a white shirt with narrow grey stripes. The shirt was
striking, the gem of George's foot locker. During a conference with
Ambassador Alphand the President had noticed that the French diplomat
was wearing one like it. *Nice,* he had remarked with a puckish grin.
*From London?* Alphand, springing to the honour of Paris tailors,
replied that it was from Cardin's, and the White House had placed an
order with Cardin's the next day. Kennedy counted on his wife to show
Dallas what real style was, but he intended to prove that he knew
something about good taste himself.
QUOTE OFF
Manchester interviewed George Thomas on 7 May, 1964, when he was
researching his book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Hmmm, say, that's right! Never noticed that before. Looks like a
mistake in Manchester's book.
Still, he appears to be wearing *the gem of George's foot locker* in
the photo taken of he, Jackie and Connally in the white convertible on
their way to the Fort Worth airport. A citation here would be pages 10
and 11 of the *The torch is passed* book.
Perhaps he changed at the FW hotel after the breakfast? Looks like it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

I always assumed he went straight from the breakfast to the airport. Must
have made a pitstop at the hotel room. It seems the valet was laying out
two sets of clothes that morning: one for the breakfast and one for
Dallas. Funny how a fashion icon like Jackie didn't feel compelled to
change HER outfit yet her husband DID. And they say women are vain. :-)

Anthony Marsh

2009-03-12 05:37:50 UTC

Thanks for the information. ?Very helpful. ?The tie was a blue sil

?http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce

Post by RichardT
395.htm

Suit probably Brooks Brothers. ?The shirt's a mystery.

Here's something re the shirt. From page 171 of William

Manchester's

Post by RichardT
While he (ie JFK) showered and shaved, George (ie George Thomas,

JFK's

Post by RichardT
valet) laid out his clothes: a blue-grey, two-button suit, a dark

blue

Post by RichardT
tie, and a white shirt with narrow grey stripes. The shirt was
striking, the gem of George's foot locker. During a conference with
Ambassador Alphand the President had noticed that the French

diplomat

Post by RichardT
was wearing one like it. *Nice,* he had remarked with a puckish

grin.

Post by RichardT
*From London?* Alphand, springing to the honour of Paris tailors,
replied that it was from Cardin's, and the White House had placed

Post by RichardT
order with Cardin's the next day. Kennedy counted on his wife to

show

Post by RichardT
Dallas what real style was, but he intended to prove that he knew
something about good taste himself.
QUOTE OFF
Manchester interviewed George Thomas on 7 May, 1964, when he was
researching his book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

ride

to Dallas.

Hmmm, say, that's right! Never noticed that before. Looks like a
mistake in Manchester's book.
Still, he appears to be wearing *the gem of George's foot locker* in
the photo taken of he, Jackie and Connally in the white convertible on
their way to the Fort Worth airport. A citation here would be pages 10
and 11 of the *The torch is passed* book.
Perhaps he changed at the FW hotel after the breakfast? Looks like it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Could be that all the drugs Kennedy was taking made him sweat profusely
and necessitated frequent changing of clothes.

slats

2009-03-13 00:51:17 UTC

news:89a5e7f5-6130-4d67-85fd-40066b4fe540

Thanks for the information. ?Very helpful. ?The tie was a blue sil

?http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce

Post by RichardT
395.htm

Suit probably Brooks Brothers. ?The shirt's a mystery.

Here's something re the shirt. From page 171 of William

Manchester's

Post by RichardT
While he (ie JFK) showered and shaved, George (ie George Thomas,

JFK's

Post by RichardT
valet) laid out his clothes: a blue-grey, two-button suit, a dark

blue

Post by RichardT
tie, and a white shirt with narrow grey stripes. The shirt was
striking, the gem of George's foot locker. During a conference
with Ambassador Alphand the President had noticed that the French

diplomat

Post by RichardT
was wearing one like it. *Nice,* he had remarked with a puckish

grin.

Post by RichardT
*From London?* Alphand, springing to the honour of Paris tailors,
replied that it was from Cardin's, and the White House had placed

Post by RichardT
order with Cardin's the next day. Kennedy counted on his wife to

show

But that's not what he wore that morning. He wore a plain white
shirt and a skinny black tie at the Fort Worth COC Breakfast (and
during his remarks in front of the hotel). For some unknown reason,
he must have switched his shirt and tie (and maybe his suit) on the
plane

ride

to Dallas.

Hmmm, say, that's right! Never noticed that before. Looks like a
mistake in Manchester's book.
Still, he appears to be wearing *the gem of George's foot locker* in
the photo taken of he, Jackie and Connally in the white convertible
on their way to the Fort Worth airport. A citation here would be
pages 10 and 11 of the *The torch is passed* book.
Perhaps he changed at the FW hotel after the breakfast? Looks like it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

I always assumed he went straight from the breakfast to the airport.
Must have made a pitstop at the hotel room. It seems the valet was
laying out two sets of clothes that morning: one for the breakfast
and one for Dallas. Funny how a fashion icon like Jackie didn't feel
compelled to change HER outfit yet her husband DID. And they say
women are vain. :-)

Could be that all the drugs Kennedy was taking made him sweat
profusely and necessitated frequent changing of clothes.

I've never read a Kennedy biography which mentioned such a
"proclivity." Maybe he got a bit of egg on his tie or shirt at the
breakfast. It happens.

Anthony Marsh

2009-03-13 03:49:52 UTC

news:89a5e7f5-6130-4d67-85fd-40066b4fe540

Thanks for the information. ?Very helpful. ?The tie was a blue sil

?http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce

Post by RichardT
395.htm

Suit probably Brooks Brothers. ?The shirt's a mystery.

Here's something re the shirt. From page 171 of William

Manchester's

Post by RichardT
While he (ie JFK) showered and shaved, George (ie George Thomas,

JFK's

Post by RichardT
valet) laid out his clothes: a blue-grey, two-button suit, a dark

blue

Post by RichardT
tie, and a white shirt with narrow grey stripes. The shirt was
striking, the gem of George's foot locker. During a conference
with Ambassador Alphand the President had noticed that the French

diplomat

Post by RichardT
was wearing one like it. *Nice,* he had remarked with a puckish

grin.

Post by RichardT
*From London?* Alphand, springing to the honour of Paris tailors,
replied that it was from Cardin's, and the White House had placed

Post by RichardT
order with Cardin's the next day. Kennedy counted on his wife to

show

But that's not what he wore that morning. He wore a plain white
shirt and a skinny black tie at the Fort Worth COC Breakfast (and
during his remarks in front of the hotel). For some unknown reason,
he must have switched his shirt and tie (and maybe his suit) on the
plane

ride

to Dallas.

Hmmm, say, that's right! Never noticed that before. Looks like a
mistake in Manchester's book.
Still, he appears to be wearing *the gem of George's foot locker* in
the photo taken of he, Jackie and Connally in the white convertible
on their way to the Fort Worth airport. A citation here would be
pages 10 and 11 of the *The torch is passed* book.
Perhaps he changed at the FW hotel after the breakfast? Looks like it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

I always assumed he went straight from the breakfast to the airport.
Must have made a pitstop at the hotel room. It seems the valet was
laying out two sets of clothes that morning: one for the breakfast
and one for Dallas. Funny how a fashion icon like Jackie didn't feel
compelled to change HER outfit yet her husband DID. And they say
women are vain. :-)

Could be that all the drugs Kennedy was taking made him sweat
profusely and necessitated frequent changing of clothes.

I've never read a Kennedy biography which mentioned such a
"proclivity." Maybe he got a bit of egg on his tie or shirt at the
breakfast. It happens.

In other words you refuse to research it. Talk to Dallek.

slats

2009-03-14 21:17:47 UTC

8935d2508d34

news:89a5e7f5-6130-4d67-85fd-40066b4fe540

Thanks for the information. ?Very helpful. ?The tie was a blue sil

?http://www.geocities.com/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce

Post by RichardT
395.htm

Suit probably Brooks Brothers. ?The shirt's a mystery.

Here's something re the shirt. From page 171 of William

Manchester's

Post by RichardT
While he (ie JFK) showered and shaved, George (ie George Thomas,

JFK's

Post by RichardT
valet) laid out his clothes: a blue-grey, two-button suit, a dark

blue

Post by RichardT
tie, and a white shirt with narrow grey stripes. The shirt was
striking, the gem of George's foot locker. During a conference
with Ambassador Alphand the President had noticed that the French

diplomat

Post by RichardT
was wearing one like it. *Nice,* he had remarked with a puckish

grin.

Post by RichardT
*From London?* Alphand, springing to the honour of Paris

tailors,

Post by RichardT
replied that it was from Cardin's, and the White House had placed

Post by RichardT
order with Cardin's the next day. Kennedy counted on his wife to

show

But that's not what he wore that morning. He wore a plain white
shirt and a skinny black tie at the Fort Worth COC Breakfast (and
during his remarks in front of the hotel). For some unknown reason,
he must have switched his shirt and tie (and maybe his suit) on the
plane

ride

to Dallas.

convertible

Post by t***@gmail.com
on their way to the Fort Worth airport. A citation here would be
pages 10 and 11 of the *The torch is passed* book.
Perhaps he changed at the FW hotel after the breakfast? Looks like it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

I always assumed he went straight from the breakfast to the

airport.

Post by t***@gmail.com
Must have made a pitstop at the hotel room. It seems the valet was
laying out two sets of clothes that morning: one for the breakfast
and one for Dallas. Funny how a fashion icon like Jackie didn't feel
compelled to change HER outfit yet her husband DID. And they say
women are vain. :-)

Could be that all the drugs Kennedy was taking made him sweat
profusely and necessitated frequent changing of clothes.

I've never read a Kennedy biography which mentioned such a
"proclivity." Maybe he got a bit of egg on his tie or shirt at the
breakfast. It happens.

In other words you refuse to research it. Talk to Dallek.

Why research something so trivial? So he wore two sets of clothes that
fateful day. Big deal. As for Dallek, I'm not a big fan of left-wing
historians (excuse the redundancy).

yeuhd

2009-02-13 18:42:09 UTC

Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History", p. 400n:

Though the FBI didn't note the make of Kennedy's gray suit, it was
well known that he bought his suits at Brooks Brothers, the oldest
haberdashers in America dating back to 1818, and in 1963 a more
exclusive store than today. His black belt, size 34, was made by
Farnsworth-Reed. The blue-and-white striped shirt he wore was custom
made by Charles Dillon shirtmakers at 444 Park Avenue, New York. His
white shorts were made for Brooks Brothers by D. & G. Anderson,
Scotland. His size 10 1/2 shoes were black moccasin, no make given. He
had a white linen handkerchief, and a tortoiseshell comb by Kent of
London. (HSCA Record 180-10087-10096, Report of FBI agent Robert L.
Bouck, November 23, 1963) He was wearing a gold Cartier wristwatch
with a black leather band (HSCA Record 180-10087-10095, December 2,
1963). His blue silk tie was labeled "Monsieur" Christian Dior.

slats

2009-02-14 03:08:10 UTC

Post by yeuhd
Though the FBI didn't note the make of Kennedy's gray suit, it was
well known that he bought his suits at Brooks Brothers, the oldest
haberdashers in America dating back to 1818, and in 1963 a more
exclusive store than today. His black belt, size 34, was made by
Farnsworth-Reed. The blue-and-white striped shirt he wore was custom
made by Charles Dillon shirtmakers at 444 Park Avenue, New York. His
white shorts were made for Brooks Brothers by D. & G. Anderson,
Scotland. His size 10 1/2 shoes were black moccasin, no make given. He
had a white linen handkerchief, and a tortoiseshell comb by Kent of
London. (HSCA Record 180-10087-10096, Report of FBI agent Robert L.
Bouck, November 23, 1963) He was wearing a gold Cartier wristwatch
with a black leather band (HSCA Record 180-10087-10095, December 2,
1963). His blue silk tie was labeled "Monsieur" Christian Dior.

I'm assuming he was wearing a white undershirt that day, which also must
have been soaked in blood, but I've never seen a photo of it (unlike the
shirt).

yeuhd

2009-02-14 04:29:53 UTC

Post by slats
I'm assuming he was wearing a white undershirt that day, which also must
have been soaked in blood, but I've never seen a photo of it (unlike the
shirt).

He probably wasn't wearing an undershirt. He wore an elaborate back brace
that surrounded his torso. Dr. John Lattimer wrote in his book "Kennedy
and Lincoln" that Kennedy had "bound himself firmly in a rather wide
corset, with metal stays and a stiff plastic pad over the sacral area
[between the two hipbones of the pelvis], which was tightly laced to his
body. The corset was then bound even more firmly to his torso and hips by
a six-inch-wide knitted plastic bandage, which he had wrapped in a figure
eight between his legs and around his waist…"

Dr. Marion T. "Pepper" Jenkins, one of the Parkland doctors, said the
president "must have had really severe back pain judging by the size of
the back brace we cut off."

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-14 22:04:35 UTC

Post by slats
I'm assuming he was wearing a white undershirt that day, which also must
have been soaked in blood, but I've never seen a photo of it (unlike the
shirt).

Yes, but why was the back brace not bloodstained?

Post by yeuhd
Dr. Marion T. "Pepper" Jenkins, one of the Parkland doctors, said the
president "must have had really severe back pain judging by the size of
the back brace we cut off."

yeuhd

2009-02-15 05:01:24 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, but why was the back brace not bloodstained?

From descriptions we have of the back brace as worn by Kennedy, it
appears it was wrapped no higher than the waist. It was designed to
support Kennedy's degenerated sacrum, which is in the pelvis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrum

Note that the bloodstains on Kennedy's shirt are most widespread on
the yoke, trailing off and ending at the waist:

Loading Image...

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-16 01:48:20 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, but why was the back brace not bloodstained?

From descriptions we have of the back brace as worn by Kennedy, it
appears it was wrapped no higher than the waist. It was designed to

It was not wrapped. It was buckled, like a corset. And you can see how
high it goes in the book Power and Grace.

Post by yeuhd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrum
Note that the bloodstains on Kennedy's shirt are most widespread on
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Shirt.jpg

yeuhd

2009-02-16 04:49:55 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, but why was the back brace not bloodstained?

From descriptions we have of the back brace as worn by Kennedy, it
appears it was wrapped no higher than the waist. It was designed to

It was not wrapped. It was buckled, like a corset.

Oh my, more hair splitting. Here's a photo of the bandages and the brace.
Maybe you're claiming the brace was worn without the bandages? I'm
guessing the bandages were indeed wrapped around Kennedy:

Loading Image...

Dr. Paul Peters referred to his removing "an elastic bandage WRAPPED
around his pelvis." Dr. John Lattimer, who studied the brace issue,
writes, "The corset was then bound even more firmly to his torso and hips
by a six-inch-wide knitted elastic bandage, which he had WRAPPED in a
figure eight between his legs and AROUND HIS WAIST, over large thick
pads…"

Post by Anthony Marsh
And you can see how
high it goes in the book Power and Grace.

That book has a photo of Kennedy wearing the brace?

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-17 02:50:44 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
Yes, but why was the back brace not bloodstained?

From descriptions we have of the back brace as worn by Kennedy, it
appears it was wrapped no higher than the waist. It was designed to

It was not wrapped. It was buckled, like a corset.

Oh my, more hair splitting. Here's a photo of the bandages and the brace.
Maybe you're claiming the brace was worn without the bandages? I'm

Well, if you had said the bandages were wrapped I would have had nothing
to complain about. But you didn't. You said the back brace was wrapped.
BTW, I have never seen any discussion about the condition of the Ace
bandages and what happened to them.

Post by yeuhd
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/brace.jpg
Dr. Paul Peters referred to his removing "an elastic bandage WRAPPED
around his pelvis." Dr. John Lattimer, who studied the brace issue,
writes, "The corset was then bound even more firmly to his torso and hips
by a six-inch-wide knitted elastic bandage, which he had WRAPPED in a
figure eight between his legs and AROUND HIS WAIST, over large thick
pads…"

Post by Anthony Marsh
And you can see how
high it goes in the book Power and Grace.

That book has a photo of Kennedy wearing the brace?

Yes, I think that is what I just said. I don't expect that you have any
way to look it up online, so that is why I suggested the book. Grace and
Power.

I uploaded it a long time ago to alt.binaries.pictures when we used to be
able to link images inline here.

slats

2009-03-04 05:37:35 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
And you can see how
high it goes in the book Power and Grace.

That book has a photo of Kennedy wearing the brace?

I managed to scrounge up a so-so copy of the photo.

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-14 21:58:28 UTC

Post by yeuhd
Though the FBI didn't note the make of Kennedy's gray suit, it was
well known that he bought his suits at Brooks Brothers, the oldest
haberdashers in America dating back to 1818, and in 1963 a more
exclusive store than today. His black belt, size 34, was made by
Farnsworth-Reed. The blue-and-white striped shirt he wore was custom
made by Charles Dillon shirtmakers at 444 Park Avenue, New York. His
white shorts were made for Brooks Brothers by D.& G. Anderson,
Scotland. His size 10 1/2 shoes were black moccasin, no make given. He
had a white linen handkerchief, and a tortoiseshell comb by Kent of
London. (HSCA Record 180-10087-10096, Report of FBI agent Robert L.
Bouck, November 23, 1963) He was wearing a gold Cartier wristwatch
with a black leather band (HSCA Record 180-10087-10095, December 2,
1963). His blue silk tie was labeled "Monsieur" Christian Dior.

I'm assuming he was wearing a white undershirt that day, which also must
have been soaked in blood, but I've never seen a photo of it (unlike the
shirt).

No undershirt.
Why wasn't his back brace soaked in blood?

slats

2009-02-15 03:01:12 UTC

a997-

Post by yeuhd
Though the FBI didn't note the make of Kennedy's gray suit, it was
well known that he bought his suits at Brooks Brothers, the oldest
haberdashers in America dating back to 1818, and in 1963 a more
exclusive store than today. His black belt, size 34, was made by
Farnsworth-Reed. The blue-and-white striped shirt he wore was custom
made by Charles Dillon shirtmakers at 444 Park Avenue, New York. His
white shorts were made for Brooks Brothers by D.& G. Anderson,
Scotland. His size 10 1/2 shoes were black moccasin, no make given. He
had a white linen handkerchief, and a tortoiseshell comb by Kent of
London. (HSCA Record 180-10087-10096, Report of FBI agent Robert L.
Bouck, November 23, 1963) He was wearing a gold Cartier wristwatch
with a black leather band (HSCA Record 180-10087-10095, December 2,
1963). His blue silk tie was labeled "Monsieur" Christian Dior.

I'm assuming he was wearing a white undershirt that day, which also must
have been soaked in blood, but I've never seen a photo of it (unlike the
shirt).

No undershirt.
Why wasn't his back brace soaked in blood?

Beats me. Why wasn't Jackie's skirt soaked in blood if she was cradling
her husband's head in her lap, as she claims? Instead, it bears a few
bloody streaks at best. Maybe JFK's suit and dress shirt soaked up most of
the blood, and maybe her white gloves, dress, and car floor soaked up the
rest. Better question: why is any of this important? All sides concede
that he was wearing a back brace that day, and I can see no reason why the
WC would submit a phony, pristine brace for scrutiny instead of the real
thing. They showed us the gruesomely bloody shirt and blood-stained
tie/suit, so why would a bloody brace be any different/worse?

t***@hotmail.com

2009-02-15 05:02:15 UTC

Post by slats
a997-

Post by yeuhd
had a white linen handkerchief, and a tortoiseshell comb by Kent of
London. (HSCA Record 180-10087-10096, Report of FBI agent Robert L.
Bouck, November 23, 1963) He was wearing a gold Cartier wristwatch
with a black leather band (HSCA Record 180-10087-10095, December 2,
1963). His blue silk tie was labeled "Monsieur" Christian Dior.

I'm assuming he was wearing a white undershirt that day, which also must
have been soaked in blood, but I've never seen a photo of it (unlike the
shirt).

No undershirt.
Why wasn't his back brace soaked in blood?

Maybe because there was bullet where there shouldn't be?

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-16 04:27:24 UTC

Post by slats
a997-

I'm assuming he was wearing a white undershirt that day, which also must
have been soaked in blood, but I've never seen a photo of it (unlike the
shirt).

No undershirt.
Why wasn't his back brace soaked in blood?

Beats me. Why wasn't Jackie's skirt soaked in blood if she was cradling
her husband's head in her lap, as she claims? Instead, it bears a few

Sure. Why WAS Jackie's skirt soaked in blood as everyone around her
noticed and commented on?

Post by slats
bloody streaks at best. Maybe JFK's suit and dress shirt soaked up most of
the blood, and maybe her white gloves, dress, and car floor soaked up the
rest. Better question: why is any of this important? All sides concede

Is this anything like your Magic Bullet or Magic Twig explanation for
evidence you can't explain?

Post by slats
that he was wearing a back brace that day, and I can see no reason why the
WC would submit a phony, pristine brace for scrutiny instead of the real
thing. They showed us the gruesomely bloody shirt and blood-stained
tie/suit, so why would a bloody brace be any different/worse?

Jeez, I don't remember anyone proposing a phony back brace. Was that one
of Lifton's claims? You got a page number for that? And you bring up my
point, why would the brace be any different? Why would it not also be
blood-stained?

slats

2009-02-16 15:58:34 UTC

Post by slats
Beats me. Why wasn't Jackie's skirt soaked in blood if she was
cradling her husband's head in her lap, as she claims? Instead, it
bears a few

Sure. Why WAS Jackie's skirt soaked in blood as everyone around her
noticed and commented on?

Baloney. Produce a photo showing the skirt "soaked in blood." I think
you'll find it just as I described. If anything, her nylons were
bloodier than the skirt.

Post by slats
that he was wearing a back brace that day, and I can see no reason
why the WC would submit a phony, pristine brace for scrutiny instead
of the real thing. They showed us the gruesomely bloody shirt and
blood-stained tie/suit, so why would a bloody brace be any
different/worse?

Jeez, I don't remember anyone proposing a phony back brace. Was that
one of Lifton's claims? You got a page number for that? And you bring
up my point, why would the brace be any different? Why would it not
also be blood-stained?

Well, what's YOUR theory, Tony? Yeuhd and I have offered competing
theories, so what's YOUR best guess? After all, YOU'RE the one obsessed
with the blood-free brace, not us.

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-17 02:42:46 UTC

Post by slats
Beats me. Why wasn't Jackie's skirt soaked in blood if she was
cradling her husband's head in her lap, as she claims? Instead, it
bears a few

Sure. Why WAS Jackie's skirt soaked in blood as everyone around her
noticed and commented on?

Baloney. Produce a photo showing the skirt "soaked in blood." I think
you'll find it just as I described. If anything, her nylons were
bloodier than the skirt.

Loading Image...

&imgrefurl=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026802/posts&usg=__vsaygUWMEjd0t2oaWav6KsdoK3s=&h=340&w=250&sz=17&hl=en&start=35&um=1&tbnid=wlePZfoH2A5uOM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=88&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djackie%2Bkennedy%2Bsuit%2Bblood%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN

Post by slats
that he was wearing a back brace that day, and I can see no reason
why the WC would submit a phony, pristine brace for scrutiny instead
of the real thing. They showed us the gruesomely bloody shirt and
blood-stained tie/suit, so why would a bloody brace be any
different/worse?

Jeez, I don't remember anyone proposing a phony back brace. Was that
one of Lifton's claims? You got a page number for that? And you bring
up my point, why would the brace be any different? Why would it not
also be blood-stained?

Well, what's YOUR theory, Tony? Yeuhd and I have offered competing
theories, so what's YOUR best guess? After all, YOU'RE the one obsessed
with the blood-free brace, not us.

I don't have a theory. That's why I asked the question.

RichardT

2009-02-16 16:04:23 UTC

I just bought a couple of GB Kent tortoiseshell combs of the kind
Kennedy had in his pocket in Dallas for £4 each:
http://www.kentbrushes.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=31&cat=Handmade+Combs&page=2

A brilliant hand-made bit of kit and very evocative. And considering
that one of JFK's combs sold for $1100 at auction, I'd say they're a
bargain. If you're looking for an affordable and very cool connection
to the day in Dallas I'd recommend one. (Very smooth on the hair
too).

Alternatively, if you can't afford the suits, you might go for the
Brooks Brothers shorts:

http://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Merchant_Id=1&Section_Id=299&Product_Id=1390034&Parent_Id=226&default_color=White

I believe the shirt maker is no longer in business. Shame.

t***@hotmail.com

2009-02-14 16:11:55 UTC

Kennedy's shirts were always tailored. Which kind of disproves Lone
Nutters stance that we can discount the bullet hole in Kennedy's shirt
(which of course is way too low for the Magic Bullet theory to work)
because it was "riding up."

yeuhd

2009-02-14 20:05:57 UTC

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Kennedy's shirts were always tailored. Which kind of disproves Lone
Nutters stance that we can discount the bullet hole in Kennedy's shirt
(which of course is way too low for the Magic Bullet theory to work)
because it was "riding up."

Whether a shirt was tailored has nothing to do with whether it was
riding up at a particular time. It depends on the cut of the shirt. A
store-bought shirt can fit snugly, a tailored shirt can be
intentionally roomy.

t***@hotmail.com

2009-02-15 05:01:52 UTC

In photos of Kennedy taken the day he dies, there is no roominess in his
shirt going on - it looks like a well fit, snug business shirt. Business
shirts can be roomy, but they should never ride up. It is impossible in
actual fact. Jackets are different in the sense that they do not "do up"
at the front. The business shirt bullet proves that Kennedy was shot at
from a vantage point much lower that the 6th floor, probably from the
Dal-Tex.

yeuhd

2009-02-15 15:34:44 UTC

Post by t***@hotmail.com
In photos of Kennedy taken the day he dies, there is no roominess in his
shirt going on - it looks like a well fit, snug business shirt.

Do you have a photo of Kennedy in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22? Or even
one with his jacket unbuttoned? No? Just thought I'd ask.

t***@hotmail.com

2009-02-16 16:03:25 UTC

Post by t***@hotmail.com
In photos of Kennedy taken the day he dies, there is no roominess in his
shirt going on - it looks like a well fit, snug business shirt.

Do you have a photo of Kennedy in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22? Or even
one with his jacket unbuttoned? No? Just thought I'd ask.

yeuhd

2009-02-17 03:16:36 UTC

Post by t***@hotmail.com
In photos of Kennedy taken the day he dies, there is no roominess in his
shirt going on - it looks like a well fit, snug business shirt.

Do you have a photo of Kennedy in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22? Or even
one with his jacket unbuttoned? No? Just thought I'd ask.

Yes I suppose it is fair to presume that Kennedy wore his business
shirts completely different to evryone else on the planet

Here is a photo of the shirt JFK wore in his inauguration day:

Loading Image...

Short of taking a tape measure to the item itself, I can tell you just
by looking that that is a full cut of shirt for Kennedy to wear.

But I am not an expert on how everyone on the planet wore their
business shirts.

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-18 04:13:43 UTC

Post by t***@hotmail.com
In photos of Kennedy taken the day he dies, there is no roominess in his
shirt going on - it looks like a well fit, snug business shirt.

Do you have a photo of Kennedy in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22? Or even
one with his jacket unbuttoned? No? Just thought I'd ask.

Yes I suppose it is fair to presume that Kennedy wore his business
shirts completely different to evryone else on the planet

http://manolomen.com/images/jfk-inauguration-shirt.jpg
Short of taking a tape measure to the item itself, I can tell you just
by looking that that is a full cut of shirt for Kennedy to wear.
But I am not an expert on how everyone on the planet wore their
business shirts.

This whole shirt topic is stupid.

claviger

2009-02-17 03:34:51 UTC

Post by t***@hotmail.com
In photos of Kennedy taken the day he dies, there is no roominess in his
shirt going on - it looks like a well fit, snug business shirt.

Do you have a photo of Kennedy in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22? Or even
one with his jacket unbuttoned? No? Just thought I'd ask.

It is your error because there is photographic evidence of a significant
fold in JFK's coat as he sat in the back seat, enhanced by the fact he had
his right arm on top of the lowered window. Because of his unusual back
brace we don't know exactly how his custom made shirts fit. They obviously
needed to be larger to accommodate the bulky back brace.

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-18 04:09:16 UTC

Post by claviger

Post by t***@hotmail.com
In photos of Kennedy taken the day he dies, there is no roominess in his
shirt going on - it looks like a well fit, snug business shirt.

Do you have a photo of Kennedy in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22? Or even
one with his jacket unbuttoned? No? Just thought I'd ask.

I don't think it was touching the window. It was over the side of the car.
Yes, at various times his coat bunched up. Sometimes a lot, sometimes not
at all. You need to specify exactly when he was hit and then determine the
condition of his coat at that specific frame.

yeuhd

2009-02-17 03:50:13 UTC

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Yes I suppose it is fair to presume that Kennedy wore his business
shirts completely different to evryone else on the planet, and that he
would be happy for them to have copious amounts of loose material
hunched up in the back. Sorry, my error.

Yes indeed, your error. I just polled some American men who were
wearing business shirts in the early 1960s. I asked if the shirts were
worn full or trim.

1. "Usually full as that was the traditional standard."
2. "Trim cut shirts came long after the 60s."
3. "full cut white shirts were de rigueur"
4. "Trim cut were very 'mod' and didn't catch on in men's business
dress until years later. The standard men's business shirt of the era
was cut more like a pillowcase with sleeves."

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-18 04:01:54 UTC

Yes indeed, your error. I just polled some American men who were
wearing business shirts in the early 1960s. I asked if the shirts were
worn full or trim.
1. "Usually full as that was the traditional standard."
2. "Trim cut shirts came long after the 60s."
3. "full cut white shirts were de rigueur"
4. "Trim cut were very 'mod' and didn't catch on in men's business
dress until years later. The standard men's business shirt of the era
was cut more like a pillowcase with sleeves."

This is getting too silly. Stop guessing and deal with the facts.

Cliff

2009-02-18 05:00:16 UTC

Yes indeed, your error. I just polled some American men who were
wearing business shirts in the early 1960s. I asked if the shirts were
worn full or trim.
1. "Usually full as that was the traditional standard."
2. "Trim cut shirts came long after the 60s."
3. "full cut white shirts were de rigueur"
4. "Trim cut were very 'mod' and didn't catch on in men's business
dress until years later. The standard men's business shirt of the era
was cut more like a pillowcase with sleeves."

JFK wore suits with an Updated American silhouette -- which meant that
the waist was "suppressed" in the manner of a European style suit.

Because the shirt fit closer to the torso, the shirt had less slack.

The back brace had no impact on the FIT of the shirt.

yeuhd

2009-02-18 13:54:09 UTC

Post by Cliff
Because the shirt fit closer to the torso, the shirt had less slack.
The back brace had no impact on the FIT of the shirt.

Do you have a photo of JFK in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22, 1963?

Cliff

2009-02-20 02:17:06 UTC

Post by Cliff
Because the shirt fit closer to the torso, the shirt had less slack.
The back brace had no impact on the FIT of the shirt.

Do you have a photo of JFK in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22, 1963?

Even better, I have a series of photos taken within 2 minutes
of the shooting which show the jacket DROPPED immediately
before he was hit.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

yeuhd

2009-02-20 04:04:24 UTC

Post by Cliff

Post by Cliff
Because the shirt fit closer to the torso, the shirt had less slack.
The back brace had no impact on the FIT of the shirt.

Do you have a photo of JFK in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22, 1963?

Even better, I have a series of photos taken within 2 minutes
of the shooting which show the jacket DROPPED immediately
before he was hit.
http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Odd, I look at the same photos, and I see the yoke of JFK's jacket bunched
up in the photos you label "Image 11: Elm St. at Z161" and "Image 12: Elm
St. at Z186". You seem to think the visibility of his shirt collar is
proof that the jacket isn't bunched up. Why? The jacket is bunched up not
at the collar, but a few inches south of it in the yoke. The bunching is
obvious in your image 8 at the corner of Houston and Elm (a shadow from
Jackie's hair even falls on the bunching), and in Robert Croft's photo
(your image 11), taken 1.6 to 3.4 seconds before JFK was hit in the upper
back.

Notice that your "shirt collar invisible" photos are generally taken from
behind or at quarter face (between profile and behind), while your "shirt
collar visible" photos are generally taken from profile or three-quarter
face (between front and profile).

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-21 04:34:56 UTC

Post by Cliff
Because the shirt fit closer to the torso, the shirt had less slack.
The back brace had no impact on the FIT of the shirt.

Do you have a photo of JFK in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22, 1963?

Even better, I have a series of photos taken within 2 minutes
of the shooting which show the jacket DROPPED immediately
before he was hit.
http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

You are talking about the Croft photo? So your theory is that Kennedy
was hit at Z-161?

Post by yeuhd
Notice that your "shirt collar invisible" photos are generally taken from
behind or at quarter face (between profile and behind), while your "shirt
collar visible" photos are generally taken from profile or three-quarter
face (between front and profile).

yeuhd

2009-02-21 05:03:30 UTC

Post by yeuhd
Odd, I look at the same photos, and I see the yoke of JFK's jacket bunched
up in the photos you label "Image 11: Elm St. at Z161" and "Image 12: Elm
St. at Z186". You seem to think the visibility of his shirt collar is
proof that the jacket isn't bunched up. Why? The jacket is bunched up not
at the collar, but a few inches south of it in the yoke. The bunching is
obvious in your image 8 at the corner of Houston and Elm (a shadow from
Jackie's hair even falls on the bunching), and in Robert Croft's photo
(your image 11), taken 1.6 to 3.4 seconds before JFK was hit in the upper
back.

You are talking about the Croft photo? So your theory is that Kennedy
was hit at Z-161?

The Croft photo was taken at Z-161. What part of "taken 1.6 to 3.4
seconds before JFK was hit" do you not understand?
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0025b.htm

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-22 02:55:57 UTC

You are talking about the Croft photo? So your theory is that Kennedy
was hit at Z-161?

The 3.4 seconds bit. If you mean 3.4 seconds after Z-161 then that is
Z-223. But you can't see what JFK's jacket and shirt were doing at Z-223.
Again, for the millionth time, the critical information is not the
position of JFK's jacket and shirt at various times during the motorcade
when he was photographed. The ONLY critical information is the position of
his jacket and shirt at the EXACT moment that the bullet hit his back.
Anything else is speculation.

yeuhd

2009-02-22 04:13:11 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
The 3.4 seconds bit. If you mean 3.4 seconds after Z-161 then that is
Z-223. But you can't see what JFK's jacket and shirt were doing at Z-223.
Again, for the millionth time, the critical information is not the
position of JFK's jacket and shirt at various times during the motorcade
when he was photographed. The ONLY critical information is the position of
his jacket and shirt at the EXACT moment that the bullet hit his back.

Obviously, we disagree. Because to me it's not about having to remove
all doubt, and knowing something with absolute certainty. It is about
knowing something with a high degree of probability.

I find it very, very unlikely that in the 1.6 to 3.4 seconds between
the Croft photo at Z-161 and JFK's getting shot in the upper back, he
either moved himself away from the back of the car seat far enough to
allow the bunch in his jacket to fall down by itself by gravity, or
that he took his hands and tugged it down.

And in fact, we can see JFK in the first 2.7 seconds after Z-161, and
there is no point at which he does either movement. His shoulders
remain the same distance from the seat back. If the yoke of his jacket
was bunched up in Z-161, it was still bunched up 2.7 seconds later.
That leaves an agonizing 0.7 second of uncertainty.

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-22 18:13:49 UTC

His jacket often fell down by itself and no one ever saw him need to
grab it with his hands and rug it down.

Post by yeuhd
And in fact, we can see JFK in the first 2.7 seconds after Z-161, and
there is no point at which he does either movement. His shoulders

Again, my point is selection bias. You do not point to the times when
his jacket was not bunched up. You ONLY point to the times when his
jacket was bunched up.

Post by yeuhd
remain the same distance from the seat back. If the yoke of his jacket
was bunched up in Z-161, it was still bunched up 2.7 seconds later.

You have no basis to make such a declaration.

Post by yeuhd
That leaves an agonizing 0.7 second of uncertainty.

Cliff

2009-03-07 21:04:24 UTC

You are talking about the Croft photo? So your theory is that Kennedy
was hit at Z-161?

The Croft photo was taken at Z-161. What part of "taken 1.6 to 3.4
seconds before JFK was hit" do you not understand?
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_...

Factually incorrect.

Clothing moves only when the body moves.

Clothing does not spontaneously leap about the body
on its own power.

In clothing design there are two categories of movement regarding
both the clothing and the body of the wearer: "normal" and "gross".

"Normal" movements are casual; "gross" movements are extended.

When JFK turned to his right and began to wave his right arm (circa
Z178) this posture caused his jacket to slide down a fraction of an
inch. Both the movement of JFK and the movement of his jacket
are regarded as "normal."

Between Z178 and Z223, all JFK did was bring his hand to his throat,
a normal movement that could not possibly cause 3" of his jacket
and 3" of his shirt to hike up his back.

Which is why this "Bunch Theory" nonsense has NEVER been
replicated.

It's impossible.

Cliff

2009-03-07 21:04:06 UTC

Post by Cliff
Because the shirt fit closer to the torso, the shirt had less slack.
The back brace had no impact on the FIT of the shirt.

Do you have a photo of JFK in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22, 1963?

Even better, I have a series of photos taken within 2 minutes
of the shooting which show the jacket DROPPED immediately
before he was hit.
http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Odd, I look at the same photos, and I see the yoke of JFK's jacket bunched
up in the photos you label "Image 11: Elm St. at Z161" and "Image 12: Elm
St. at Z186".

Of course the jacket was bunched up!

The bullet defect in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet defect in the coat is 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the
collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8".

The SBT requires about 3" of both the jacket and shirt to have
bunched up in near tandem.

This was impossible given the drop of the jacket collar.

Post by yeuhd
You seem to think the visibility of his shirt collar is
proof that the jacket isn't bunched up. Why?

The visibility of the shirt collar is proof that the jacket wasn't
bunched up the THREE INCHES required by the SBT.

How does 3" of jacket and 3" of shirt fabric "bunch up" entirely
above the "neck in-shoot" posited by the SBT without pushing
up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck?

Chad Zimmerman's x-ray experiments showed that any significant
elevation of the shirt and jacket will push the jacket collar up into
the hairline.

A fraction of an inch of "bunch up" does not meet the requirements
of the Lone Gunman scenario.

Post by yeuhd
The jacket is bunched up not
at the collar, but a few inches south of it in the yoke.

This is the non sequitur you're pushing:

1) The SBT requires about 3" of both JFK's jacket and shirt
to have been upwardly displaced.

2) The motorcade photos show folds in the jacket.

3) Therefore, almost 3" of both JFK's shirt and jacket were
upwardly displaced as per the SBT.

A fraction of an inch clothing fold is "insignificant" in the context
of the Single Bullet Theory.

Post by yeuhd
The bunching is
obvious in your image 8 at the corner of Houston and Elm (a shadow from
Jackie's hair even falls on the bunching), and in Robert Croft's photo
(your image 11), taken 1.6 to 3.4 seconds before JFK was hit in the upper
back.

The bunching was the result of the jacket collar falling and the back
of the jacket remained elevated a fraction of an inch.

There were 3 points in Dealey Plaza where JFK's actions caused his
jacket to drop.

1) In the Weaver photo (image 3) JFK brushed the back of his head
with his right hand, which knocked the jacket down from his hairline,
causing the horizontal/diagonal folds in his jacket along the right
shoulder-line.

2) In the Nix film (image 5) JFK leaned forward to speak with Nellie
Connally. When he leaned back (image 6) and the jacket collar
dropped to a normal position at the base of his neck, a normal
amount of shirt collar showing above the jacket collar.

3) At circa Z178 JFK turned to the right and began to wave his right
arm. This posture change knocked the jacket down a fraction of an
inch more as seen in Betzner (image 12). In the Croft photo the
jacket
bulged out -- but in Betzner the fold was an INDENTATION similar to
the fold seen in image 1.

In both image 1 and 12 JFK's head was turned to the right, and his
right arm was waving.

But in image 1 the jacket rode into the hairline; in image 12 the
jacket
rode in a normal position below the top of the shirt collar.

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Obviously.

Not true.

Image 1 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.

Image 2 -- taken from quarter face -- shirt collar occluded.

Image 3 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.

Image 4 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.

Image 5 -- taken from behind and to the left -- shirt collar occluded.

Image 6 -- taken from behind and to the left a split second after
image 5 -- shirt collar visible.

The frames from the Nix film show the jacket dropping.

Image 7 -- taken from three-quarters face -- shirt collar visible.

Image 8 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.

Image 9 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar visible.

Image 10 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.

Image 11 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.

Image 12 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar visible.

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

The jacket collar couldn't have dropped to its normal position at
the base of JFK's neck if there were 3" of jacket and 3" of shirt
bunched up entirely above the base of the neck.

The SBT thus stands debunked.

Cliff Varnell

Anthony Marsh

2009-03-09 00:44:04 UTC

Post by Cliff
Because the shirt fit closer to the torso, the shirt had less slack.
The back brace had no impact on the FIT of the shirt.

Do you have a photo of JFK in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22, 1963?

Even better, I have a series of photos taken within 2 minutes
of the shooting which show the jacket DROPPED immediately
before he was hit.
http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Odd, I look at the same photos, and I see the yoke of JFK's jacket bunched
up in the photos you label "Image 11: Elm St. at Z161" and "Image 12: Elm
St. at Z186".

I don't see your logic there. The top of the shirt may have naturally
been higher than the top of the jacket at the moment of impact. Or vice
versa.

Post by Cliff
The SBT requires about 3" of both the jacket and shirt to have
bunched up in near tandem.

Which SBT? Doesn't it get even worse for the HSCA's SBT when they had
the wound lower than the WC?

Post by Cliff
This was impossible given the drop of the jacket collar.

Post by yeuhd
You seem to think the visibility of his shirt collar is
proof that the jacket isn't bunched up. Why?

The visibility of the shirt collar is proof that the jacket wasn't
bunched up the THREE INCHES required by the SBT.
How does 3" of jacket and 3" of shirt fabric "bunch up" entirely
above the "neck in-shoot" posited by the SBT without pushing
up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck?
Chad Zimmerman's x-ray experiments showed that any significant
elevation of the shirt and jacket will push the jacket collar up into
the hairline.
A fraction of an inch of "bunch up" does not meet the requirements
of the Lone Gunman scenario.

Post by yeuhd
The jacket is bunched up not
at the collar, but a few inches south of it in the yoke.

1) The SBT requires about 3" of both JFK's jacket and shirt
to have been upwardly displaced.
2) The motorcade photos show folds in the jacket.
3) Therefore, almost 3" of both JFK's shirt and jacket were
upwardly displaced as per the SBT.
A fraction of an inch clothing fold is "insignificant" in the context
of the Single Bullet Theory.

The bunching was the result of the jacket collar falling and the back
of the jacket remained elevated a fraction of an inch.
There were 3 points in Dealey Plaza where JFK's actions caused his
jacket to drop.
1) In the Weaver photo (image 3) JFK brushed the back of his head
with his right hand, which knocked the jacket down from his hairline,
causing the horizontal/diagonal folds in his jacket along the right
shoulder-line.
2) In the Nix film (image 5) JFK leaned forward to speak with Nellie
Connally. When he leaned back (image 6) and the jacket collar
dropped to a normal position at the base of his neck, a normal
amount of shirt collar showing above the jacket collar.
3) At circa Z178 JFK turned to the right and began to wave his right
arm. This posture change knocked the jacket down a fraction of an
inch more as seen in Betzner (image 12). In the Croft photo the
jacket
bulged out -- but in Betzner the fold was an INDENTATION similar to
the fold seen in image 1.
In both image 1 and 12 JFK's head was turned to the right, and his
right arm was waving.
But in image 1 the jacket rode into the hairline; in image 12 the
jacket
rode in a normal position below the top of the shirt collar.
The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Obviously.

Not true.
Image 1 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 2 -- taken from quarter face -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 3 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 4 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 5 -- taken from behind and to the left -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 6 -- taken from behind and to the left a split second after
image 5 -- shirt collar visible.
The frames from the Nix film show the jacket dropping.
Image 7 -- taken from three-quarters face -- shirt collar visible.
Image 8 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.
Image 9 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar visible.
Image 10 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.
Image 11 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.
Image 12 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar visible.
The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.
The jacket collar couldn't have dropped to its normal position at
the base of JFK's neck if there were 3" of jacket and 3" of shirt
bunched up entirely above the base of the neck.
The SBT thus stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell

Ritchie Linton

2009-04-06 05:17:22 UTC

What U should really be doing is trying to comprehend Jackie in her
bloodstained suit saying"I want them to see what they have done"-reference
Greer IMO

Post by Cliff
Because the shirt fit closer to the torso, the shirt had less slack.
The back brace had no impact on the FIT of the shirt.

Do you have a photo of JFK in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22, 1963?

Even better, I have a series of photos taken within 2 minutes
of the shooting which show the jacket DROPPED immediately
before he was hit.
http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Odd, I look at the same photos, and I see the yoke of JFK's jacket bunched
up in the photos you label "Image 11: Elm St. at Z161" and "Image 12: Elm
St. at Z186".

I don't see your logic there. The top of the shirt may have naturally been
higher than the top of the jacket at the moment of impact. Or vice versa.

Post by Cliff
The SBT requires about 3" of both the jacket and shirt to have
bunched up in near tandem.

Which SBT? Doesn't it get even worse for the HSCA's SBT when they had the
wound lower than the WC?

Post by Cliff
This was impossible given the drop of the jacket collar.

Post by yeuhd
You seem to think the visibility of his shirt collar is
proof that the jacket isn't bunched up. Why?

The visibility of the shirt collar is proof that the jacket wasn't
bunched up the THREE INCHES required by the SBT.
How does 3" of jacket and 3" of shirt fabric "bunch up" entirely
above the "neck in-shoot" posited by the SBT without pushing
up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck?
Chad Zimmerman's x-ray experiments showed that any significant
elevation of the shirt and jacket will push the jacket collar up into
the hairline.
A fraction of an inch of "bunch up" does not meet the requirements
of the Lone Gunman scenario.

Post by yeuhd
The jacket is bunched up not
at the collar, but a few inches south of it in the yoke.

The bunching was the result of the jacket collar falling and the back
of the jacket remained elevated a fraction of an inch.
There were 3 points in Dealey Plaza where JFK's actions caused his
jacket to drop.
1) In the Weaver photo (image 3) JFK brushed the back of his head
with his right hand, which knocked the jacket down from his hairline,
causing the horizontal/diagonal folds in his jacket along the right
shoulder-line.
2) In the Nix film (image 5) JFK leaned forward to speak with Nellie
Connally. When he leaned back (image 6) and the jacket collar
dropped to a normal position at the base of his neck, a normal
amount of shirt collar showing above the jacket collar.
3) At circa Z178 JFK turned to the right and began to wave his right
arm. This posture change knocked the jacket down a fraction of an
inch more as seen in Betzner (image 12). In the Croft photo the
jacket
bulged out -- but in Betzner the fold was an INDENTATION similar to
the fold seen in image 1.
In both image 1 and 12 JFK's head was turned to the right, and his
right arm was waving.
But in image 1 the jacket rode into the hairline; in image 12 the
jacket
rode in a normal position below the top of the shirt collar.
The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Obviously.

Not true.
Image 1 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 2 -- taken from quarter face -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 3 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 4 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 5 -- taken from behind and to the left -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 6 -- taken from behind and to the left a split second after
image 5 -- shirt collar visible.
The frames from the Nix film show the jacket dropping.
Image 7 -- taken from three-quarters face -- shirt collar visible.
Image 8 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.
Image 9 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar visible.
Image 10 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.
Image 11 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.
Image 12 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar visible.
The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.
The jacket collar couldn't have dropped to its normal position at
the base of JFK's neck if there were 3" of jacket and 3" of shirt
bunched up entirely above the base of the neck.
The SBT thus stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell

claviger

2009-03-09 21:36:20 UTC

Post by Cliff
Because the shirt fit closer to the torso, the shirt had less slack.
The back brace had no impact on the FIT of the shirt.

Do you have a photo of JFK in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22, 1963?

Even better, I have a series of photos taken within 2 minutes
of the shooting which show the jacket DROPPED immediately
before he was hit.
http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Odd, I look at the same photos, and I see the yoke of JFK's jacket bunched
up in the photos you label "Image 11: Elm St. at Z161" and "Image 12: Elm
St. at Z186".

Of course the jacket was bunched up!
The bullet defect in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.
The bullet defect in the coat is 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the
collar.
The jacket was bunched up 1/8".
The SBT requires about 3" of both the jacket and shirt to have
bunched up in near tandem.
This was impossible given the drop of the jacket collar.

Post by yeuhd
You seem to think the visibility of his shirt collar is
proof that the jacket isn't bunched up. Why?

The visibility of the shirt collar is proof that the jacket wasn't
bunched up the THREE INCHES required by the SBT.
How does 3" of jacket and 3" of shirt fabric "bunch up" entirely
above the "neck in-shoot" posited by the SBT without pushing
up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck?
Chad Zimmerman's x-ray experiments showed that any significant
elevation of the shirt and jacket will push the jacket collar up into
the hairline.
A fraction of an inch of "bunch up" does not meet the requirements
of the Lone Gunman scenario.

Post by yeuhd
The jacket is bunched up not
at the collar, but a few inches south of it in the yoke.

The bunching was the result of the jacket collar falling and the back
of the jacket remained elevated a fraction of an inch.
There were 3 points in Dealey Plaza where JFK's actions caused his
jacket to drop.
1) In the Weaver photo (image 3) JFK brushed the back of his head
with his right hand, which knocked the jacket down from his hairline,
causing the horizontal/diagonal folds in his jacket along the right
shoulder-line.
2) In the Nix film (image 5) JFK leaned forward to speak with Nellie
Connally. When he leaned back (image 6) and the jacket collar
dropped to a normal position at the base of his neck, a normal
amount of shirt collar showing above the jacket collar.
3) At circa Z178 JFK turned to the right and began to wave his right
arm. This posture change knocked the jacket down a fraction of an
inch more as seen in Betzner (image 12). In the Croft photo the
jacket
bulged out -- but in Betzner the fold was an INDENTATION similar to
the fold seen in image 1.
In both image 1 and 12 JFK's head was turned to the right, and his
right arm was waving.
But in image 1 the jacket rode into the hairline; in image 12 the
jacket
rode in a normal position below the top of the shirt collar.
The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Obviously.

Not true.
Image 1 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 2 -- taken from quarter face -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 3 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 4 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 5 -- taken from behind and to the left -- shirt collar occluded.
Image 6 -- taken from behind and to the left a split second after
image 5 -- shirt collar visible.
The frames from the Nix film show the jacket dropping.
Image 7 -- taken from three-quarters face -- shirt collar visible.
Image 8 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.
Image 9 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar visible.
Image 10 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.
Image 11 -- taken at profile -- shirt collar visible.
Image 12 -- taken from behind -- shirt collar visible.
The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.
The jacket collar couldn't have dropped to its normal position at
the base of JFK's neck if there were 3" of jacket and 3" of shirt
bunched up entirely above the base of the neck.
The SBT thus stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell

Cliff,

The Jedi Mind Trick only works in the movies, not on a real life
message board. The photographic evidence is not in your favor. You
also forget about the curvature of the back along with the bunching of
the jacket.

yeuhd

2009-02-20 23:00:20 UTC

Post by Cliff
Even better, I have a series of photos taken within 2 minutes
of the shooting which show the jacket DROPPED immediately
before he was hit.
http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Furthermore, doesn't your caption to your image 13 — that Kennedy's
shirt collar remained visible even when there were small bunches in
the yoke of the jacket — tend to disprove your theory that visible
shirt collar = jacket not bunched?

Cliff

2009-03-07 21:04:51 UTC

Post by Cliff
Even better, I have a series of photos taken within 2 minutes
of the shooting which show the jacket DROPPED immediately
before he was hit.
http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Visible shirt collar = jacket not bunched more than a fraction of an
inch.

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-19 03:38:03 UTC

Post by t***@hotmail.com
In photos of Kennedy taken the day he dies, there is no roominess in

his

Post by t***@hotmail.com
shirt going on - it looks like a well fit, snug business shirt.

Do you have a photo of Kennedy in his shirtsleeves on Nov. 22? Or even
one with his jacket unbuttoned? No? Just thought I'd ask.

Yes I suppose it is fair to presume that Kennedy wore his business
shirts completely different to evryone else on the planet, and that he
would be happy for them to have copious amounts of loose material
hunched up in the back. Sorry, my error.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a link showing material hunched up over the back of JFK's
http://www.jacqueslowe.com/gallery.php?id=jfk&num=10
Also some attached files below. These photos were taken
by Jacques Lowe during JFK's 1960 campaign.
Jean

Selection bias. No one ever said that JFK's shirts never bunched up.
The argument is about the conditions on 11.22.63 and specifically when
he was hit.
And the WC lie is that the jacket and shirt were bunched up because the
actual wound was higher than where we know it was.

Anthony Marsh

2009-02-14 20:11:57 UTC