[Tares]

In this last paragraph the author admits that he is reasoning backwards. -- "because the holes align", he MUST establish that both jacket & shirt were equally 'bunched', -- an impossible task.
-- Thus, he sees what he wants to see in a group of blurry photos, none of which were taken at the proper time.

If the jacket wasn't bunched, the shirt also couldn't be bunched for the holes to align. If the jacket was bunched, the shirt also had to be bunched for the holes to align. That much I think you, I, and the author agree upon.

If you think the jacket wasn't bunched, why don't you link to a photo of JFK sitting in the limo that clearly shows the jacket was not bunched. I've linked to multiple photos, that despite your protestations, establish that bunching at the time of the shooting is very plausible. One or two links by you will suffice to establish the plausibility of your assertion that the jacket wasn't bunched at the time JFK was shot in the back. Then I can complain that the photos are blurry and weren't taken at the right time.

[tpaine]

If you think the jacket wasn't bunched, why don't you link to a photo of JFK sitting in the limo that clearly shows the jacket was not bunched.

I don't need to try to find such a photo. A rational view of the clothing evidence leads to the conclusion it was not 'bunched' at the moment of the shot.

I've linked to multiple photos, that despite your protestations, establish that bunching at the time of the shooting is very plausible.

No, thats simply not true. A tucked in shirt w/tie & jacket moving together 'bunched', is implausible, -- as your author admits, and as anyone who wears them often can testify.

One or two links by you will suffice to establish the plausibility of your assertion that the jacket wasn't bunched at the time JFK was shot in the back. Then I can complain that the photos are blurry and weren't taken at the right time.

Complain as you like.
I am not liable to 'establish' plausible proofs for the Reports SBT. -- You are.