Cliff Varnell Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Lamson's claims demolished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 How's that duct tape working out for you, Craig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Lamson's claims demolished. You sure you wanna go with these cliffy? I'll give you a chance to change your mind. If not, well..... You don't have much of anything left to lose. This was yet another very bad day for you cliff. I'll get to your latest overselling soon.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) How's that duct tape working out for you, Craig? I don't need it but you sure will... Your latest are just gonna kill you...thanks. You better get some rest, I'll bet you are quite tired for all that shaking in your boots today. Tomorrow it gets worse for you... Edited July 9, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 How's that duct tape working out for you, Craig? I don't need it but you sure will... Your latest are just gonna kill you...thanks. You better get some rest, I'll bet you are quite tired for all that shaking in your boots today. Tomorrow it gets worse for you... Right. Okay. So you've got 24 hours to come up with some ridiculous rationale rooted in your expert understanding of the most arcane photographic principles. What else is new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Lamson's claims demolished. You sure you wanna go with these cliffy? I'll give you a chance to change your mind. If not, well..... You don't have much of anything left to lose. This was yet another very bad day for you cliff. I'll get to your latest overselling soon.... And the First Indiana Cavalry sounds retreat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Right. Okay. So you've got 24 hours to come up with some ridiculous rationale rooted in your expert understanding of the most arcane photographic principles. What else is new? You are right, its nothing new, just more ammo to work with, more reality, based on long established photographic principles which are beyond your ken...and you getting beat up again. Another day at the office. Ice down those bruises, there are LOT more coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Right. Okay. So you've got 24 hours to come up with some ridiculous rationale rooted in your expert understanding of the most arcane photographic principles. What else is new? You are right, its nothing new, just more ammo to work with, more reality, based on long established photographic principles which are beyond your ken...and you getting beat up again. Another day at the office. Ice down those bruises, there are LOT more coming. If you had anything you'd spill it out right now. You're drowning, Craig. Funny, this isn't as satisfying as it usually is. Even though I think you're a raving Kennedy-hating sarahtard it's kind of unseemly to intellectually batter such an obviously defenseless opponent. Gee Craig, when you meltdown so pathetically it takes the fun out of the fight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Craig, When are you going to show us how you bunch a half-foot of shirt and jacket fabric entirely above C7 without pushing up on the jacket collar at C6/C7? John McAdams, John Hunt, Ken Rahn, Dave Reitzes, and a host of other high back wound types are hanging on to your every word. They want a reason to hope on this issue. How about you take photos of what it looks like having a half foot of fabric bunched up entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar -- just above the base of the neck. Show us, Craig. Your fans are waiting. JFK got shot in the back about 5 3/4" down from his neck on the side just right of his spine. There was a little bunching of his coat, but I bet almost none of his shirt. JFK was a very tightly tailored man and just because his coat bunched up perhaps one inch at times does not mean the he did not get shot almost 6 inches down from his neck. And that back wound most certainly did NOT go through his neck; that is ridiculous. That would did not exit. Isn't it obvious by now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) If you had anything you'd spill it out right now. You're drowning, Craig. Funny, this isn't as satisfying as it usually is. Even though I think you're a raving Kennedy-hating sarahtard it's kind of unseemly to intellectually batter such an obviously defenseless opponent. Gee Craig, when you meltdown so pathetically it takes the fun out of the fight! Oh please cliff, spare us. You have been defeated and it shows. You can't refute the fact that Betzner shows a 3+inch of of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket, which destroys you and your silly claim that the "jacket "dropped" along with your claims of "prima fakie" clothing evidence. All you have left for your pathetic little attempt at a defense is silly 'got ya" games. None can change the fact of the fold in Betzner. While its been fun pulling you strings for the last few days and watching you dance, it only has entertainment value because you STILL can refute the 3+ inch fold of fabric in Betzner. So cliffy has posted yet another string of photos thinking he has something, and he does, just not what he thinks. Sadly for cliff the photos show the same fold in the same place as Jefferies, Weaver, Towner, Croft and finally Betzner. Of course cliff will try and spin htis his direction, and so be it, The photos show what they show and despite cliffs best efforts he is still gong to come up short...again. And that brings us full circle. Betzner shows what it shows. The cause of what it shows can only be one thing as proven by experimental, empirical evidence. cliffs faulty attempt to rebut offers nothing but a hand wave, BECAUSE he can;t offer anything else. Why, because his claim is a physical impossibility as proven by the unbending properties of light and shadow. Things cliff knows NOTHING about. So were are left right back where we started, but will cliff losing even more of his tenuois argument. What did he lose? Houston Street. His silly claim about the fold and the collar being in the same place at the same time. His silly claim about the fold not being possible without pushing up the jacket collar (not that this stupid claim was anything but a dodge on his part anyways) All in all cliff has had a very bad last few days. He has totally melted down, which is WHY this in not fun for him anymore. He has run out of rational arguments. So he is back to square one. Trying to refute the unimpeachable..... That there is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back as seen in Betzner and proven by the unbending properties of light and shadows ( its been fun watching you squirm for the last few days cliff, but I think I'll party for the rest of the weekend and I'm booked all next week. Have hte last word...even though it won't help. I'll get back to your when time permits.) Edited July 9, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 LAMSON ROUTED If you had anything you'd spill it out right now. You're drowning, Craig. Funny, this isn't as satisfying as it usually is. Even though I think you're a raving Kennedy-hating sarahtard it's kind of unseemly to intellectually batter such an obviously defenseless opponent. Gee Craig, when you meltdown so pathetically it takes the fun out of the fight! Oh please cliff, spare us. You have been defeated and it shows. You can't refute the fact that Betzner shows a 3+inch of of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket, which destroys you and your silly claim that the "jacket "dropped" along with your claims of "prima fakie" clothing evidence. All you have left for your pathetic little attempt at a defense is silly 'got ya" games. None can change the fact of the fold in Betzner. While its been fun pulling you strings for the last few days and watching you dance, it only has entertainment value because you STILL can refute the 3+ inch fold of fabric in Betzner. So cliffy has posted yet another string of photos thinking he has something, and he does, just not what he thinks. Sadly for cliff the photos show the same fold in the same place as Jefferies, Weaver, Towner, Croft and finally Betzner. Of course cliff will try and spin htis his direction, and so be it, The photos show what they show and despite cliffs best efforts he is still gong to come up short...again. And that brings us full circle. Betzner shows what it shows. The cause of what it shows can only be one thing as proven by experimental, empirical evidence. cliffs faulty attempt to rebut offers nothing but a hand wave, BECAUSE he can;t offer anything else. Why, because his claim is a physical impossibility as proven by the unbending properties of light and shadow. Things cliff knows NOTHING about. So were are left right back where we started, but will cliff losing even more of his tenuois argument. What did he lose? Houston Street. His silly claim about the fold and the collar being in the same place at the same time. His silly claim about the fold not being possible without pushing up the jacket collar (not that this stupid claim was anything but a dodge on his part anyways) All in all cliff has had a very bad last few days. He has totally melted down, which is WHY this in not fun for him anymore. He has run out of rational arguments. So he is back to square one. Trying to refute the unimpeachable..... That there is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back as seen in Betzner and proven by the unbending properties of light and shadows ( its been fun watching you squirm for the last few days cliff, but I think I'll party for the rest of the weekend and I'm booked all next week. Have hte last word...even though it won't help. I'll get back to your when time permits.) 'Bye Craig! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kroger Posted July 17, 2011 Author Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) My hat is off to most of those who’ve posted here – certainly those who realize, along with Vincent Salandria, that there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. For my part, I’m amazed that given the comments of men such as Sam Giancona, Jimmy Hoffa, and the Florida right-wing millionaire James Milteer, that “they’re really gonna kill him,” that this point is even being debated, here or anywhere else. Conspiracy theory? Horse pucky. It is conspiracy FACT. But even the testimony of fourteen eyewitnesses won’t dissuade certain Warren Commission apologists. These eyewitnesses all saw a massive exit wound in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which falsifies the WCR, and discredits the subsequent, Johnny-come-lately, revisionist “forensic evidence” that purports to vindicate it. The reason is obvious. What part of coup d’état don’t (or won't) the WCR apologists understand? When you control the evidence, and access to it, you can “prove” anything even the absurd SBT. Manufacturing such “evidence” is easy, given modern technology. Almost as easy as producing a faked birth certificate. I’ve already listed the fourteen eyewitness’s names, for the benefit of such hapless retards as S V Anderson. He denies that I ever produced any such list. It is here, in my earlier postings. I repeat it here, as I have earlier, for his edification. They are: McClelland, Crenshaw, Jones, Carrico, Dulany, Peters, Salyer, Bell, Ward, Rike, O’Connor, Riebe, Custer, and O’Neill. But he won’t address this, owing to his pervasive intellectual dishonesty. Oh, and that's just because they "made a mistake," by the way. You are free to calculate the odds against fourteen independent parties each making the same "mistake," but I'll leave the number crunching to the professional deniers, who'll deny it regardless. And they come here, and elsewhere, and have the chutzpah to speak of "evidence." What balls. Par for the course, I say. Edited July 18, 2011 by Thomas Kroger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) S.V. Anderson who posts over at Amazon? The one with all the fake lone nutter profiles scattered across the internet? He is not a source of credible information on the JFK assassintion; he does not care about the truth. He obviously has *mental problems,* ergo his nasty internet personna. Probably a guy very insecure about his low station in life; from his posts it seems like his dad was educated and made a big deal of that, putting a lot of pressure on little "S.V. Anderson" (which is of course a fake profile) who feels like he never did measure up to dad's expectations by a long shot. Too busy watch re-runs of "Leave it to Beaver" for years and years as he wonders what became of his life. If only he could measure up to educated daddy's expectations! That is why all his fake profiles pretend to be someone - an "historian" " a "doctor" a "lawyer" a "physicist", even a "chicken man"! - all with a bevy of fake educational credentials, fake degrees, fake professions. A blinking strobe light spitting out his insecurities. Oops, time for another nasty, lying internet post for S.V. Anderson as the urge consumes him like perverts with sexual addictions heading for the the seedy side of town. That is my take on this joker "S.V. Anderson" anyhow. Edited July 17, 2011 by Robert Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Edited November 30, 2011 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now