Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Thomas Kroger

Dealing with deniers

Recommended Posts

The jacket collar NEVER dropped, It was ALWAYs down, from Jefferies to Towner and finally to Croft.

The Weaver photo, taken on the corner of Houston and Main St. 30 seconds after the Jefferies film. The top of JFK's shirt collar may possibly be visible, but otherwise the shirt collar is occluded by the jacket collar even though there are two visible indentations on the right side of the jacket.

Lets try and translate this garbage from cliff, tough as it may be.

The top of JFK's shirt collar is viable above the jacket collar. But other wise its is occluded? DUH! That's how a jacket collar WORKS. And that how thejacket collar STAYED from Jefferies to Towner and on to Croft. The jacket never "fell"

cliff is gasping for air...

weaver.jpg

Craig Lamson claims that this photo shows the right side of JFK's jacket riding up close to his ear.

Oh please cliff, how about a direct quote.

I'll let the reader divine the credibility of Lamson's claims.

I'll let the reader decide if cliff is being honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two more examples of JFK's jacket indenting when JFK raised his right arm.

tkoapmainst.jpg

jfkpose.jpg

And yet cliff tells us us the jacket FOLDED as seen in Jefferies. cliff does not know what to believe, so he waves his hands wildly.

Meanwhile the jacket stays folded from Jefferies, to Towner, to Croft and finally to Betzner.

cliff is destroyed.

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey look, the jacket is folded just like in Jefferies, Weaver, Towner, Croft and Betzner! Thanks for pointing out yet one more nail in your your silly claims.

BTW its those pesky properties of light and shadow that get you here once again. And you don't even understand why....

tkoapmainst.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellow researchers, gentle readers:

I would like to point out that my conversation with Craig Lamson -- four years running -- has evolved to the point where Craig is arguing that the jacket collar was DOWN and I'm arguing that it was UP (until JFK leaned back from his chat from Nellie, when it fell).

According to a chart on the wall of Chiropractor Chad Zimmerman -- of Beyond the Magic Bullet fame -- the bottom of a man's clothing collar rests at the level of C7, a fraction of an inch or so above the base of the neck.

I've shown photos of JFK wearing a suit to my personal chiropractor and he is adamant that the bottom of the collar was at C7.

For the sake of argument, let's say JFK's clothing collars rested at C6/C7, a fraction of an inch above Craig's C7 SBT in-shoot.

Question for Craig: how could the jacket collar sit in a normal position just above the base of the neck if there were more than a half-foot of jacket and shirt fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot at C7?

How could these two disparate concrete objects occupy the same physical space at the same time?

Such a scenario is, sad for Craig, contrary to the nature of reality.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets try and translate this garbage from cliff, tough as it may be.

The top of JFK's shirt collar is viable above the jacket collar. But other wise its is occluded? DUH! That's how a jacket collar WORKS. And that how thejacket collar STAYED from Jefferies to Towner and on to Croft. The jacket never "fell"

cliff is gasping for air...

The shirt collar was 1.75" at the nape of the neck.

The jacket collar was 1.25" at the nape of the neck.

That's a half-inch band which is NOT visible in Weaver. The very top of the shirt collar "may" be visible, but otherwise the NORMAL amount of exposed shirt collar is occluded by the elevated jacket collar.

Normal eh? Occluded by the jacket collar eh? DO the phrases PERSPECTIVE AND DIRECTION OF VIEW, along with SUBJECT ANGLE ring a bell at all? If they don't you simply LOSE again.

So Craig, where is the massive bulge in the Weaver photo?

Bulge? Its a fold. It's right were it is in all the photos from Jeferies, to Weaver, to Towner, to Croft and finally to Betzner.

You do know the difference between a bulge and an indentation, don't you?

I know what a fold is...do you? BTW the unbendable laws of light and shadow tell us it's a fold, you DO understand how light and shadow work, DON'T YOU?

weaver.jpg

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets try and translate this garbage from cliff, tough as it may be.

The top of JFK's shirt collar is viable above the jacket collar. But other wise its is occluded? DUH! That's how a jacket collar WORKS. And that how thejacket collar STAYED from Jefferies to Towner and on to Croft. The jacket never "fell"

cliff is gasping for air...

The shirt collar was 1.75" at the nape of the neck.

The jacket collar was 1.25" at the nape of the neck.

That's a half-inch band which is NOT visible in Weaver. The very top of the shirt collar "may" be visible, but otherwise the NORMAL amount of exposed shirt collar is occluded by the

elevated jacket collar.

So Craig, where is the massive bulge in the Weaver photo?

You do know the difference between a bulge and an indentation, don't you?

weaver.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellow researchers, gentle readers:

I would like to point out that my conversation with Craig Lamson -- four years running -- has evolved to the point where Craig is arguing that the jacket collar was DOWN and I'm arguing that it was UP (until JFK leaned back from his chat from Nellie, when it fell).

According to a chart on the wall of Chiropractor Chad Zimmerman -- of Beyond the Magic Bullet fame -- the bottom of a man's clothing collar rests at the level of C7, a fraction of an inch or so above the base of the neck.

I've shown photos of JFK wearing a suit to my personal chiropractor and he is adamant that the bottom of the collar was at C7.

For the sake of argument, let's say JFK's clothing collars rested at C6/C7, a fraction of an inch above Craig's C7 SBT in-shoot.

Question for Craig: how could the jacket collar sit in a normal position just above the base of the neck if there were more than a half-foot of jacket and shirt fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot at C7?

How could these two disparate concrete objects occupy the same physical space at the same time?

Such a scenario is, sad for Craig, contrary to the nature of reality.

Wow. What a great line of BS you spin.

First I DON'T have a shoot in...period. That's a cliff varnell construct and its false.

Second the fold itself is approximately 1.25 inches, which consumes 3+ inches inches of fabric and could move a hole from fives inches down to to 2 inchs down.

Sadly for cliff and his faulty constructs, THAT"S reality.

The other REALITY is that in Betzner, just before the back shot there was a 3+inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket that could have moved a bullet hole from 5inches below the bottom of the collar to 2 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The fact that his fold exists is unimpeachable. AS cliff well knows since he can't impeach it. That too is REALITY.

Instead he creates false constructs.

And tries in vain to salvage the impossible...his failed theory of a falling jacket....and his so called "prima fascia" evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normal eh? Occluded by the jacket collar eh? DO the phrases PERSPECTIVE AND DIRECTION OF VIEW, along with SUBJECT ANGLE ring a bell at all? If they don't you simply LOSE again.

This is just hand-waving. The normal amount of exposed shirt collar is .5". It appears as a white band around the back and side of the neck.

You're not familiar with this, Craig?

This white band does not appear in Weaver, unless we get a millimeter or two at the very top.

weaver.jpg

So Craig, where is the massive bulge in the Weaver photo?

Bulge? Its a fold. It's right were it is in all the photos from Jeferies, to Weaver, to Towner, to Croft and finally to Betzner.

Craig, the fabric in Weaver is clearly indented.

That's a concave curve.

In the Jefferies film we see a bulge. That's a convex curve.

Concave and convex are opposites, Craig.

Ditto pulling on fabric and bunching fabric.

Not the same. The opposite.

You do know the difference between a bulge and an indentation, don't you?

I know what a fold is...do you?

Sigh.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've shown photos of JFK wearing a suit to my personal chiropractor and he is adamant that the bottom of the collar was at C7.

Gotta wonder if cliff is "overselling" this tale just like he did with his tale of 'Mr.Shirt". As we found out, that one was a whopper!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know the difference between a bulge and an indentation, don't you?

I know what a fold is...do you?

Sigh.

Do you or not? This is not a tough question.....

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Lamson claims that this photo shows the right side of JFK's jacket riding up close to his ear.

Oh please cliff, how about a direct quote.

I'll let the reader divine the credibility of Lamson's claims.

I'll let the reader decide if cliff is being honest.

You claim that the same fold is in every photo.

This is the fold YOU claim appears in every photo.

bulge.jpg

You just can't keep track of your snake oil, Craig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normal eh? Occluded by the jacket collar eh? DO the phrases PERSPECTIVE AND DIRECTION OF VIEW, along with SUBJECT ANGLE ring a bell at all? If they don't you simply LOSE again.

This is just hand-waving. The normal amount of exposed shirt collar is .5". It appears as a white band around the back and side of the neck.

You're not familiar with this, Craig?

This white band does not appear in Weaver, unless we get a millimeter or two at the very top.

Translated to the readers, this means cliff DOES NOT understand Perspective, Direction of view and Subject angle. As usual he has proven he is clueless.

weaver.jpg

So Craig, where is the massive bulge in the Weaver photo?

Bulge? Its a fold. It's right were it is in all the photos from Jeferies, to Weaver, to Towner, to Croft and finally to Betzner.

Craig, the fabric in Weaver is clearly indented.

No the fabric is FOLDED, Just like Jefferies, Towner and Croft. Once gain you prove yourself clueless.

That's a concave curve.

No its a fold as proven by the unbendable laws of light and shadow. Oh wait you don't understand any of that and you continue to prove yourself clueless.

In the Jefferies film we see a bulge. That's a convex curve.

No in Jefferies we see a fold, just like in Weaver, Towner, Croft and Betzner.

Concave and convex are opposites, Craig.

Meaningless, folded fabric is folded fabric.

Ditto pulling on fabric and bunching fabric.

More cliffy bullsnit. A fold is a fold.

Not the same. The opposite.

The folds are the same, from Jefferies to Weaver, to Towner to Croft and to Betzner.

You do know the difference between a bulge and an indentation, don't you?

I know what a fold is...do you?

Sigh.

Sigh is right, you just keep making yourself look foolish....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Lamson claims that this photo shows the right side of JFK's jacket riding up close to his ear.

Oh please cliff, how about a direct quote.

I'll let the reader divine the credibility of Lamson's claims.

I'll let the reader decide if cliff is being honest.

You claim that the same fold is in every photo.

This is the fold YOU claim appears in every photo.

bulge.jpg

You just can't keep track of your snake oil, Craig.

You just can't keep up cliff and you continue to make false constructs.

The folds are the same and they CAN'T look the same because that not how PERSPECTIVE, DIRECTION OF VIEW and SUBJECT ANGLE work. You are juat not competent enough to understand, thus your continued and FALSE constructs.

It' simply amazing how uninformed CT's are....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go burgundy

Fellow researchers, gentle readers:

I would like to point out that my conversation with Craig Lamson -- four years running -- has evolved to the point where Craig is arguing that the jacket collar was DOWN and I'm arguing that it was UP (until JFK leaned back from his chat from Nellie, when it fell).

According to a chart on the wall of Chiropractor Chad Zimmerman -- of Beyond the Magic Bullet fame -- the bottom of a man's clothing collar rests at the level of C7, a fraction of an inch or so above the base of the neck.

I've shown photos of JFK wearing a suit to my personal chiropractor and he is adamant that the bottom of the collar was at C7.

For the sake of argument, let's say JFK's clothing collars rested at C6/C7, a fraction of an inch above Craig's C7 SBT in-shoot.

Question for Craig: how could the jacket collar sit in a normal position just above the base of the neck if there were more than a half-foot of jacket and shirt fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot at C7?

How could these two disparate concrete objects occupy the same physical space at the same time?

Such a scenario is, sad for Craig, contrary to the nature of reality.

Wow. What a great line of BS you spin.

IOW, you can't deal with the particulars of my argument so you'll sneer and stomp and blow nothing but vapor.

First I DON'T have a shoot in...period. That's a cliff varnell construct and its false.

Sure you do. When you thought the SBT required 2+ inches of bunched shirt/jacket you claimed to see 2+ inches of bunch.

When you realized that the SBT actually requires more like 3+ inches you started to argue for 3+ inches.

You've hardly kept your agenda here under wraps, Craig.

Second the fold itself is approximately 1.25 inches, which consumes 3+ inches inches of fabric and could move a hole from fives inches down to to 2 inchs down.

The entire 3+ inches of fabric MUST move above the SBT inshoot.

OIr else you'd get more than one bullet hole. You can't get your mind around this, can you?

Sadly for cliff and his faulty constructs, THAT"S reality.

All 3+ inches must move. Craig, or you get two bullet holes. Sorry.

The other REALITY is that in Betzner, just before the back shot there was a 3+inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket that could have moved a bullet hole from 5inches below the bottom of the collar to 2 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar. That's at least 3 inches of fabric entirely above the in-shoot less than 1 inch below the bottom of the collar.

How did this half-foot of fabric ride up entirely above a bullet hole less than an inch below the collar without pushing up on the jacket collar itself?

According to Craig Lamson every photo shows JFK with a half foot of fabric bunched up in a less than one-inch space!

The fact that his fold exists is unimpeachable. AS cliff well knows since he can't impeach it. That too is REALITY.

Don't eat the brown acid, man.

Instead he creates false constructs.

And tries in vain to salvage the impossible...his failed theory of a falling jacket....and his so called "prima fascia" evidence.

Prima facie.

The clothing evidence is prima facie evidence of conspiracy in the murder of JFK.

If you didn't care deeply about Lone Nuttery you wouldn't be making this series of absurd claims about gross clothing bulges that resemble jacket collars.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Lamson claims that this photo shows the right side of JFK's jacket riding up close to his ear.

Oh please cliff, how about a direct quote.

I'll let the reader divine the credibility of Lamson's claims.

I'll let the reader decide if cliff is being honest.

You claim that the same fold is in every photo.

This is the fold YOU claim appears in every photo.

bulge.jpg

You just can't keep track of your snake oil, Craig.

You just can't keep up cliff and you continue to make false constructs.

The folds are the same and they CAN'T look the same because that not how PERSPECTIVE, DIRECTION OF VIEW and SUBJECT ANGLE work. You are juat not competent enough to understand, thus your continued and FALSE constructs.

It' simply amazing how uninformed CT's are....

BTW, you could at least use the correct image, but what can we expect from cliff, he "oversells" things....

shadowshapetop.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...