Dealing with deniers

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

I see you can't understand, Perspective, Direction of biew and Subject direction can you cliff?

Is all of htis too hard ofr you to understand?

or are you just stuck trying your defend your proven FAILED theory

I see you don't deny that the normal amount of shirt collar is not visible in Weaver.

Since you cannot deny that the jacket collar is elevated in Weaver you must admit that it subsequently dropped.

But even the most obvious things are beyond your ability to admit, evidently.

I see you can't understand, Perspective, Direction of View and Subject Direction can you cliff?

Is all of this too hard for you to understand?

or are you just stuck trying your defend your proven FAILED theory?

Continuing to post things that are "oversold" will not make them true...

And this contentless vaopor blowing of yours doesn't make an argument.

You refuse to deal with the specifics:

The Weaver photo does not show the normal 1/2" of shirt collar at the back of JFK's neck. This is a simple fact that you somehow have managed to avoid denying.

The Betzner 1 photo clearly shows the normal amount of shirt collar. You manage to avoid denying that as well.

Ergo the jacket collar dropped.

But even if what you say was true -- that the jacket collar was always in a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck -- then you have to show how a half-foot-plus of shirt and jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot at C7 without pushing up on the jacket collar at C6/C7.

Once you conclude that the jacket collar was in a normal position, you've demolished your own bunch fallacy.

The jacket collar and the gross folds could not occupy the same physical space at the same time, obviously.

You've boxed yourself into highly conflicting claims here

[Craig Lamson]

'll bust the "overseller" in red

Fellow researchers, gentle readers,

I'm going to put Craig on ignore for a while and make some obvious points with photo comparisons.

This frame of the Jefferies film was taken on Main St. about 90 seconds before the shooting and shows JFK's jacket bunched up into the hairline and occluding most of the shirt collar.

And yet this Jefferies frame shows the jacket shows a highly visible shirt collar, proving once again cliff has "oversold". Its quite clear there is no "bunching' into the hairline...just a fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket just like we see in Weaver, Towner, Croft and Betzner.

We can also see that cliff is "full of it"

The following is the Willis 4 photo taken on Elm St. seconds before the shooting. It shows a highly visible shirt collar and a stubby 3/4" fabric fold.

JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

We see that cliff is undereducated in how Perspective, Direction of View and Subject direction works and shows his inability to understand what it is he sees. Perhaps his Ray Bans need replaced or maybe its just because he has not learned photography 101.

In any case we can look at Towner and Croft, taken directly after Willis 4 to see graphic proof that there is a fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket as tall s the 1.25 inch jacket collar, which means the fold is 3+ inches of fabric. Also note that the shirt collar is highly disable, just like Jefferies.

Notice too, that the fold we see in all of these images is the same fold seen in Willis 4.

And finally notice that the fold continues on to Betzner.....

The jacket has not fallen, instead the fold of fabric has remained throughout the ride through Dealey Plaza.

This is just cliff "overselling" once again....

Edited July 7, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

It's just more handwaving from you, Craig.

There are two fabric indentations on the right side of JFK's torso in Weaver. The smaller one appears as a notch in the fabric at the right shoulder-line. The fabric is indented (concave curve) at the exact location Craig Lamson claims a massive lumpy bulge (convex curve) that extends close to the right ear(!?).

There is clearly no such thing in Weaver. Craig Lamson, who in the past discerns no difference between a horizontal fold and a vertical fold -- and cannot discern the difference between between bunching fabric and stretching fabric -- also cannot discern the difference between a concave curvature and a convex curvature.

Pure vapor. Craig has a history of making mistaken analyses. He admits that he has a history of mistaken analyses. And yet he expects us to take his word for everything and gets nasty when we don't.

JFK's jacket collar in the Jefferies film is well above the top of the shirt collar at the back of the neck.

LMAO! In Jefferies the jacket collar is in its normal position, not well above the top of the shirt collar as cliff WANTS you to believe. The shirt and jacket collar are later occluded by the large FOLD ON JFK'S BACK. SOUND FAMILIAR?

cliff has watched this film closely many times. He know what is seen. The question becomes why has he CHOSEN to "oversell"?

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/collar2.jpg[/]

Cliff has a history of getting all of his analyses incorrect, mainly because he is clueless and is vested in a decades long ... and failed position. Jefferies is a perfect example.

And then JFK brushed the back of his head and knocked the Jefferies bunch down.

Which is it, Craig?

Actually the fold never left the back of JFK' coat in Weaver. The unbending laws of light and shadow prove there is still a FOLD on JFK's back in Weaver, just like it does in the final Betzner. Sadly for cliff, he can't understand how sunlight works. The jacket collar stayed below the top of the shirt collar, as cliff admits.

cliff, once again gets his analysis wrong.

Why doesn't Craig post photos of his work with custom shirts and jackets? Either he hasn't done any tests or his tests contradict his conclusions.

Of course I've not done tests with custom shirts. Why should I? I can't recreate JFK, his suit coat, his shirt, his back brace,his actions while sitting car etc. Without these things a test would be meaningless.

Of course we could also ask cliff to show us the work he has doen to support his ...failed...conclusions. Either he hasn't done any tests or his tests contradict his conclusions.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

And yet this Jefferies frame shows the jacket shows a highly visible shirt collar, proving once again cliff has "oversold". Its quite clear there is no "bunching' into the hairline...just a fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket just like we see in Weaver, Towner, Croft and Betzner.

We can also see that cliff is "full of it"

This frame shows JFK with an elevated left arm. In the Jefferies film we see at the 24 second mark that JFK briefly waves his left arm and the jacket drops!

When he lowers his left arm the jacket rode back up into the hairline (25 second mark)

Thanks for pointing this out, Craig!

Edited July 7, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Why did you leave the Willis 4 photo out of this post Craig?

Let's take a good look at it and compare it to how Craig describes it.

We see that cliff is undereducated in how Perspective, Direction of View and Subject direction works and shows his inability to understand what it is he sees. Perhaps his Ray Bans need replaced or maybe its just because he has not learned photography 101.

In any case we can look at Towner and Croft, taken directly after Willis 4 to see graphic proof that there is a fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket as tall s the 1.25 inch jacket collar, which means the fold is 3+ inches of fabric. Also note that the shirt collar is highly disable, just like Jefferies.

Notice too, that the fold we see in all of these images is the same fold seen in Willis 4.

And finally notice that the fold continues on to Betzner.....

No, the fold in Willis 4 is clearly below the top of the jacket collar, which is why you left the photo out of your post.

None of the folds in any of the photos match the grossly asymmetrical fold you claim to see in Betzner, Craig.

[Craig Lamson]

And this contentless vaopor blowing of yours doesn't make an argument.

You refuse to deal with the specifics:

The Weaver photo does not show the normal 1/2" of shirt collar at the back of JFK's neck. This is a simple fact that you somehow have managed to avoid denying.

No its how the real world works and its becoming very clear that cliff does not reside in the real world.

No this is yet another fine example of your very limited ability to understand something as simple as Perspective, Direction of View and Subject Direction.

JFK LOWERED his head in Weaver, taking his shirt collar with it. Given the Perspective of the Weaver photo, His direction of view towards the limo, including his camera height, and the Subject Position ( I know this is hard for you cliff...that would mean JFK's head), please tell us why the image of JFK's shirt collar is NOT correct. This should be HIGHLY entertaining!

The Betzner 1 photo clearly shows the normal amount of shirt collar. You manage to avoid denying that as well.

Ergo the jacket collar dropped.

ROFLMAO! Every time you post you display your total inability to understand even the most simple of photographic principles. Its no wonder you suck so badly at all of this.

PERSPECTIVE. DIRECTION OF VIEW. SUBJECT DIRECTION. Get back to us when you have purchased your first clue.

The "jacket collar did not "drop" It was in the same place as it was in Jefferies, which you stipulate shows a large fold on the back of JFK's jacket.

But even if what you say was true -- that the jacket collar was always in a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck -- then you have to show how a half-foot-plus of shirt and jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot at C7 without pushing up on the jacket collar at C6/C7.

Once you conclude that the jacket collar was in a normal position, you've demolished your own bunch fallacy.

Well there is Jefferies...you remember that one don't you?

How about these:

[quo

No. I've demolished yours...and boy has it been fun!

The jacket collar and the gross folds could not occupy the same physical space at the same time, obviously.

They don't. This is yet another WHOPPER of a varnell construct. This makes you look so silly cliff. Thanks!

You've boxed yourself into highly conflicting claims here

Not at all. You simply have it wrong again as usual.

But thanks for the grins, Its always amusing to see you in total meltdown mode "overselling" like crary and trying in vain to defend your indefensible position.

This is true entertainment!

[Cliff Varnell]

The jacket has not fallen, instead the fold of fabric has remained throughout the ride through Dealey Plaza.

This is just cliff "overselling" once again....

It looks like Craig is changing his story again. For the first two years -- no bunch up on the left side at all.

Then for a year and a half Craig insisted the top of the fold was at the top of the jacket collar on the left side, but it was up toward the ear on the right side. (No, it's true. He's actually claiming this with a straight face!)

About six months ago Craig changed his story and said the fold "EXCEEDED" the top of the jacket collar and topped out right below the top of the shirt collar. Let's let Craig demonstrate the location of the fold:

Craig admits to making mistakes one post and then claims he's always consistent in another post.

For someone who pretends not to care about the JFK assassination Craig sure invests a lot of time in making stuff up about it!

[Craig Lamson]

It's just more handwaving from you, Craig.

There are two fabric indentations on the right side of JFK's torso in Weaver. The smaller one appears as a notch in the fabric at the right shoulder-line. The fabric is indented (concave curve) at the exact location Craig Lamson claims a massive lumpy bulge (convex curve) that extends close to the right ear(!?).

There is clearly no such thing in Weaver. Craig Lamson, who in the past discerns no difference between a horizontal fold and a vertical fold -- and cannot discern the difference between between bunching fabric and stretching fabric -- also cannot discern the difference between a concave curvature and a convex curvature.

Nope you lose again. There is a large fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Weaver, the same fold we see in Towner, Croft and Betzner, not to mention Jefferies.

How do we know this?By applying the unbending laws of light and shadow which confirm the existence of the fold in Weaver.

Of course this is beyond the ken of cliff varnell.

This is not rocket science. Anyone with a decent amount of intelligence shroud have no trouble understand thise simple principles.

But of course that tells us a lot.

[Cliff Varnell]

No its how the real world works and its becoming very clear that cliff does not reside in the real world.

In the real world two disparate, concrete objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time.

That's why we have car wrecks.

Craig is claiming that JFK's jacket collar and 3+ inches of shirt and 3+ inches of shirt fabric occupied the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at the same time.

He cannot replicate his absurd claims because they are impossible.

The burden of proof is on you, Craig.

Show us how you bunch a half-foot of clothing fabric entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

Do something more than blow vapor, Craig.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

It's just more handwaving from you, Craig.

There are two fabric indentations on the right side of JFK's torso in Weaver. The smaller one appears as a notch in the fabric at the right shoulder-line. The fabric is indented (concave curve) at the exact location Craig Lamson claims a massive lumpy bulge (convex curve) that extends close to the right ear(!?).

There is clearly no such thing in Weaver. Craig Lamson, who in the past discerns no difference between a horizontal fold and a vertical fold -- and cannot discern the difference between between bunching fabric and stretching fabric -- also cannot discern the difference between a concave curvature and a convex curvature.

Nope you lose again. There is a large fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in

Weaver, the same fold we see in Towner, Croft and Betzner, not to mention Jefferies.

So the Weaver photo shows the jacket bulging up close to JFK's right ear?

Wow! How can anyone contend such a thing with a straight face?

And in the Altgens photo -- same thing, JFK's jacket bunched up close to his right ear?

What egregious nonsense.

How do we know this?By applying the unbending laws of light and shadow which confirm the existence of the fold in Weaver.

Of course this is beyond the ken of cliff varnell.

This is not rocket science. Anyone with a decent amount of intelligence shroud have no trouble understand thise simple principles.

But of course that tells us a lot.

If it's so obvious why has it taken you 4 years and you still haven't got your story straight?

Why did it take you two years to discern any bunch up on the left side at all?

Why are you so arrogant when you admit you've made many mistakes in your analysis?

[Cliff Varnell]

JFK LOWERED his head in Weaver, taking his shirt collar with it.

Excuse me? He leaned his head forward...and that "took his shirt collar with it."

What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying that leaning your head slightly forward "takes your shirt collar with it"?

When are you ever going to post photos of these amazing things you claim clothing does?

How does leaning the head forward cause the back of the shirt collar to drop down?

Show us. Once and for all, Craig, show us something more than hand-waving and absurd mistake-ridden faux analyses.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

This frame shows JFK with an elevated left arm. In the Jefferies film we see at the 24 second mark that JFK briefly waves his left arm and the jacket drops!

When he lowers his left arm the jacket rode back up into the hairline (25 second mark)

Thanks for pointing this out, Craig!

This just keeps getting better and better,

Needing a new construct to try and salvage in losing position cliff invests the "raised arm, jacket drops, lower arm, jacket rises" bs .

Only from cliff could we expect such nonsense like this!

Thanks for the grins cliff, you are roflmao funny!

Only one problem for cliff, that never happened!

[Craig Lamson]

In the real world two disparate, concrete objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time.

That's why we have car wrecks.

Craig is claiming that JFK's jacket collar and 3+ inches of shirt and 3+ inches of shirt fabric occupied the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at the same time.

and of course in the real world, (the one not inhabited by cliff)The jacket collar and the fold on JFK's back occupy two different places in 3d space. This is just cliff in meltdown mode....

He cannot replicate his absurd claims because they are impossible.

The burden of proof is on you, Craig.

Show us how you bunch a half-foot of clothing fabric entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

Do something more than blow vapor, Craig.

No problem cliff....

JFK shows us perfectly....

Poof.

Thats ciff varnell going up in smoke....

[Cliff Varnell]

This frame shows JFK with an elevated left arm. In the Jefferies film we see at the 24 second mark that JFK briefly waves his left arm and the jacket drops!

When he lowers his left arm the jacket rode back up into the hairline (25 second mark)

Thanks for pointing this out, Craig!

This just keeps getting better and better,

Needing a new construct to try and salvage in losing position cliff invests the "raised arm, jacket drops, lower arm, jacket rises" bs .

Only from cliff could we expect such nonsense like this!

Thanks for the grins cliff, you are roflmao funny!

Only one problem for cliff, that never happened!

Yes, it did. Frame on the left -- left arm up, more exposed shirt collar.

Frame on the right -- left arm down, jacket collar largely occludes the shirt collar, jacket rides into the hairline.

Thank you Craig!

Edited July 7, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

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.