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

Dealing with deniers

Recommended Posts

In the frame on the right the top of JFK's elevated jacket collar is visible (red pointer).

jeffjacketcollar.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"?

What part don't you understand? That JFK is leaning forward in Weaver with his head leaning forward even more? Or the fact that a shirt collar is wraped around a neck?

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?

Sigh, this really is too much for you cliff. The shirt collar "does not drop down"

The Perspective changes. The Direction of view changes The Subject Direction changes. The collar does not "drop down". It simply moves of of view of the camera.

This is photo 101 cliff....

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

Ok, its my pleasure to make you look silly...

A piece of paper taped to the back of a cd case. Take a picture. See paper on the top of the cd case. Lean cd case forward. Take picture. No longer see paper taped to the back of cd case.

Case over.

sillyboy3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Wrong again cliff.

Left frame more of a side view, right frame more of a rear view....

Photography 101

PERSPECTIVE, DIRECTION OF VIEW, SUBJECT DIRECTION.

cliff varnell shows his inability to understand the very basics of photography 101.

You shold quit my cliffy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the frame on the right the top of JFK's elevated jacket collar is visible (red pointer).

jeffjacketcollar.jpg

Lets play along...

So tell us cliff, it the jacket collar is pushed to the hairline (if thats in fact what you are actually seeing) how does the jacket collar abruptly stop where the shirt collar is visible.

Please illustrate this for us.

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'll show you again, JFK, does it so well.

A fold of fabric that is as tall or taller than the jacket collar, in photographs cliff says are authentic.

Since he fold is 1.25 inches the fabric consumed by the fold is 3+ inches.

That would be game, set and match cliff...

travel.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

cliff, why don't you show us WHY the jacket collar MUST ALWAYS be pushed upward when a fold like the one on JFK's back occurs?

Show us cliff, your fans are waiting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part don't you understand? That JFK is leaning forward in Weaver with his head leaning forward even more? Or the fact that a shirt collar is wraped around a neck?

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?

Sigh, this really is too much for you cliff. The shirt collar "does not drop down"

The Perspective changes. The Direction of view changes The Subject Direction changes. The collar does not "drop down". It simply moves of of view of the camera.

No it doesn't.

Leaning your head forward does not move the the shirt collar in relation to the jacket collar.

This is more fabrication you can't replicate.

When are you going to demonstrate any of these absurd claims you make about clothing movement?

Show us, Craig. Quit waving your hand and blowing vapor.

Show us, Craig. Show us the impact on the shirt collar of moving the head forward.

CD cases don't wear shirts, Craig. Show us how this occurs with a shirt and jacket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the frame on the right the top of JFK's elevated jacket collar is visible (red pointer).

jeffjacketcollar.jpg

Lets play along...

So tell us cliff, it the jacket collar is pushed to the hairline (if thats in fact what you are actually seeing) how does the jacket collar abruptly stop where the shirt collar is visible.

Please illustrate this for us.

You didn't deal with the subject of the post, Craig. The red arrow points to the top of the jacket collar. You can't even begin to refute it.

The burden of proof is on YOU. You're the one making the claim. Demonstrate how a half-foot of shirt and jacket fabric bunches up entirely above C7 without pushing up on the jacket collar at C6/C7.

You've been making these claims for 4 years and yet you've never once demonstrated any of them with an actual dress shirt and jacket.

Why is it you haven't shown us how shirts and jackets actually move?

You have great opportunity on a daily basis to demonstrate your claims, Craig. You have businessmen come into your photography studio every week to take photos. You've had every chance to document what occurs when a man sits and casually moves his arms.

But you never produce any demonstrations of your claims.

Why is that, Craig?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'll show you again, JFK, does it so well.

This is called circular logic. You assume your conclusions are true and then make the case on the basis of these assumptions.

Logic 101.

Since you are claiming that a half-foot of clothing fabric can bunch up above C7 without pushing up on the jacket collar at C6/C7 -- a claim that is prima facie moronic -- you must demonstrate that your claims are possible, Craig, since on the face they are absurd.

And how many times are you going to move this magic clothing bunch around, Craig? You had it up near the top of the shirt collar six months ago, now you're moving it down again.

A fold of fabric that is as tall or taller than the jacket collar, in photographs cliff says are authentic.

No, this is Craig Lamson just making things up -- yet again.

Demonstrate it, Craig. Show us. Why are you blowing vapor if it's such an easy thing to demonstrate?

Show us how this occurs. Show us how you bunch 6+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric entirely above C7 without pushing up at the jacket collar at C6/C7.

We're not going to take your word for anything, Craig. Demonstrate this phenomenon with a custom-made shirt and dress coat.

Yeah, we know about Craig Lamson...you've tried many, many times to bunch fabric without success. Your inability to demonstrate your claims speaks to their impossibility.

Since he fold is 1.25 inches the fabric consumed by the fold is 3+ inches.

That would be game, set and match cliff...

travel.jpg

Your Betzner fold has no upper and lower margins, Craig. The actual fold has identifiable upper and lower margins, but your vapor-fold does not.

Blue arrow points to the visible shirt collar, red arrow points to the fraction of an inch fold that appears in all the Elm St. photos.

betznerFinal.jpg

Craig can't point to the upper and lower margins of his fold because they don't exist.

Craig can't replicate his claims because they are impossible.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part don't you understand? That JFK is leaning forward in Weaver with his head leaning forward even more? Or the fact that a shirt collar is wraped around a neck?

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?

Sigh, this really is too much for you cliff. The shirt collar "does not drop down"

The Perspective changes. The Direction of view changes The Subject Direction changes. The collar does not "drop down". It simply moves of of view of the camera.

No it doesn't.

Leaning your head forward does not move the the shirt collar in relation to the jacket collar.

This is more fabrication you can't replicate.

When are you going to demonstrate any of these absurd claims you make about clothing movement?

Show us, Craig. Quit waving your hand and blowing vapor.

Show us, Craig. Show us the impact on the shirt collar of moving the head forward.

CD cases don't wear shirts, Craig. Show us how this occurs with a shirt and jacket.

Poor cliif lost in a fantasy world where Perspective, Direction of View and Subject Direction don't existg and are beyond his limited ability to understand.

You have a PERFECT example of how these things work and if flies right over your head. You are a lost cause cliff. You will never understand any of this.

None of this is dependent on clothing...its just how PHOTOGRAPHY works.

Once more ..

This has NOTHING tot do with the relationship of the shirt collar and the jacket collar. Just like the CD case they moved in TANDEM.

And just like the CD case , changes in PERSPECTIVE, DIRECTION OF VIEW and SUBJECT DIRECTION changes what is recorded by the camera.

This is photo 101 cliif.

Too bad you just failed.

Get some education. As it stands you are simply clueless and living in a fantasy world.

Of cour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

cliff, why don't you show us WHY the jacket collar MUST ALWAYS be pushed upward when a fold like the one on JFK's back occurs?

The burden of proof is on YOU, Craig. YOU are the one claiming that a half-foot of clothing fabric can bunch up entirely above C7 without pushing up on the jacket collar at C6/C7.

You make the claim -- you provide the proof. Your nonsensical photo analyses don't count for anything.

The burden of proof is always on the party making the claim. You have failed because your claims are impossible to replicate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The burden of proof is on YOU, Craig. YOU are the one claiming that a half-foot of clothing fabric can bunch up entirely above C7 without pushing up on the jacket collar at C6/C7.

You make the claim -- you provide the proof. Your nonsensical photo analyses don't count for anything.

The burden of proof is always on the party making the claim. You have failed because your claims are impossible to replicate.

I've met my burden of proof cliff...

NUMEROUS photos of JFK show a fold on his back equal to OR higher than jacket collar. You have conceded these photos are not altered. Since he fold is EQUAL or HIGHER than the jacket collar that equals 3+inches of fabric consumed by this UNIMPEACHED fold in the fabric of the jacket.

This fold travels with JFK throughout the plaza, as seen in Betzner, Weaver, Towner Croft and finally Betzner.

Since we can never recreate the exact circumstances from that day, that your destroys your childish logic that without some "kind of" attempt at replication the case is unproven.

The facts remain.

There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner as proven by the unbendable properties of light and shadow. This fold was on the back of JFK's jacket throughout his ride in the plaza until Betzner. This is UNIMPEACHABLE.

Who cares if the jack collar might have moved upward a fraction of an inch? Heck if it did that's yet another nail in the coffin of your dead and buried claims. It has ZERO bearing on the existence of a fold.

This is much like your silly canard that the fold and the jacket collar "can't occupy the same place at the same time". This is simply silly beyond belief, since the photos you claim are unaltered show that the fold and the collar are in two different spaces in 3d space.

Your objections are foolish and illogical,

Your understanding of basic photographic principle and photo analysis skills are non existent.

Its game over cliff....actually it has been for some time.

Oh ..here is a news flash for you. You located a compression artifact in Jefferies. ROFLMAO!

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'll show you again, JFK, does it so well.

This is called circular logic. You assume your conclusions are true and then make the case on the basis of these assumptions.

Logic 101.

Since you are claiming that a half-foot of clothing fabric can bunch up above C7 without pushing up on the jacket collar at C6/C7 -- a claim that is prima facie moronic -- you must demonstrate that your claims are possible, Craig, since on the face they are absurd.

And how many times are you going to move this magic clothing bunch around, Craig? You had it up near the top of the shirt collar six months ago, now you're moving it down again.

A fold of fabric that is as tall or taller than the jacket collar, in photographs cliff says are authentic.

No, this is Craig Lamson just making things up -- yet again.

Demonstrate it, Craig. Show us. Why are you blowing vapor if it's such an easy thing to demonstrate?

Show us how this occurs. Show us how you bunch 6+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric entirely above C7 without pushing up at the jacket collar at C6/C7.

We're not going to take your word for anything, Craig. Demonstrate this phenomenon with a custom-made shirt and dress coat.

Yeah, we know about Craig Lamson...you've tried many, many times to bunch fabric without success. Your inability to demonstrate your claims speaks to their impossibility.

Since he fold is 1.25 inches the fabric consumed by the fold is 3+ inches.

That would be game, set and match cliff...

travel.jpg

Your Betzner fold has no upper and lower margins, Craig. The actual fold has identifiable upper and lower margins, but your vapor-fold does not.

Blue arrow points to the visible shirt collar, red arrow points to the fraction of an inch fold that appears in all the Elm St. photos.

betznerFinal.jpg

Craig can't point to the upper and lower margins of his fold because they don't exist.

Craig can't replicate his claims because they are impossible.

Trying to recycle objections that have been destroyed months ago won't get you anywhere cliff. And since you posted it, please show us how your fantasy fold work with the unbendable properties of light and shadow as witnessed in the Betzner photo.

Of course he can't because his fantasy fold work WORK with with the lighting seen in Betzner.

BTW,I show the top and bottom margins of the fold in my illustration of Towner, Croft and Betzner.

The top margin of the fold is the blue line, the bottom margin is at the bottom of the jacket collar..

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part don't you understand? That JFK is leaning forward in Weaver with his head leaning forward even more? Or the fact that a shirt collar is wraped around a neck?

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?

Sigh, this really is too much for you cliff. The shirt collar "does not drop down"

The Perspective changes. The Direction of view changes The Subject Direction changes. The collar does not "drop down". It simply moves of of view of the camera.

No it doesn't.

Leaning your head forward does not move the the shirt collar in relation to the jacket collar.

This is more fabrication you can't replicate.

When are you going to demonstrate any of these absurd claims you make about clothing movement?

Show us, Craig. Quit waving your hand and blowing vapor.

Show us, Craig. Show us the impact on the shirt collar of moving the head forward.

CD cases don't wear shirts, Craig. Show us how this occurs with a shirt and jacket.

Poor cliif lost in a fantasy world where Perspective, Direction of View and Subject Direction don't existg and are beyond his limited ability to understand.

Poor Craig. Stuck with nonsensical claims he can't replicate or factually argue, he lamely tries to leverage his photographic expertise hoping people won't notice that he's making everything up as he goes along.

That's why he makes so many mistakes in this discussion, which he admits.

You have a PERFECT example of how these things work and if flies right over your head.

We have a perfect example of Craig Lamson's reliance on non sequitur. If Craig could illustrate his point using actual shirts and jackets, he would. He has plenty of access to guys in business suits -- but he never posts an actual photo of what it is he's talking about.

Poor Craig.

You are a lost cause cliff. You will never understand any of this.

None of this is dependent on clothing...its just how PHOTOGRAPHY works.

No it doesn't. You're making this up. Leaning the head forward has no impact on the perspective of a shirt collar in a posterior view.

If you could demonstrate this with an actual shirt and jacket -- you would.

But you can't.

So you don't. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

burgundy

The burden of proof is on YOU, Craig. YOU are the one claiming that a half-foot of clothing fabric can bunch up entirely above C7 without pushing up on the jacket collar at C6/C7.

You make the claim -- you provide the proof. Your nonsensical photo analyses don't count for anything.

The burden of proof is always on the party making the claim. You have failed because your claims are impossible to replicate.

I've met my burden of proof cliff...

No, you haven't. Your contentless rhetoric shows that you can't meet the burden of proof. Admit it: you have repeatedly tried to replicate your claims and each time you have failed miserably at getting custom clothing to bunch up.

NUMEROUS photos of JFK show a fold on his back equal to OR higher than jacket collar.

"Numerous?" You claim THEY ALL show this magical fold of yours. All of them, Craig.

But in Dealey Plaza none of them show more than a fraction of an inch fabric fold.

This obvious to all but the most agenda-driven.

townerjim.jpg

willis04.jpg

You have conceded these photos are not altered.

Conceded? No, the correct word is "stipulated." I stipulate to the authenticity of all the Dealey Plaza films and photos with the possible exception of the Z-film after Z255. I'm agnostic on Z-alteration circa Z313...I think it's a bit of a rabbit hole but I have a great deal of respect for members of the Z-Alterationist camp.

Since he fold is EQUAL or HIGHER athan the jacket collar

But it isn't, obviously. The fold is well below the top of the jacket collar, as we see in Towner 1, Willis 4, Croft 3, and Betzner 4.

Craig, when YOU put Towner 1 into evidence you admitted there was "not much" to be seen in the photo. None of the Dealey Plaza photos show what you're claiming. You're mistaken about this, just like you've been mistaken all along, which you admit.

that equals 3+inches of fabric consumed by this UNIMPEACHED fold in the fabric of the jacket.

All rhetoric, no cattle. I can point to a fold with distinct upper and lower margins in Betzner, you cannot. Since you keep moving the fold around and keep making more and more claims about how clothing moves, the burden of proof is for you to show us how clothing moves.

You have made two contradictory claims: that JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position a fraction of an inch above the base of his neck, and a half-foot of shirt/jacket fabric were balled up entirely above the base of the neck.

How did the jacket collar and the half-foot ball of shirt/jacket fabric occupy the same physical space?

The claim is prima facie moronic. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this, Craig.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

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...