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

Dealing with deniers

Recommended Posts

Green to match cliff's envy...

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.

Well cliff, you can TRY and show us that my proof of concept demonstrations incorrect. That would be entertaining to the max!

Sadly you won't be able to do that because my demonstrations sows EXACTLY how this works. These are standard everyday ...and BASIC principles of photography. And since this is a discussion ABOUT photography,the demonstrations destroy you.

Your childish hand waving just shows your desperation. Thanks.

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.

Why do you just make up stuff out of thin air and call it correct? There is a word for that but the best I can do here is to state you are an OVERSELLER.

There is no non-sequiter at all. I posted a perfectly valid demonstration of how changes in PERSPECTIVE, DIRECTION OF VIEW and SUBJECT DIRECTION can change the appearance of objects as they are recorded by a camera. And of course the demonstration is factual, correct and applies directly to the question at hand.

cliffy uses child like logic by suggesting that since a shirt and jacket were not used the demonstration is incorrect. You will notice he can't tell us WHY. Of course the reason he can't is fist he does not UNDERSTAND, and second that the demonstration is correct.

Finally we can get to cliff's latest "oversell" I He did this once before and I let it slide but I guess I'll nail him to the wall with it now.

Cliff sez:

"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."

First I DON'T have "plenty of access to guys in business suits"...never did..well I take that back, I did work for a portrait studio 30 years ago. My business is ADVERTISING PHOTOGRAPHY. I specialize in RV and Marine PRODUCTS. Anyone who cars to do so can see my work by simply googing my name. I don't shoot portraits of Business men in suits except for the VERY RARE advertising shot that requires a guy in business suit. The last one of those was years ago Besides I don't even maintain a studio anymore. I closed mine back in 2008 and I only do location work now. Again this is not news...you can find this information on my website.

varnell simply made this up from whole cloth. He is a blatant "overseller".

Also I DO post photos of what I'm talking about. Lots of them. I give the reader ACCESS to images that show the principle I explain...in action. cliff seems to think that without using a shirt and coat the test images are somehow invalid. He can't tell you WHY..Instead he just brays.

ANYONE CAN DO THE TESTS THEMSELVES TO CHECK THE RESULTS. In fact that's what I prefer people do.

All we ever get from cliff is an foolish wave of the hand.

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. ;)

Silly boy. You can't really believe this crap you just posted can you? If you do your education on the basic aspects of photography are sorely lacking.

I COULD use a shirt and jacket but I WON'T. I offered a perfect example of HOW the principles work. You can't refute it. Heck you don't even UNDERSTAND it.

Besides its FAR TOO MUCH FUN watching you make a fool of yourself by telling us that long established photographic principle does not work, and attempting to prove it by wildly waving your hands.

Yes it is truly fun to watch you in total meltdown mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well cliff, you can TRY and show us that my proof of concept demonstrations incorrect. That would be entertaining to the max!

Your concept doesn't involve perspective on a shirt collar from the posterior view.

You're attempting to leverage your photographic expertise to bluff some lame idea that leaning the head forward alters the perspective on a shirt collar from a posterior view.

You're blowing vapor over the fact that the Weaver photo doesn't show anything like you claim it does. It clearly shows the jacket indented, not bulged; and well below the top of the jacket collar, not bunched up toward his right ear as you (incredibly!) claim.

weaver.jpg

Out of one side of your mouth you admit to two solid years of mis-analysis of the Betzner photo and out of the other side of your mouth you insist on the infallibility of your assertions.

What a piece of...work.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets make cliff GREEN with envy again...

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.

Well no I've NOT tried to replicate this because you CAN'T replicate it. NO ONE CAN because they don't have JFK in 1963 in those clothes in that car on that day.

Anyone who tries is a fool. Why? because they will always get something wrong, some aspect incorrect and the naysayers will bet it to death. That's why I'm SMART ENOUGH to NOT do "recreations". Instead I do proof of concept demonstrations to show the photographic principles at work.

You say the burden of proof requires a faithful recreation. That's bogus. You logic is fatally flawed. NO ONE can do a faithful recreation, you have set a burden of proof that is impossible to meet and then you declare "victory". Too bad for you its all a sham.

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.

Great lets use all. All we can see. And if you don't know what this means you are lost in space....

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.

Oh Yes, YOUR agenda is ALL TOO CLEAR..And that agenda is not the truth.

And thanks for those photos which show the fold extending HIGHER than the top of the jacket collar...or 3+ inches of folded fabric, or at least the one we can SEE, which also prove my previous point!

You lose again!

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.

Actually I used the word correctly.

Since he fold is EQUAL or HIGHER than 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.

Is it? TOWNER, CROFT, BETZNER, show a fold Higher than the jacket collar, That is unimpeachable. You uses of Towner 1 and Willis 4 fall squarely in the WE CANT SEE catagory, That you would use them to try and defend your failed position shows just how willing you are to 'oversell" to keep your fantasy alive.

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.

Again ALL of the photo were we can see a clear view of the fold, show it, from one end of the plaza up to Betzner. UNIMPEACHABLE.

That correct I did say that and it's true because of PERSPECTIVE, DIRECTION V VIEW and SUBJECT POSITION. Towner only allow us to see PART of the fold. We can see the fold is taller the collar. That you use something like this shows how completely desperate you have become. You have been beaten, and you know it. Let the meltdown continue.

And sure I've made mistake, and I'll proudly admit that I do sometimes make mistakes. After all I'm human. cliff on the other hand CAN"T admit his errors, since he has a decade invested in his now disproven theory. His agenda is clear, try and defend the indefensible no matter how much he has to "oversell' to do it.

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.

But I have shown the fold with distinctive upper and lower margins ...a s a fold I might add is totally consistent with all the other photography of JFK that shows the fold, and more importantly is TOTALLY CONSISTENT with the unbending properties of light and shadow as see in the Betzner photos.

The Varnell fantasy fold is impossible given the internal specifics of Betzner and the direction and angle of the lighting seen in Betzner.

A nice proof of concept demonstrations that shows the consistency of the 3+Inch fold and the inconsistency of the Varnell Fantasy fold

fantasyfold.jpg

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.

Actually I'm NOT making any claims about how clothing moves. That would be YOU flailing your hands around wildly making tons of claims without the first piece of evidence. I've just pointed out the folds in the photos and shown how they are consistent and obey the unbending principles of light and shadow. You on the other hand offer zero, zilch...nada. Your claims are empty.

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.

But I've not made this statement all. It's you telling a ...er 'overselling"

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

Anyone with a functioning brain can clearly see they occupy TWO separate and distinctive places in 3d space. That leaves us with only two choices for cliff. Either his brain is non functioning or he is overselling to and buttress his failed claims.

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

More childish cliffy logic on display. There is no need to "demonstrate" The photos prove it happened. You CONCEDED the photo are authentic. Since the photos are authentic and the fold extends over the top of the jacket collar which you also concede is 1.25 inches, the fabric consumed by the food is 3+Inches.

Game. Set. Match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well cliff, you can TRY and show us that my proof of concept demonstrations incorrect. That would be entertaining to the max!

Your concept doesn't involve perspective on a shirt collar from the posterior view.

You're attempting to leverage your photographic expertise to bluff some lame idea that leaning the head forward alters the perspective on a shirt collar from a posterior view.

You're blowing vapor over the fact that the Weaver photo doesn't show anything like you claim it does. It clearly shows the jacket indented, not bulged; and well below the top of the jacket collar, not bunched up toward his right ear as you (incredibly!) claim.

weaver.jpg

Out of one side of your mouth you admit to two solid years of mis-analysis of the Betzner photo and out of the other side of your mouth you insist on the infallibility of your assertions.

What a piece of...work.

Blah Blah Blah.

Betzner shows what it shows, a 3=Inch fold of fabric. And that blows you completely out of hte water. SO much so you havd to INVENT the Varnell Magic Fold out of whole cloth. Never mind it is impossible given the unbending properties of light and shadow, cliff oversells it and waves his hands instead of trying to prove it could actually work.

I never bluff. And if you can show my proof of concept is incorrect , please try. I'm not worried because you don't have the knowledge.

I'M NOT INFALLIBLE. But my demonstrations are. They show what they show, And I don't expect anyone to just take my word for things like you do. I want them to test it for themselves and confirm the results. When they do they often learn something. So do I. You might try that sometime. Then maybe your posts would not be so silly.

Weaver shows a FOLD, which is consistent with the unbendable laws of light and shadow, Not to mention the other photos.

Now you show your total lack of knowledge of things photographic by telling us change in position by the subject or the camera will not effect perspective. Good work cliff, you have now claimed years of established photographic principle;e is incorrect! You have turned photography on its ear! Now prove it. This should be highly entertaining!

And you have just proven you could not understand even the most simple of photographic principles, and yet here you are telling us you do.

I wish could use the words on this forum to accurately describe you.

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say the burden of proof requires a faithful recreation. That's bogus.

The only recreation you have to show is how 3+ inches of jacket fabric and 3+ inches of shirt fabric bunched up entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar which normally rests a fraction of an inch above the base of the neck.

You can't recreate this faithfully or unfaithfully. Your claims are inherently contradictory. Obviously.

You posit a scenario contrary to the nature of reality, you imagine things in the photos that don't exist, you admit to two years of mistaken Betzner analysis now you expect anyone to buy your infallibility as an expert?

Show us, 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 resting a fraction of an inch above the base of the neck.

The concept on it's face is imbecilic.

Hell, that's a slander on imbeciles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well cliff, you can TRY and show us that my proof of concept demonstrations incorrect. That would be entertaining to the max!

Your concept doesn't involve perspective on a shirt collar from the posterior view.

You're attempting to leverage your photographic expertise to bluff some lame idea that leaning the head forward alters the perspective on a shirt collar from a posterior view.

You're blowing vapor over the fact that the Weaver photo doesn't show anything like you claim it does. It clearly shows the jacket indented, not bulged; and well below the top of the jacket collar, not bunched up toward his right ear as you (incredibly!) claim.

weaver.jpg

Out of one side of your mouth you admit to two solid years of mis-analysis of the Betzner photo and out of the other side of your mouth you insist on the infallibility of your assertions.

What a piece of...work.

Blah Blah Blah.

That's it. Craig has completely depleted his well of disinfo. I think it has dawned on him that as soon as he admitted that the jacket collar rode in a normal position just above the base of the neck -- he'd screwed the pooch.

He'd given the game away.

No way can multiple inches of clothing fabric bunch up above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar resting just above the base of the neck.

Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say the burden of proof requires a faithful recreation. That's bogus.

The only recreation you have to show is how 3+ inches of jacket fabric and 3+ inches of shirt fabric bunched up entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar which normally rests a fraction of an inch above the base of the neck.

You can't recreate this faithfully or unfaithfully. Your claims are inherently contradictory. Obviously.

You posit a scenario contrary to the nature of reality, you imagine things in the photos that don't exist, you admit to two years of mistaken Betzner analysis now you expect anyone to buy your infallibility as an expert?

Show us, 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 resting a fraction of an inch above the base of the neck.

The concept on it's face is imbecilic.

Hell, that's a slander on imbeciles.

So tell us again WHY the jacket collar staying down is important cliffy? Bssides your silly handwaving? Can you say Non-Sequiter? I knew that your could.

I'm not asking anyone to "buy" anything. The only one in this discussion asking people "Buy" on faith and handwaving is cliff varnell.

The photos are there for everyone to see. I've produced a boatload of empirical evidence to back my work, and I invite anyone to confirm it. The photos are available for anyone with decent eyes and not blinded by a faulty worldview to see and decide for themselves.

What has cliffy offered...not a dang thing except for DECADES of "overselling' something he knew all along was "oversold". And of course he only admitted this when he got caught. I won't say anymore about who or what cliffy really is. That would be against forum rules.

Once again...JFK. does it so well....in so many photos.

Over and over, a nice fold of fabric TALLER than the 1.25", which cliffy says is "a scenario contrary to the nature of reality" yet here it is OVER AND OVER AGAIN it the photo record.

collar3.jpg

This one is classic. Let all watch cliffs head continue to explode. Need some duct tape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

collar3.jpg

This one is classic. Let all watch cliffs head continue to explode. Need some duct tape?

This is classic. The Weaver photo shows the indentation BELOW the bottom of the jacket collar.

weaver.jpg

In my next two posts we'll compare the anterior view of JFK with other posterior and lateral views.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it. Craig has completely depleted his well of disinfo. I think it has dawned on him that as soon as he admitted that the jacket collar rode in a normal position just above the base of the neck -- he'd screwed the pooch.

He'd given the game away.

No way can multiple inches of clothing fabric bunch up above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar resting just above the base of the neck.

Period.

Upps...wrong again cliffy....You should have quit a LONG time ago. Your baseless objections have run their course, Your non-sequiters, show the depth of your despair.

You have melted down. You have NOTHING left.

There is a nice big fold in Weaver..the same fold that travels down to Betzner, and that's the game. The jacket never "fell". The fold remained.

Your prima fakie "evidence" is busted.

Your decades long argument is gone...dust. crapped out....

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is classic. The Weaver photo shows the indentation BELOW the bottom of the jacket collar.

weaver.jpg

In my next two posts we'll compare the anterior view of JFK with other posterior and lateral views.

Well gee, of course it is.

The problem for you is its the very same fold as all the rest and its in the same location the jacket. This is a FOLD cliff. I knew your head would explode!

Let our meltdown continue!

btw, about that "scenario contrary to the nature of reality"? You are busted again cliff.

I think that might be enough of embarrassing you for today...I think I'll go grill...sounds appropriate given how I cooked you all day long....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Craig Lamson' date='08 July 2011 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1310165736'

collar3.jpg

This one is classic. Let all watch cliffs head continue to explode. Need some duct tape?

Does Craig realize that JFK's jacket had padded shoulders, while the back of the neck was not padded? There is clearly no similar fold in this photo on Houston St.

altgens2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a nice big fold in Weaver..the same fold that travels down to Betzner, and that's the game. The jacket never "fell". The fold remained.

But it is clearly NOT the same fold you imagine. You posit a fold that extends up toward the right ear.

How can anyone of normal cognitive abilities claim that Weaver shows such a fold?

bulge.jpg

weaver.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Craig realize that JFK's jacket had padded shoulders, while the back of the neck was not padded? There is clearly no similar fold in this photo on Houston St.

altgens2.jpg

Upps the grills is not hot yet...let roast cliff instead

Good grief cliff, recycling your failed claims gets you nowhere.

One phrase..Near Zero Phase Angle.

When you can understand this little bit of photographic knowledge you will know WHY you can't say one way or the other what is seen in Altgens. I guess you just can't help but they and bamboozle the masses.

BTW, don't you love that 3+ inches of fabric FOLDED UP on JFK's back...you know what you said was impossible ROFLMAO!

Back to the grilling...real meat this time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Craig Lamson' date='08 July 2011 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1310165736'

collar3.jpg

This one is classic. Let all watch cliffs head continue to explode. Need some duct tape?

JFK's elevated jacket collar occluding the shirt collar:

post-5298-1165634711.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same posture with his hands in both photos. The jacket collar rode above the shirt collar and the top of the fold at the back of the neck.

post-5298-1165634711.jpg

collar3.jpg

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...