Craig Lamson

Yeah, I had this attitude toward Craig. I thought people would readily see through his bluster but actually it doesn't register that way. It's indulging the false equivalency -- that there are two sides to the issue. The fact of conspiracy precludes fact-based rebuttal. Von Pein admits he has no rebuttal. It's a big mistake to go back and forth with these guys unless you have something that makes them agree with you (as David has stipulated) or makes their heads explode into cascades of insults, non-sequiturs and shameless whoppers. And even then, it gets old in a hurry. All we're producing with these guys, Jim -- you and I -- is Assassination Porn. We're Assassination Porn addicts, the both of us. After a certain point there is no redeeming value to our back and forth arguments with these LNers. However, I am in recovery. I've responded only to one percent of Lamson's posts over the last year or so -- as soon as he admitted that JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of the neck. I had wrung one concession to reality out of the guy in 5 years and I cut way back on my responses to him. Now I'm down to nothing. Thank you John Simkin for the "ignore" function! Jim, going forward, maybe we should form Assassination Porn Anonymous and refuse to respond to these guys at all...except to remind David Von Pein his stipulations to the clothing evidence, of course. The gibberish from varnell continues, along with the 'overselling'. You are infamous cliffy! ROFLMAO! You are so much fun to watch when you are in full and total meltdown.

Craig, you've ignored the testimony of two expert photographers, the first, Detective Superintendant Malcom Thomson, worked for thirty years in the Forensic Science Laboratory and Photographic Unity in the British Police Force. Thomson was a legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. His job was to spot photographic fakes. Thomson immediately noticed in WC Exhibit 133-A that the area between Oswald's head and the wooden pillar behind him had been "re-touched" by an artist. That prompted Thomson to examine the photos in minute detail. He was the first to record that the chin on the exhibits is flat, while Oswald had a pointed chin. Thomson concluded about the photos, "they're fake." The second expert photographer I cited that you chose to ignore, is Major John Pickard, Commanding Officer of the Canadian Air Force Photographic Department. Pickard is another legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. Pickard is the one who noticed that the heads of CE-133A and CE-133B are exactly the same size, although the bodies on the paper are are almost a full inch (2 cm) different. That's a photographic impossibility. So, Pickard made two transparencies of the heads from the two photographs -- one blue and one red. Then he superimposed the two transparencies, and he noted that the heads matched up exactly. The SIZE of the head, the position of the eyes and ears -- all match EXACTLY that is 100%. Yet the bodies were standing in different positions, and in different distances to the camera. His expert conclusion was that the same picture of the head was pasted onto two different photographs. This is hard evidence from two forensic experts, Craig. Furthermore, the example that you presented (even though you tried not to show it) clearly showed that the SIZE of the two heads, as well as the position of the ears, eyes and nose, is 100% the same. Now, you tried to discount the names I offered (Thomson and Pickard) on the basis that they didn't testify in any U.S. Court of Law, and yet that's a cop-out. They are officials of another Government, and clearly the US Government would not invite them (or welcome them) to come here and contradict our own Government. It was a political omission, and not a scientific omission. The scientific evidence shows that CE-133A and CE-133B and E133C were all faked. What is your rationale for denying these facts? Regards, --Paul Trejo Craig, you've ignored the testimony of two expert photographers, the first, Detective Superintendant Malcom Thomson, worked for thirty years in the Forensic Science Laboratory and Photographic Unity in the British Police Force. Thomson was a legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. His job was to spot photographic fakes. Thomson immediately noticed in WC Exhibit 133-A that the area between Oswald's head and the wooden pillar behind him had been "re-touched" by an artist. That prompted Thomson to examine the photos in minute detail. He was the first to record that the chin on the exhibits is flat, while Oswald had a pointed chin. Thomson concluded about the photos, "they're fake." The second expert photographer I cited that you chose to ignore, is Major John Pickard, Commanding Officer of the Canadian Air Force Photographic Department. Pickard is another legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. Pickard is the one who noticed that the heads of CE-133A and CE-133B are exactly the same size, although the bodies on the paper are are almost a full inch (2 cm) different. That's a photographic impossibility. So, Pickard made two transparencies of the heads from the two photographs -- one blue and one red. Then he superimposed the two transparencies, and he noted that the heads matched up exactly. The SIZE of the head, the position of the eyes and ears -- all match EXACTLY that is 100%. Yet the bodies were standing in different positions, and in different distances to the camera. His expert conclusion was that the same picture of the head was pasted onto two different photographs. This is hard evidence from two forensic experts, Craig. Furthermore, the example that you presented (even though you tried not to show it) clearly showed that the SIZE of the two heads, as well as the position of the ears, eyes and nose, is 100% the same. Now, you tried to discount the names I offered (Thomson and Pickard) on the basis that they didn't testify in any U.S. Court of Law, and yet that's a cop-out. They are officials of another Government, and clearly the US Government would not invite them (or welcome them) to come here and contradict our own Government. It was a political omission, and not a scientific omission. The scientific evidence shows that CE-133A and CE-133B and E133C were all faked. What is your rationale for denying these facts? Regards, --Paul Trejo I've ignored nothing. It is you who has ignored what is starting you right in the face...that is your OWN claim the heads are 100 percent the same is simply not true. That in itself eliminates you as an honest broker. It is a complete discussion ender. Pickert is wrong as the simple gif I posted showed. The heads are different, in both shape and content. Are some features the same? of course, its the SAME persons head. When confronted with the findings of the HSCA photo panel, Pickert declined to comment. He was WRONG. Thompson was wise enough to know that when he was wrong it would be best to admit ti. And he did by agreeing with the photo panels work, and their conclusion the photos were genuine. All of this you ignore simply because the subject matter is way over your head, and you have a fantasy to preserve. None of the work by either Pickert nor Thompson was "scientific". Thompson says "I think"... Pickert simply did sloppy work and came to a wrong concision. And you bought it. Which is really quite telling. Heck you can't even SHOW us how the heads "match 100 percent". You can't because they don't. And a discussion ender. Enjoy your fantasy and your willful ignorance of this subject matter..

I know that you have nothing to argue with, Jim, at least with me. I also know you are an intellectual bully who, in a debate about the most efficient case for conspiracy, has had his ass handed to him on more than one occasion. Milicent Cranor cites the prima facie case. Jim, maybe you should read all of her essay -- "Trajectory of a Lie" -- to see how a real researcher demolishes the SBT. You've had hundreds of posts to make your points with David Von Pein and you are so frustrated with the results you lose your temper and plea for John Simkin to remove your tormentor. On the other hand, I had two short discussions with David and he ended up stipulating to my key points and the discussion was quickly over. So you're not the only paranoid narcissist in the CT scene? Who knew? You and Craig Lamson?. Nice company you keep, Jim. Losing this argument has made you completely delusional cliffy. And now you are reduced to spewing gibberish. Not all that hard to understand though. You spent DECADES spewing your nonsense and falsehoods and you finally got destroyed by the simple rays of the sun. That really left a mark. You should spend more time outside in the sun. ROFLMAO! Thanks so much for the grins. LOL!

LMAO!

It wouldn't be right to let this go without pointing out that Craig Lamson and I used to produce Assassination Porn -- arguing back and forth with no apparent redeeming social value. Oh there was LOTS of redeeming social value. It showed how woefully incompetent cliff varnell really is, and that he had it all wrong...all along. Not to mention seeing him reduced to a complete "overseller"... and that itself is worth the price of admission.

You seem to have changed your mind. I'm no photographic expert, so can you explain why you would expect Lee's ears to move up or down the side of his head between photographs? By the way, Paul, Robert Groden is not a photographic expert. I'm not sure what he's an expert in. I believe he still rants on about the back-and-to-the-left headsnap to whoever will stop and listen, as if that proves a shot from the front, so he's definitely no physics expert either Paul. No, I didn't change my mind about the two WC exhibit photos -- I see the lips and shadows change on the two examples that Craig posted. But although the lips and shadows changed on Craig's examples, it is bizarre that the SIZE of the head, the distance between hair and chin, the ears and the eyes didn't change at all. That proves that even with Craig's alteration of the photos, he couldn't erase the identities. Look -- this photographic analysis has already been completed decades ago. Why are you guys in denial? What's your orientation? Regards, --Paul Trejo Because the the so called "photo analysis"you are trying to cling to is fatally flawed. And if you look closely to the graphic I provided you will see that the proportions of the head DO change from one image to the next. Are they similar? Of course, its the head of the SAME PERSON .Have at it Paul. Make the heads match EXACTLY. As in 100 percent. Again the complete denial is YOURS, simply because you have just read and chosen to "believe" because it fits your fantasy narrative.

Simply amazing, now cliffy claims the ability to see under JFK's jacket...IN A PHOTOGRAPH...to ascertain the condition of a shirt. My oh my cliffy, you have really been reduced to a shadow of your former self. Oh wait, I take that back. This is exactly what you are, as proven by your complete untruth about the slack in a dress shirt. Cilff Varnell, "overseller of the decade". Is there any lower level you can seek to try and defend your silly claim?

Craig, while I never claimed to be a photography expert myself, I readily acknowledge that there are different opinions offered by experts. I really like your moving heads picture -- but what's most clear is that while the lips and nose-shadows change, the SIZE of the heads don't change, and the position of the ears don't change. Common sense should tell you (as it has told genuine photography experts) that it is a logical impossibility (as well as a photographic impossibility) for a person to stand closer to the camera in one photo, and yet have the heads remain the same SIZE in both photos. You seem to be in denial of the empirical and logical evidence. You provided ample evidence yourself of my main point -- the SIZE of the heads don't change. Thanks for your excellent graphics. Regards, --Paul Trejo The sizes of the heads WAS different, I resized one. Did you not even look at the photos in the link you provided? You told me the heads were a 100% match. Not even close to being the truth. But nice attempt at a backstroke. The only one in denial here is you.

Yep those lovely 3 inches. You got ANY WAY to disprove the unimpeachable davie jo? No? Surprise, surprise. You know as much about this as you do parallax, which would be absolutely nothing. Time to you to back to your only true skill, cut and paste. BTW, you really think that "overlay" has any validity at all? ROFLMAO!

I disagree! Don't you love it when someone agrees with you? I know I do. David Von Pein agrees with the crucial physical facts proving 2+ shooters in the murder of JFK. Every one hates the guy because he never concedes a point -- I love the guy because he's conceded both of mine concerning the clothing evidence. I guess it all depends on your perspective, eh? You don't understand "perspective" cilffy. Nor the unimpeachable fact that there was a 3+inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner...Weaver too. Poof, you are done.

Craig, it's surprising to receive these decades old questions again, but I'll oblige. First, among the many photographic experts who concluded that the Backyard photos are fakes, I will name only three. First is Robert Groden, a US researcher who has amassed more photographic evidence than perhaps any JFK researcher. Secondly, Major John Pickard of the Canadian Department of Defense, and an expert in photoanalysis, concluded that the photographs were subject to pasting and re-touching. Third, Malcolm Thompson, a British forensic photography expert publicly announced (1978, BBC television) that the photos were fakes. This is only the tip of the iceberg. A few minutes of patient Googling would reveal a tons of web sites on this. Start with Wikipedia. Here's one web site with a decent summary: http://www.pimall.co...s/backyard.html As for the photographs in question, of course I'm referring to Warren Commission Exhibits CE 133-A and CE 133-B which were found in the Paine garage, along with negatives. In those pictures, the poses are very different, but the faces are absolutely identical (where in CE 133-B the head is deliberately slanted to the right). Use a ruler compass yourself to measure it, or take advantage of the extensive work done by experts whose work is widely published. Another photo, 133C-Dees , was found separately, and it has a completely different pose, but again the face is identical -- pasted on. Honestly, I thought all this was common knowledge. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Groden is not a "photo expert". Pickard refused to comment on the findings of the HSCA photo panel. Thompson AGREED with the panel. Wanna try again? Heads. Just show us. Make then all match...just like the backgrounds you can't make match. You really have not done the work, have you?

Paul B., a number of photographic experts have examined the Backyard photographs and concluded they were fakes. I'm certainly not the first to make that statement. The most convincing argument, IMHO, is that of the two best-known photographs (published by the Warren Commission) the faces on both the photos are 100% identical -- not just similar, but identical in position, shape, shadow and dimension -- and yet the bodies aren't identical, i.e. one is slightly closer to the camera than the other. That's a photographic impossibility -- therefore at least one of the photographs is a fake. That's scientific evidence, IMHO. Further, you claim that there isn't any indication of forgery, yet even before the face measurements were performed, critics had noted bumps in straight lines, and other evidence of re-touching, including a flat chin on Oswald's face (who had a pointed chin) which is strong evidence for pasting. Yet your final question is the most relevant: why would anybody waste valuable time making multiple fakes? My opinion involves my emerging psychological portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald. I don't regard him as a Communist zealot, or as a right-wing zealot, but as a frisky wannabe, always hoping to impress older men who might offer him a permanent career. Oswald was a radar operator for the Marines, with a high security clearance. He was a capable code-breaker. Oswald spoke Russian because he had intelligence training. Oswald wanted to be a spy -- I believe that can be demonstrated with ease. Yet Oswald was also a loose cannon, a boaster, and had difficulty keeping secrets (which is one reason why he was never hired permanently by the FBI, CIA, ONI or anybody in his chosen field of intelligence). So, in my theory, Lee Harvey Oswald made multiple fakes of his Backyard photo because he imagined that he was about to do something big, bold and history-making (i.e. kill ex-General Edwin Walker) and he had two desires: (1) to boast to his friends, including George De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine; and (2) to have plausible deniability just in case these photographs ever fell into the hands of the Dallas Police. That is something that a young, wannabe spy would naturally do. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Lets start with the easy one first. What "photo experts" declared the photos fake? Next. Please show us these 100% identical heads. Finally you claim only one photo was taken of the backyard and uses as a background plate for the rest of the images. If you are correct you can make ALL the background plates match exactly. Please do so by any means you choose and post the results.

Another goofy comment by Mr. Varnell. Most conspiracy theorists are silly enough to believe that JFK was shot in the back and throat with separate bullets, and I think DiEugenio is one of those people who believes that crazy theory. Yes, Jim's hostility to the clothing evidence (he calls it "Model T") is inexplicable. I can only conclude that the prima facie case renders some of his work moot. David, you've yet to address the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. You claim that a multi-inch bulge in both JFK's shirt and jacket bunched up entirely above the base of his neck. But in this photo there was a fraction of an inch indentation below the base of the neck. How do you resolve this discrepancy? Its a 3 inch fold cliffy...he sez so... Of course your incompetence makes it completely impossible for you to understand.

Yep, that wonderful 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket as seen in Betzner...unimpeachable clothing evidence... What was that sound? Oh yea, the duck tape cliffy had wrapped around his head failed again. I think Cliff Varnell should be the face of the CT movement for the 50th!

Who's head is exploding now? Why it's cliffy varnell! ROFLMAO! LOSING truly fits you cliffy.

ROFLMAO! http://www.google.co...35&tx=120&ty=49

Sure there is, you are simply too incompetent to understand that the simple rays of the sun destroy your half baked claims. Deal with it. You lost.

Once again you display your complete and utter incompetence varnell. The SUN proves you wrong on all counts. That's a simple and unimpeachable fact. Its also unimpeachable that you have zero understanding of how the SUN even works. Which is why you look so completely silly. Maybe you will have something intelligent to say when you finally figure out how the SUN works. But then again I'm not holding my breath thinking that will ever happen.

Not much to say, is there? A while back, David, you acknowledged that JFK's jacket collar dropped. That drop occurred after the Weaver photo on Main and Houston. You have publicly acknowledged the physical evidence which clearly demolishes the Single Bullet Fallacy. Thank you for your contribution, David. Still can't figure out how the sun works can you cliff? As usual you get it all wrong. REALLY big yawn.....

Man, you really don't read well do you... The panel did not MISS the forged image they failed to detect the METHOD, and of course that's what I said about the other photographers. As with many other things there are many ways to skin a cat and photo alteration is a similar beast. Again nothing sinister and quite frankly the panel tested the heck out of the images. For more than Groden or any of the other "I think its fake because" ct's. Actually, I think Jim had said that the HSCA panel missed both the "what has been done" and the "how has it been done" in each of Eisenberg's tests. I accept that what you had said, Craig, related to the method only. Sorry. I got that wrong. Craig, what do you think about the chin shape and the angle that the figure is standing at? If I have it wrong I'm happy to correct it and in fact i just sent a letter the the archives to get a copy of the complete report. But I'd love to see Jim's source. Body angle, not a problem in the world...photos capture a split second in time...for example look at this guy...is this normal position or is it just a slice of time? http://blackandgoldworld.blogspot.com/2011_09_01_archive.html The point is that people get caught in weird poses and facial expressions ... captured by that slice of time that is a still photo. I would not be surprised you have a few photos of yourself that are 'awkward" Chin, just camera angle. We can tell the photo was taken from a lower than eye level position (aside from the fact that camera had no facility to compose at eye level) buy just looking at the steps. It you can see the top side of a step the camera is above it, if you can see the bottom side of the step the camera is below it. The camera was well below the level of Oswalds chin. The position changed the apparent shape of the chin from pointed to square. Lets see that in action first with the corner of Macbook... Now lets see what Obama's chin looks like from eye level and then below eye level....

Man, you really don't read well do you... The panel did not MISS the forged image they failed to detect the METHOD, and of course that's what I said about the other photographers. As with many other things there are many ways to skin a cat and photo alteration is a similar beast. Again nothing sinister and quite frankly the panel tested the heck out of the images. For more than Groden or any of the other "I think its fake because" ct's.

The photos tell the entire story and have been posted numerous times cliffy. The same upward fold exists in the very same location in Weaver and Betzner. Both of which destroy your claims. Why, BECAUSE THE SHADOWS SHOW IT. UNIMPEACHABLE You however can't understand now the SUN works. Deal with it. You lost. Maybe when you show you have even a childish understanding of how the sun works then maybe we will have something to talk about again.

Nope the shadow is in the same place and defines the same shape in both images, an upward fold from the base of the jacket collar. Welcome to reality. Get back to me when you can figure out how the sun works....its very clear you simply have NO clue.

Yes Craig, the fabric is folded --folded down That's what an indentation is. Indentation is what happens when fabric eases (the term of art for bunch). You know, like every time you try it. Nope, folded UP as the shadow tells us it MUST be. You don;t know this because you don't understand how the SUN works. Yes, Craig, please note that the shadow is at the upper margin of the trough. According to your Betzner claims the shadow is below the fold. Anyone can see you're wrong. Wrong again cliffy. The shadow is the back side of the UPWARD fold, as anyone who understands how the sun works knows. That of course leaves you out of the mix. The rhetoric of an increasingly desperate man. Why else would he remove the photographs from his post? LOL, simply because they have been posted more than once? Your simple mind unable to processs that concept? I'm not desperate because once again I have it correct and you get it wrong as usual. Get back to me when you figure out the sun works 'overseller'

No cliffy the jacket is clearly FOLDED at the base of the jacket collar. The SUN proves it. Best of luck trying to refute how the SUN works. But I'm sure you will create yet another falsehood as you try. Its all you have left, and it is your reputation now. Cliff the "overseller".