Craig Lamson

A Universal Phenomenon.

This is a universal phenomenon over which all LNers and a whole lot of CTs are in complete denial, as their pet theories require a movement of JFK's clothing contrary to the nature of reality.

Is that 'universal" just like you said 3/4 inch of slack in a custon made dress shirt ws "universal"? ROFLMAO! varnell makes stuff up fro thin airt once again.

Some of us can admit when we're wrong, some of us can't.

Yep Cliff, you can't admit oyu hve it wrong. You had to get caught in a bald faced 'oversell"

If I'm wrong on this it's simple enough to prove it.

Uh, no cliffy, you made this stupid claim, how about YOU proving it is true. That means you need to show us every shirt ever worn by every man raising his arm and waving in all of recorded history.

Oh wait, cliffy 'oversold' once again. Once an overseller, always an overseller. ROFLMAO!

Show us how you get a shirt and jacket to ride up 3+ inches together, Craig, by waving an arm.

It's your claim. You say it happened, but you've never shown how it happens.

There you go again cliffy, telling tale tales once again. I refer you to our previous threads where my claim is made perfectly clear, and is NOT the falsehood you just spewed. You prove once again you simply are incapable of telling the truth.

SO tell us you blatant "overseller" (gotta LOL at that varnellism) what happens to a shirt UNDER a jacket, like JFK's. You say this is universal, please show us.

The jacket doesn't have any impact on the movement of the shirt.

Where do you get such an idea?

Really? That should be very easy for you to prove. I can't wait to see your proofs. ROFLMAO! When will you ever learn you blatant 'overseller".

The trough of the indentation in Weaver photo shows the smooth surface under JFK's jacket. The fold in Weaver was below the bottom of the jacket collar; the fold in the airplane photo is above the bottom of the collar.

Actually the fold in the Weaver coat is at the bottom of the jacket collar, cliffy as the SHADOW proves. You fail how the sun works 101 AGAIN!

Every time Craig Lamson lifts his arm to wave the fabric of his shirt indents along the shoulder-line.

It's certainly universal every time you try it, Craig.

And you know that how? ROFLMAO! Just keep "overselling". Its all you have left since the SUN destroyed your decades long silliness.

Why would we? Welcome them with open arms and a tucked in shirt! Before long they will have nothing to say.

Other than the usual personal attacks and contentless denials, of course.

But one thing I haven't seen yet is any actual argument concerning the obvious discrepancy between the fabric folds at the back of JFK's neck/upper-back in these two photos.

It ths very same kind of fold cliffy the overseller. How do we know? The SHADOW. But then again you don't even understand how the sun works, so that is simply beyond your grasp.

The sun destroys your silly claims once again.

You should quit. Oh wait you said oyu were withdrawing. Once again you "oversell" LMOA!

A Universal Phenomenon.

This is a universal phenomenon over which all LNers and a whole lot of CTs are in complete denial, as their pet theories require a movement of JFK's clothing contrary to the nature of reality.

Is that 'universal" just like you said 3/4 inch of slack in a custon made dress shirt ws "universal"? ROFLMAO! varnell makes stuff up fro thin airt once again.

SO tell us you blatant "overseller" (gotta LOL at that varnellism) what happens to a shirt UNDER a jacket, like JFK's. You say this is universal, please show us.

Blah, blah, blah Baker.

As I said, to me you are a non entity so don't address me anymore.

You might as well be Mike Rago. Or whatever his name was.

You shouldn't even be allowed on this board. Go join Non-Conspiracists United with your fellow charlatan Ken Rahn.

~sigh~

This is what I was afraid of. This is where discussions of rabbit holes like the NAA will get you, Jim.

If you don't want to hear blah blah blah from LNers -- you don't ban them!

Why would we? Welcome them with open arms and a tucked in shirt! Before long they will have nothing to say.

All you do is cite the prima facie case, Jim! As Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi have done to tremendous effect for, oh, about 50 years now (RIP Gaeton).

Jim DiEugenio -- please take a moment and glance down on the top of your right shoulder-line...then slowly raise your right arm to wave a la JFK...please observe the indentation of the fabric along the shoulder-line.

This is the exact opposite effect as the fabric movement required by the SBT. And it is a phenomenon which occurs hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet -- someone raises their arm and causes their upper body garment to indent along the shoulder-line.

Hundreds of billions? That's an understatement. But according to Paul Baker et al this universal phenomenon did not occur with JFK. The opposite occurred -- JFK waved his arm and his shirt and jacket fabric in tandem bunched up- multiple inches.

Jeanne Davison, David Von Pein, and Craig Lamson have argued that the following photo demonstrates what is required by the Single Bullet Theory -- multiple inches of fabric bunched up above the base of the neck.

But on the corner of Main and Houston JFK raised his right arm and reached behind his head. What happens when the arm is raised?

The fabric indents.

In the trough of the indentation the jacket fabric was flat against JFK's flat shirt. 4 inches below the bottom of the collar, the bullet hole in the shirt is too low to have been associated with the throat wound. Conspiracy proven.

That's the cardinal fact of the JFK assassination.

In the face of definitive evidence of a low back wound Paul Baker has nothing to say.

What complete and utter horse hockey. Varnell once again PROVEs he can't even understand how the sun works, let alone what happened to the fabric of JFK's shirt UNDER his jacket....a 3+ inch fold of jacket fabric on JFK's back at Betzner...simply unimpeachable...because that is what the SUN demands. All of which is far beyond the very limited analytical skills of Cliff Varnell.

You lost...deal wiht it.

Every copy of the backyard pics I've ever seen is noticeably inferior in terms of quality compared to the reenactments by the DPD. Now, that is probably explainable due to different cameras and/or film. I don't think it's due to internet scans.

Jim will comment on this, but as far as I am aware, Eisenberg's examination of the panel was before they verified the backyard pics, so its not a question of discrediting the panel, as (at that point) it could have gone either way.

I don't want to put words in your mouth Craig, and maybe I've misinterpreted you, but it appears that you're saying that the pictures have been verified by a panel of experts, but experts often can't detect fakery anyway. I'll be happy to ackknowledge if I've misunderstood.

I suggest you review the work of the panel and decide for yourself what they did. What they did NOT do is correctly identify the method used to create a set of images. If have this correct and quite frankly the information is pretty hard to find without a trip to the Archives, the method they missed as using a LIFE SIZED CUTOUT PHOTO of a person in a real scene.

They identified it this image as "fake" but failed to note the exact method of creation. Again, nothing the least bit sinister and pretty common even among well established compositing experts today.

So I ask you, what part of the panels work on the BY photos has found to be incorrect?

I know the backyard pictures were examined during the HCSA, resulting in the panel that was tested (and flunked) by Eisenberg. Does anyone know if Eisenberg came to any conclusions on the pictures himself?

Has there been any further professional examination of the pictures since then?

One of the things that is noticeable when comparing the Oswald pictures to the recreation by the DPD, featuring a DPD officer in the same pose as Oswald, is the differences in photographic quality.

Is this explainable simply by differences in film and/or camera quality? If the DPD were looking to recreate the original pictures, you'd think they'd use the same (or similar) camera and film, wouldn't you?

Perhaps more intriguingly, has anyone ever recreated pictures with

1. that odd angular, leaning pose
   
2. the (seemingly) anomalous shadows - straight down under the nose, but longer and at 11 o'clock from the body?
   

1, Good question, but all I've heard of is Eisendrath questioning the Photogrammetry

and I can't find anything that says he was well versed in arena. Nor have I read or heard that he thought the panel was wrong about the BYP.

Lets get real. I frequent a number of pro photography forums filled with top notch composite image creators. Its not uncommon at all fro the method of the work to be missed by all the members simply because there are multiple ways to produce any given composite image.

All of this is just another ct strawman. They can't discredit the work of the panel so instead they try and discredit the panel.

Two ...image quality. Making comparison based on internet images of unknown origin is risky at best. Can you tell the generations for these images for starters?

Finally, recreations...they are impossible.

To me, the key point is that neither Marina or her camera created that image. It implies the involvement of another person or persons interested in constructing composite images of that backyard, apparently with the intention of inserting a figure into it that wasn't there when the photo was taken.

Again, that is important to the actual provenience of the BY photos why?

Check the photo against these made by the DPD I believe after the assassination in 1963. Does the time frame look similar? Clearly people were looking into the various possibilities of the BY photos after the assassination.

http://www.maryferre...cd81-1_0228.jpg

http://www.maryferre...cd81-1_0240.jpg

BTW, AS I'm not a scholar on the life and times of LHO I'll let someone who is tell me if this is correct, but I believe he moved to Nealy in early March of 1963.

Again why should it not exist? Can there be legitimate reasons WHY it does exist that are not conspiratorial?

You may be right. Perhaps there may be legitimate reasons. I have yet to see a discussion which even guesses as what those legitimate reasons might be though.

I really can't think of a legitimate reason for that image to exist.

I don't like guessing.

So lets play another game.

How does this photo help with the construction of the BY photos as fakes?

Lets start here.

When could this photo have been taken that fits the timeline of Oswald living at Nealy St?

If the backyard pics are totally legitimate, and there's no more to them than Marina took pictures of Oswald holding the weapons, I don't see where (or why) a template photo that is partway through manipulation enters the evidence base.

If Marina's explanation is the full story, then this "ghost" photo shouldn't exist?

Isn't its very existence odd?

Again why should it not exist? Can there be legitimate reasons WHY it does exist that are not conspiratorial?

I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding the DPD image. What do you see in the background?

A far different date as to when the image was exposed compared the the extant BY photos.

You mean foliage and the like? Yes, that's a good point. Still doesn't explain the presence of the photo though?

Whats to explain? And why does it matter?

I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding the DPD image. What do you see in the background?

A far different date as to when the image was exposed compared the the extant BY photos.

Paul,

I accept your points above regarding the photos, but how then does a version of the backyard picture emerge within the files of the Dallas PD with just a ghostly figure (i.e. no Oswald) in it?

One of the things that Jack White pointed out, that I did agree with, was that a background comparison of two of the photos showed an identical background, something that would be extremely difficult without using a tripod.

Martin

Actually they don't and White nor anyone I have ever seen could make the backgrounds of the backyard photos match. Period. I've extended the challenge many times.

Take the backyard photos into Photoshop or some other similar program and adjust them so the backgrounds match. Use any method you see fit. White claimed ( but never proved) he could make the photos match by tilting the enlarging easel. Photoshop allows the same thing digitally.

Please show us the matching backgrounds.

I've tried many times and failed. Maybe you will have better luck.

BTW, take a really good look at the background of the DPD ghost image and tell me what you see.

David Von Pein and Paul Baker can't see it.

Otherwise, they would incorporate your talking points.

Instead, they say nothing when directly challenged on the issue.

Your claim is a priori idiotic.

Perhaps one of the most childish displays of logic I have ever seen from you, and there have been mountains of them.

I'll withdraw.

Good choice. It will save you further embarrassment.

Oh come on now varnell, what is it you are afraid of? Roflmao!

Cliff the cluck cluck...

As I pointed out, nothing will stop you from spewing, Craig. It's all you do.

Vintage chicken varnell...cluck, cluck, cluck

Ever figure out how the sun works?

Lmao...again

JFK wasn't sitting in the sun on the airplane.

The bulge in his shirt at the back of his neck fits the definition of a convex curve.

The fold was above the bottom of his collar.

In the Weaver photo the sun shines on the trough of the indentation, which shows a smooth surface underneath. The fold was below the bottom of the collar at the corner of Main and Houston.

An indentation fits the definition of a concave curve.

You don't grasp the difference between convex and concave, Craig. The State of Indiana is remiss allowing you to possess a firearm, much less carry it concealed.

Lmao! Just show us chicken little cliffy.

What are you afraid of?

That the world will see they are the same types of folds and you are wrong once again?

Oh come on now varnell, what is it you are afraid of? Roflmao!

Cliff the cluck cluck...

As I pointed out, nothing will stop you from spewing, Craig. It's all you do.

Vintage chicken varnell...cluck, cluck, cluck

Ever figure out how the sun works?

Lmao...again

Oh come on now varnell, what is it you are afraid of? Roflmao!

Cliff the cluck cluck...

What a PERFECT example of CT's run amok and not being able to deal with directly with solid empirical evidence and their reactions when it compromises one of the ct holy grails.

That's rich coming from Craig Lamson, the man who has repeatedly claimed that the predominant fabric folds in these photos are similar in size, shape, and location.

And they are. Another varnell holy grail exposed as a scam.

Again, if one cannot discern the difference between a concave curve and a convex curve one shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms.

Do it for us Cliff, show us the differences. Lets expose this nonsense once and for all.

You are the paranoid. I took my Mom to the doctor. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Now you do also now the overall crime figures include a host of lesser crimes for the US numbers as well That however won't fit well for the false narrative you are trying to portray. I'll be happy to continue you show you the folly of your position. But you said you were done. Which is it, or are you simply blowing more smoke?

But hey I can spot the UK a 50% reduction of the overall crime rate if it makes you feel better....but you still won't do any better in the end....

Craig,

I'm done. I'll leave with a polite and respectful response.

i) The reason I said it was a "convenient trip" was because for 20 minutes after you said you were departing your name was still logged into the thread before logging out. As someone who obviously has a strong opinion on this I'd have thought you'd know the figures and would have posted them in your last reply. No paranoia on my part - just an expectation that you already had the information.

ii) As I have pointed out to Jim earlier today. This is not about whether it is safer in the U.K. or the U.S. from my perspective. This is about you wanting to present an argument that an armed society is a safer one, so you are trying to use the U.K. violent crime figures to support your argument.

iii) We live in completely different worlds and have grown up in different cultures. You have grown up with a second amendment and a right to bear arms and do not want to ever give up your right to own them. I have grown up with no such right and do not ever want to own one. Ever.

iv) If someone breaks into my house the likelihood that they will have a firearm is remote at best. If they have a hammer, great. I've got one too and I fancy my chances against someone with a hammer than I would if they had a .357 Magnum. If I also had a .357 Magnum then I guess things are going to get messy.

v) The problems of weekend drink related violence is a real one and I am not over exaggerating. It is a huge problem that you simply do not have. All you have to do is google it.

As far as I'm concerned you can continue to believe that it is safer to live in the U.S. than in the U.K. but I suppose that depends upon where you live. If you live in Sametown USA, population 546 then I'm guessing the crime figures aren't going to be huge. If you live in Chicago or D.C. then I'm guessing it's a different story.

The fact that I brought bing-drinking into it is no different than the pro-gun lobby saying the biggest cause of gun murder is gang-related shootings. I'm not asking you to disregard the drinking culture issue, I'm asking you to consider it. The same way we cannot dismiss the fact that many of the murders in your country are committed by gang members. It doesn't become confined - the violence spreads out into the wider society.

A final question I'd like you to answer though is this; do you believe Pakistan is safer than both the U.K. and the United States?

I had a complete reply to this all typed up and I swiped my two fingers over the surface of my magic mouse and I lost it. And quite frankly I don't feel like retyping it so you get the last word.

But to answer your question, I don't know, never looked but my guess is it depends where and how you live....familiar tune eh?

What a PERFECT example of CT's run amok and not being able to deal with directly with solid empirical evidence and their reactions when it compromises one of the ct holy grails.

That's rich coming from Craig Lamson, the man who has repeatedly claimed that the predominant fabric folds in these photos are similar in size, shape, and location.

And they are. Another varnell holy grail exposed as a scam.

BTW, I would LOVE to see where I told another member I enjoyed watching another member eat crap. Have it it.

Time for you to eat your turd sandwich. Hope you enjoy it. I sure enjoyed watching you make it.

"Have it it"?

You "hoped" the other member "enjoyed" eating it. You just "enjoyed" watching it being made.

Sorry if my small mistake made you look bad.

Oh no, I'm really quite happy with that quote...thanks for finding it.

Yours are similarly colorful, just not very original nor witty.

But my you do seem you have an affinity for male rear ends....and that's just from this thread.

"Now, because you live inside your own bum hole when it comes to trying to understand the rest of the world..."

"You have had your arse handed to you on a plate."

BTW, thanks for digging back into that wonderful thread about LHO's chin in the backyard photos. What a PERFECT example of CT's run amok and not being able to deal with directly with solid empirical evidence and their reactions when it compromises one of the ct holy grails.

Not unlike how this thread transpired and your inability to deal directly with the facts. Surprise surprise.

Okay, for starters I've never even contemplated another human being eating excrement let alone voiced some sort of pleasure from the thought of it. That would be you.

I don't for one second enjoy the thought that other people may be afraid of me or that I generate fear in them. If anybody on here is willing to tell me that they are fearful of what I have to say then I will apologise for it. Like I apologised to Martin less than an hour ago for my behaviour last week. For you, it is the opposite, you continually voice how pleasurable it makes you feel that other people are afraid and the fear you think they have. You continually voice how pleasurable it makes you feel that you are symbolically "destroying" other members. And you continually use terminology that creates the impression that the destruction of people and things arouses you in some perverse way.

Now, again here is a difference between you and I. I enjoy banter. I enjoy getting the odd dig in every now and again. Some people will find them funny and some people won't. David Von Pein gives as good as he gets. I did once tell him to go get a handful of chicken fat and shove his copy of Reclaiming History up his hoop. Obviously I didn't mean literally and it was done in good jest to his very thoughtful and respectful responses to me, both here on the EF and on his own blog that I have no right to reply on. Likewise, I can take a good dig on the chin and some people's insults toward me have been hilariously funny.

I know when I am getting out of hand and I know when I am getting too emotionally involved in matters here on this forum. That is usually when I take a sabbatical. If my efforts at humour have seriously hurt anybody's feelings and I am made aware of it then I will apologise. No question.

LOL! I see you still are living in your fantasy world. Again no surprise.

Well find me a post where I've said I've enjoyed watching another member eat excrement and I'll even give you an apology.

Find me a post where I've said another member's "fear is palpable" and I'll buy you an AR-15 before they are banned.

Are you getting me being a smart arse and obnoxious piss taker mixed up with what I've accused you of?

So its all about specific phrases is it? You want me to dredge up your gems?

You can try and characterize your failing any way you choose. it won't however absolve you of the actual deeds.

Live with it.

BTW, I would LOVE to see where I told another member I enjoyed watching another member eat crap. Have it it.

I apologise to members who have found this all a bit banal but I appreciate your points, Jim.

This is not a "debate" about which society is safer. At the end of the day both countries have their problems and they are major problems that need fixing. This "debate" instead goes to the heart of whether or not individuals can digest different pieces of information and use it in a responsible manner to come to sensible and unbiased conclusions. Contemplating a more thoughtful series of answers.

Craig Lamson has demonstrated that he cannot do this. He does not understand the data he is reading because he does not understand the inner-workings and cultural problems of the United Kingdom and he is using the raw data in an attempt to support the idea that an armed society is a safer society.

And you have shown conclusively that you can't if the answers don;t fit your preconceived narrative.

Again we see that Lee has a real problem reading. I'm quite willing and able to see that some of the UK is nothing but a bunch of raging drunks. No problem at all. I'm quite willing to remove the stats for these raging drunks smack talking each other from the violent crime stats. LEE is the one not willing to deal directly with this because it kills his narrative.

And NOWHERE I have attempted claim an more armed society is safer society. No such stats exist either for or against. My argument is that guns neither increase or decrease violence. PEOPLE are the cause of violence. Guns only effect the OUTCOME of some violent acts. There is no doubt there will be more gun deaths in a society with guns than in a society without guns. And I'm on record that the number of gun deaths in the US are way too high. But Like the drunken Brits, we have a subset of our society here responsible for many of the gun crimes...drug dealers, users and gangs.

Now if we want to use the tortured logic of Lee, we can eliminate this group of gang members and drugies, and watch the US violent crime numbers fall even more.

But I don't. I'll take the numbers from the US, warts and all.

So be it. Nothing is going to change his mind. All of the Brits on this board know which social issues create the vast majority of crime in this country. Binge-drinking is one of them. Lamson cannot understand this, or at least he is unwilling to even want to understand that this has a massive impact each year on the U.K. violent crime figures. According to the same figures, as I've already mentioned, living in Pakistan is like living in an episode of The Waltons.

I have tried to rationally explain to this guy that the figures are skewed. I have not claimed once that they account for all of the violent crime in the U.K. I have simply told him that they amount to a good chunk whether they be violent acts of public disorder or threatened acts of public disorder. In response we all have to contend with the likes of the following:

"Its all the fault of binge drinkers...yea that the ticket. That's the very best you can do?"

When the guy simply has no understanding of what the U.K. is like. He's never been here. He's never experienced it. My information is simply dismissed and he twists what I said to meet his own needs because I never said it was "all the fault of binge drinkers." How can someone be so bloody-minded in their opinions? Is it impossible to say, "You know what? I didn't know that. I'll look into it a bit more."

Again we see just how badly Lee must twist the facts to try and keep his lousy narrative alive. I looked at the facts and say that the UK listed no actual violence crimes at 37% of the total violent crime numbers. I reduced the total number of violent crimes in the UK by 37%. Heck I was even happy to reduced the number by 50% which was Lee's claim ("a majority"). No longer "raw numbers, lacking cultural sensitivity", the violent crime stats for the UK were STILL higher than the full numbers from the US. BTW, the numbers come from here: Home Office 2010/2011 and FBI Uniform Crime report. UK total Violent crime for a population of 62 Million - 2,203,000. US total Violent crime for a population of 312 million - 1,203,564

I'm finished on this now. Lamson has entered the fray on a topic not relating to photography and he has shown us exactly how his manipulative mind works yet again. It is a mind that belongs in the stone-age and he represents everything that is awful about certain cross-sections of the baby-boomer generation who have wanted to have and own everything they possibly can without showing any sort of consideration for the people born further down the line who will be picking up the pieces and paying through the nose for the privilege.

Of course you are finished, insulting and bullying because you lost the argument and have been shown to be shall we say..."less than honest". Pretty typical and quite illuminating.

The baby boomer generation will be considered by future generations to be the most selfish of people (politically and economically) and Craig Lamson, in my opinion, represents what this selfishness and pig-headedness looks and sounds like.

P.S. Best not mention the 2.2 million prisoner currently incarcerated in U.S. prisons, should I? The highest in the developed world working out as 748 per 100,000 of the population.

Perhaps the numbers of bad people behind bars in the US could be an indicator as to why we have a much lower violent crime rate than the UK?

BTW, I see you are writing while looking at yourself in the mirror again.

Okay, for starters I've never even contemplated another human being eating excrement let alone voiced some sort of pleasure from the thought of it. That would be you.

I don't for one second enjoy the thought that other people may be afraid of me or that I generate fear in them. If anybody on here is willing to tell me that they are fearful of what I have to say then I will apologise for it. Like I apologised to Martin less than an hour ago for my behaviour last week. For you, it is the opposite, you continually voice how pleasurable it makes you feel that other people are afraid and the fear you think they have. You continually voice how pleasurable it makes you feel that you are symbolically "destroying" other members. And you continually use terminology that creates the impression that the destruction of people and things arouses you in some perverse way.

Now, again here is a difference between you and I. I enjoy banter. I enjoy getting the odd dig in every now and again. Some people will find them funny and some people won't. David Von Pein gives as good as he gets. I did once tell him to go get a handful of chicken fat and shove his copy of Reclaiming History up his hoop. Obviously I didn't mean literally and it was done in good jest to his very thoughtful and respectful responses to me, both here on the EF and on his own blog that I have no right to reply on. Likewise, I can take a good dig on the chin and some people's insults toward me have been hilariously funny.

I know when I am getting out of hand and I know when I am getting too emotionally involved in matters here on this forum. That is usually when I take a sabbatical. If my efforts at humour have seriously hurt anybody's feelings and I am made aware of it then I will apologise. No question.

LOL! I see you still are living in your fantasy world. Again no surprise.

I don't know if Lee did this on purpose, but it sure has been effective in:

1.) Hijacking the thread, and

2.) Smoking out just what a RW extremist Craig really is.

The corollary to that of course is how anyone who sees the world through that kind of lens cannot help but filter certain things.

So Lee, thanks for all this. I know it was not a lot of fun.

So how did Lee "smoke out" my views jimbo? Is this yet anther example of your fine investigative and research skills? Oh wait, I've been a member here for many years and I've written extensively on my political views. So Lee "smoked out" what again?

BTW, exactly what extreme RW views have I espoused? Lets see...believing in the words of the US constitution? ERW? Nope. Standing by the first amendment of the constitution? ERW? Nope. Standing by the second amendment of the US constitution? ERW.

It appears you think these are extreme positions to take. So be it. As you said...."The corollary to that of course is how anyone who sees the world through that kind of lens cannot help but filter certain things."