Cliff Varnell

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.

JFK's elevated jacket collar occluding the shirt collar:

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?

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

This is classic. The Weaver photo shows the indentation BELOW the bottom of the jacket collar. In my next two posts we'll compare the anterior view of JFK with other posterior and lateral views.

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.

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.

burgundy 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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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?

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.

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

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.

This just keeps getting better and better, Needing a new construct to try and salvage in losing position cliff invests the "raised arm, jacket drops, lower arm, jacket rises" bs . Only from cliff could we expect such nonsense like this! Thanks for the grins cliff, you are roflmao funny! Only one problem for cliff, that never happened! Yes, it did. Frame on the left -- left arm up, more exposed shirt collar. Frame on the right -- left arm down, jacket collar largely occludes the shirt collar, jacket rides into the hairline. Thank you Craig!

Excuse me? He leaned his head forward...and that "took his shirt collar with it." What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying that leaning your head slightly forward "takes your shirt collar with it"? When are you ever going to post photos of these amazing things you claim clothing does? How does leaning the head forward cause the back of the shirt collar to drop down? Show us. Once and for all, Craig, show us something more than hand-waving and absurd mistake-ridden faux analyses.

Nope you lose again. There is a large fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Weaver, the same fold we see in Towner, Croft and Betzner, not to mention Jefferies. So the Weaver photo shows the jacket bulging up close to JFK's right ear? Wow! How can anyone contend such a thing with a straight face? And in the Altgens photo -- same thing, JFK's jacket bunched up close to his right ear? What egregious nonsense. If it's so obvious why has it taken you 4 years and you still haven't got your story straight? Why did it take you two years to discern any bunch up on the left side at all? Why are you so arrogant when you admit you've made many mistakes in your analysis?

In the real world two disparate, concrete objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time. That's why we have car wrecks. Craig is claiming that JFK's jacket collar and 3+ inches of shirt and 3+ inches of shirt fabric occupied the same physical space at the base of JFK's neck at the same time. He cannot replicate his absurd claims because they are impossible. The burden of proof is on you, Craig. Show us how you bunch a half-foot of clothing fabric entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck. Do something more than blow vapor, Craig.

It looks like Craig is changing his story again. For the first two years -- no bunch up on the left side at all. Then for a year and a half Craig insisted the top of the fold was at the top of the jacket collar on the left side, but it was up toward the ear on the right side. (No, it's true. He's actually claiming this with a straight face!) About six months ago Craig changed his story and said the fold "EXCEEDED" the top of the jacket collar and topped out right below the top of the shirt collar. Let's let Craig demonstrate the location of the fold: Craig admits to making mistakes one post and then claims he's always consistent in another post. For someone who pretends not to care about the JFK assassination Craig sure invests a lot of time in making stuff up about it!

Why did you leave the Willis 4 photo out of this post Craig? Let's take a good look at it and compare it to how Craig describes it. We see that cliff is undereducated in how Perspective, Direction of View and Subject direction works and shows his inability to understand what it is he sees. Perhaps his Ray Bans need replaced or maybe its just because he has not learned photography 101. In any case we can look at Towner and Croft, taken directly after Willis 4 to see graphic proof that there is a fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket as tall s the 1.25 inch jacket collar, which means the fold is 3+ inches of fabric. Also note that the shirt collar is highly disable, just like Jefferies. Notice too, that the fold we see in all of these images is the same fold seen in Willis 4. And finally notice that the fold continues on to Betzner..... No, the fold in Willis 4 is clearly below the top of the jacket collar, which is why you left the photo out of your post. None of the folds in any of the photos match the grossly asymmetrical fold you claim to see in Betzner, Craig.

This frame shows JFK with an elevated left arm. In the Jefferies film we see at the 24 second mark that JFK briefly waves his left arm and the jacket drops! When he lowers his left arm the jacket rode back up into the hairline (25 second mark) Thanks for pointing this out, Craig!

It's just more handwaving from you, Craig. There are two fabric indentations on the right side of JFK's torso in Weaver. The smaller one appears as a notch in the fabric at the right shoulder-line. The fabric is indented (concave curve) at the exact location Craig Lamson claims a massive lumpy bulge (convex curve) that extends close to the right ear(!?). There is clearly no such thing in Weaver. Craig Lamson, who in the past discerns no difference between a horizontal fold and a vertical fold -- and cannot discern the difference between between bunching fabric and stretching fabric -- also cannot discern the difference between a concave curvature and a convex curvature. LMAO! In Jefferies the jacket collar is in its normal position, not well above the top of the shirt collar as cliff WANTS you to believe. The shirt and jacket collar are later occluded by the large FOLD ON JFK'S BACK. SOUND FAMILIAR? cliff has watched this film closely many times. He know what is seen. The question becomes why has he CHOSEN to "oversell"? http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/collar2.jpg[/] Cliff has a history of getting all of his analyses incorrect, mainly because he is clueless and is vested in a decades long ... and failed position. Jefferies is a perfect example. Actually the fold never left the back of JFK' coat in Weaver. The unbending laws of light and shadow prove there is still a FOLD on JFK's back in Weaver, just like it does in the final Betzner. Sadly for cliff, he can't understand how sunlight works. The jacket collar stayed below the top of the shirt collar, as cliff admits. cliff, once again gets his analysis wrong. Of course I've not done tests with custom shirts. Why should I? I can't recreate JFK, his suit coat, his shirt, his back brace,his actions while sitting car etc. Without these things a test would be meaningless. Of course we could also ask cliff to show us the work he has doen to support his ...failed...conclusions. Either he hasn't done any tests or his tests contradict his conclusions.

I see you can't understand, Perspective, Direction of biew and Subject direction can you cliff? Is all of htis too hard ofr you to understand? or are you just stuck trying your defend your proven FAILED theory I see you don't deny that the normal amount of shirt collar is not visible in Weaver. Since you cannot deny that the jacket collar is elevated in Weaver you must admit that it subsequently dropped. But even the most obvious things are beyond your ability to admit, evidently. I see you can't understand, Perspective, Direction of View and Subject Direction can you cliff? Is all of this too hard for you to understand? or are you just stuck trying your defend your proven FAILED theory? Continuing to post things that are "oversold" will not make them true... And this contentless vaopor blowing of yours doesn't make an argument. You refuse to deal with the specifics: The Weaver photo does not show the normal 1/2" of shirt collar at the back of JFK's neck. This is a simple fact that you somehow have managed to avoid denying. The Betzner 1 photo clearly shows the normal amount of shirt collar. You manage to avoid denying that as well. Ergo the jacket collar dropped. But even if what you say was true -- that the jacket collar was always in a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck -- then you have to show how a half-foot-plus of shirt and jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot at C7 without pushing up on the jacket collar at C6/C7. Once you conclude that the jacket collar was in a normal position, you've demolished your own bunch fallacy. The jacket collar and the gross folds could not occupy the same physical space at the same time, obviously. You've boxed yourself into highly conflicting claims here