Cliff Varnell

I'm the St. Just of the Throat Entrance denouncing Louis. There was nothing to buy from Guinn. It was a fake issue from the start. The SBT failed on the low back wound and discussions of lesser proofs did nothing but obfuscate that fact. I used to cite Josiah Thompson's examination of Willis 5 under a microscope as he related in SSD, where he found no evidence of jacket "bunch." I thoroughly supported his defense of the the Dealey Plaza photo evidence (aside: my enthusiasm for Paul Rigby's friend Richard Starnes has thus far stayed his blade). I decided to disregard Tink's position on the throat wound, which I found incoherent given JFK's clear reaction to throat trauma well before the head shot. I attended the Cracking the Case Conference in '05 and applauded his presentation of the Dealey Plaza films/photos as the bedrock evidence in the case (and, I'd answer my friend Paul, appears to simulate a known CIA/military operation between Z186 (Betzner 3) thru Z255 (Altgens 6) with Willis 5 (Z202) thrown in). I chatted with Tink afterwards for about 10 minutes. Right before someone else cut in on our conversation I thanked him for that bit in SSD about examining Willis 5 under a microscope. He looked genuinely surprised. "I did?" "Yes. You said you'd looked at Willis 5 under a microscope." Tink rolled his eyes -- "Well, if you think that's evidence..." he trailed off disparagingly. At that point someone drew his attention elsewhere and, terribly disappointed, I went off to talk with Roland Zavada. Reading John Kelin's Praise From a Future Generation has led me to conclude that the Salandria-Thompson falling out over the Throat Entrance Wound in 1966 was the tipping point in the marginalization of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community. When Josiah Thompson pooh-poohed the throat entrance wound he began a deleterious trend. When one acknowledges the prima facie case for conspiracy -- as Salandria was outlining when they split, T3 back wound, throat entrance -- lesser proofs lose significance. Who wants to invest a tremendous amount of time researching a complex and fascinating case and produce work of limited significance? Thus there will always be pushback against the Low Back Wound and Throat Entrance Wound. What fun is playing the JFK False Mystery Game is the answer is obvious to small children? When Salandria denounced Tink as a covert government disinformation agent he began a deleterious trend where reputations were put to the blade over mere disagreements. I think the US government was watching them closely and concluded that as long as there were people willing to cast doubt on the most salient facts of conspiracy they didn't need "disinformation agents, just ambitious, thoroughly well-meaning people who sought to "Answer the Question of Conspiracy" in spite of the fact that the answer was obvious: JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy as established by the T3 back wound and the throat entrance wound. But if the answer to "The Question of Conspiracy" is self-evident, a prima facie case, then what good is researching the NAA, the acoustic evidence, the head wound evidence, or the windshield evidence? Makes all of that moot, doesn't it? Should anyone want a collegial one on one debate on the statement -- the low back wound and throat entrance wounds are never-effectively-challenged facts -- I'll take on all comers, without a xxxxx buzzing in our ears.

Gentle readers, I'm happy to announce the cessation of the 3-year running Lamson/Varnell debate. Craig has run out of specious technical arguments and relies now solely on puerile misrepresentations of my argument. The intellectual challenge of engaging him is spent. The Dealey Plaza image that has rendered him speechless is the Towner photo. His claim that the minor fabric fold on the back of JFK's jacket was almost 3 times the size of the 1.25" jacket collar is an egregious absurdity which speaks for itself.

But Cliff, that exactly what you told us in the first post on this thread. How do you explain that? No, I cited the 1/2" exposed shirt collar repeatedly. You are the one implying he had 2 inches of exposed shirt collar, not I.

Lets see 3 x 1.25= 3.75 3 almost equals 3.75? Yes, Craig 3+ almost equals 3.75. What is confusing you the "plus" or the "almost"? Note the non-answer, gentle reader. The 1.25" jacket collar accurately measures the minor, fraction of an inch fold. It's unimpeachable.

Craig, According to you the fold at the back of JFK's jacket is almost 3 times the size of the 1.25" jacket collar in the Towner photo. Are you seeking help for this?

No, the discussion stops Here: JFK didn't have 2 inches of exposed shirt collar at the back of his neck, and he didn't have a 3-inch head. When are you going to replicate 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric, Craig? Everyone is curious about what that looks like! And when you get around to it, could you point out the distinct upper and lower margins of the artifact you claim to see in Betzner but can't identify? And then explain to us how JFK's jacket collar could drop on Houston St. while the fabric below the collar rode up 2+ inches.

Craig, your claims have been proven to be contrary to the nature of reality. Your failures are manifest. This is unimpeachable. We'll see how many of your fellow nutters take up your cause going forward. Thanks for starring in my under-construction website -- Gross Ease Fallacy -- Anatomy of a Fraud

Your comments are spot on, Dean. Thanks for weighing in. Craig makes a very specific claim about JFK's clothing movement but he can't explain how it could have occured given the technical parameters of clothing design. The word "bunch" is a layman's term for what clothing designers call "ease." There are two kinds of clothing ease: normal ease and gross ease. "Normal ease" occurs when you casually move your body, like JFK's actions in the limo. "Gross ease" occurs when the body stretches out -- as say when Andres Torres leaps over the top of the wall to rob someone of a home run! Normal ease results in fractions of an inch of clothing movement. Invariably. It is flat out physically impossible to cause gross clothing ease when the body movement is normal. I call the fraud Arlen Specter commenced in 1964 -- Gross Ease Fallacy. Gaeton Fonzi confronted Specter in 1966 and had Specter demonstrate to the world Gross Ease Fallacy when he couldn't get Fonzi's clothing to bunch up no matter how hard he tried. Quite simply, the claim that JFK's normal movements caused gross clothing ease is physically impossible according to the unbendable, irrefutable, immoveable laws of clothing fit. Craig Lamson is attempting to leverage his expertise as a photographer to further Specter's fraud

Why is Craig Lamson so adverse to showing us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like? Why is Craig Lamson so adverse to pointing out the distinct upper and lower margins of an artifact he insists exists but is shy about identifying? Why can't Craig Lamson show us a photo of what any kind of bunched fabric looks like? Why can't Craig Lamson explain using the technical terms of clothing design how JFK's casual movements in the limo caused gross movements of his clothing? Can Craig Lamson tell us the difference between "normal clothing ease" and "gross clothing ease"? As far as Betzner goes, the photo comparison with the Stoughton photo clearly estblishes the effect of haliation. JFK's shirt collar didn't extend into his hairline. The white artifact in Betzner clearly extends into the region of his hairline. The white artifact in Betzner is obviously not all shirt collar.

Craig, could you explain to us how JFK's jacket collar could drop while the fabric underneath it simultaneously rode up 2+ inches from it's position in this photo? How does that work, exactly? You can't deny that the jacket collar occludes the shirt collar in this photo. The Nix film clearly shows the jacket collar dropping. So how could the jacket collar drop but the fabric below it ride up multiple inches? How is that physically possible? Inquiring minds want to know.

2 photos speak 2,000 words. The haliation is obvious. You have no other explanation for the size of the white artifact in Betzner. Add that to the pile of Craig Lamson's Greatest Misses, along with the fact you can't demonstrate what 3+ inch of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like, in fact you can't even demonstrate that you grasp what it means to "ease" fabric. You can't identify the distinct upper and lower margins of the Dealey Lip which you concede MUST be clearly visible in Betzner You can't challenge the fact that the Altgens 5 photo shows at most an inch of jacket elevation before the jacket dropped. And you can't challenge the simple observation of haliation in Betzner. The photo comparison says it all:

Really, is that what you showed us with your blur line, the nape of the neck? Obviously. What part of the question don't you understand? Are you denying the effect of haliation on the shirt collar in Betzner. Yes or no?

Craig, There was 1/2" of exposed shirt collar at the nape of his neck. I said nothing about his shirt front or the side of his neck. Craig, is there an effect of haliation in Betzner, or not? Yes or no.

But you did not measure at all Cliff, you just waved your hands and said..this is it. You are using photos taken at differnt camera heights, different camera angles, showing differnt amounts of shirt collar and then saying..this is it. Different amounts of shirt collar? No Craig, the most amount of shirt collar would be 1/2" You're quibbling over millimeters while YOUR claim involves multiple inches. Answer the central question, Craig: is there the effect of haliation on the shirt collar in Betzner, or not? I have dealt with it directly. I see you keep evading the central question: Is the effect of haliation visible in Betzner or not, Craig? In not, please show us photos of JFK's shirt collar extending into his hairline.

How can you deny that using an artifact of known measurement in a photo provides proper measurement? That's John F. Kennedy in both photos. JFK's shirt collar was about 3/4" below his hairline. That's a fact. There was roughly 1/2" of exposed shirt collar in both photos, although in Stoughton his head was tipped back a bit -- witness the folds in the neck -- and that may have been a millimeter or two less than 1/2". Either there was the effect of haliation or JFK's shirt collar was exposed 2" in the back in Betzner. Which is it, Craig? Are you denying the effect of haliation in both the Betzner and Willis #4 photos?

I use the Stoughton posterior close-up of JFK in Fort Worth, used in comparison with Betzner in my last post. Using his 1/2" shirt collar as a measure, it appears as if JFK's hairline was roughly 3/4" above the top of the shirt collar. The upper margin of the white artifact is very close to the hairline, within a few millimeters. This upper margin is roughly 3/4" (as much as an inch) above the top of the shirt collar. The haliation would also effect the area .75" - 1" below the lower margin of the exposed shirt collar, consuming most but not all of the jacket collar. Either there was a haliation effect in Betzner or JFK's shirt collar was 2" wide in the back. Which was it, Craig? You've made the claim that JFK's shirt jacket was bunched up 3+". Did you know that the technical name for "bunch" is "ease." Why don't you share with the gentle reader an explanation of "clothing ease," Craig? Please tell us the difference between "gross ease" and "normal ease." What kind of body movements create "gross ease," Craig? "Normal ease"? I know you've given this a great deal of thought, since YOU make the claim that JFK's clothing moved in a very specific way. Please share with us your knowledge of clothing fit -- since YOU made the claim.

No. Look again. The bottom of the jacket collar is in the gray area below the white artifact. The upper margin of the white artifact is .75" - 1" above the top of the shirt collar. The lower margin of the white artifact is .75" - 1" below the bottom of the 1/2" exposed shirt collar. Got it? Most of the jacket collar is occluded. No, Craig, I'll leave all that to you. If you're contending lack of haliation in that photo, then JFK's shirt collar was a couple of inches wide in the back. Such was not the case, obviously.

Forget the blue line. Top red line points to JFK's hairline. Bottom red line points to the bottom of JFK's jacket collar. Give or take a millimeter or two.

Pardon my ignorance here, but exactly how do you define "glare"? I drew a 1/4" vertical blue line on the shirt collar artifact in Betzner (top photo). The amount of exposed shirt collar in that location: 1/2". Are you telling us, Craig, that the entirety of that white artifact is shirt collar? If that were the case -- JFK had a three inch head! We see a similar effect on the left shirt collar in Willis 4 (bottom)

Great, then all that is left is for you to prove this great "unimpeachable" idea actually works. I'm really interested in how your "indentation" moves UPWARDS into the standing jacket collar? It didn't. The glare off of the shirt collar occluded the jacket collar. The indentation was below the jacket collar, just as we see in the Adolphus Hotel photo taken on Main St. Same posture as in Betzner, same diagonal indentation. Shadows form in fabric indentations, which naturally occurs when fabric bunches. If you understood what it means to bunch fabric you'd grasp that, Craig. Here is the Adolphus photo and Betzner -- same posture, similar fold, similar shadow.

Thats fine Dean, Varnell has had years and he STILL can't find a way. Remember I'm going to ask for proof, not just a wave of your hands, Varnell style Craig, why can't you show us what 3+ inch of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like? Why can't you locate the upper and lower margins of the top of the fold? Why can't you figure out that "bunching" causes fabric to indent? The shadow area you call an "artifact" was created by the indentation of the fabric. This is unimpeachable. Between the red lines below we find the lip of the JFK's minor fold. Craig can't match this analysis, and he's green with jealousy!

Good question Dean, and deserves an adult answer. Here's JFK on Houston St. Note that the jacket is smooth across the upper back and the shirt collar is not visible. The jacket collar rides below the hairline but above the shirt collar. I put the elevation at 3/4". Bunch theorist Chad Zimmerman put the elevation at 1 inch. Two frames of the Nix film (below) show the moment when JFK's jacket collar dropped to reveal the shirt collar. The fabric right below the jacket collar remained elevated creating the artifact I've dubbed The Dealey Lip. The top of this inch-or-less fabric fold appears in every film and photo taken thereafter. At Z172 JFK began to wave to the crowd and the fold was knocked down to a bare fraction of an inch.

Because Mr. Lamson can't replicate or identify the fold he champions, he must resort to gross distortions of my analysis. I prepared two different studies of the lip of the Elm St. fold in Betzner. The first one located the artifact and provided contrast, the second one pointed to the distinct upper and lower margins of the fold artifact. Craig can't perform a similar analysis, which makes him jealous and out of sorts.

Where does the graphic you produce point to the four horizontal features: the upper/lower margins of the shirt collar and the upper/lower margins the lip of the Elm St. fold? This transparent falsehood of your orange dot marks your utter intellectual corruption. What? Every horizontal fold has a lip. Every lip has both an upper and lower margin. You claim that such an artifact exists but you cannot point to the upper/lower margins of something that clearly isn't there. Point to the upper and lower margins of this artifact. Why are the simplest empirical proofs beyond you, Mr. Lamson?

LOL The brilliance of Mr. Lamson's BS is far from dazzling but always amusing.