Cliff Varnell

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

All the work is in this tread for anyone to see.

In fact I challenge anyone to find ANY other arrangement of fabric that can create the artifact seen in Betzner and impeach my findings.

What "findings"?

You haven't found out how to bunch shirt and jacket fabric up 3+ inches -- you haven't

established that such a thing is even possible (it isn't, custom-made shirts only have

a fraction of an inch of slack).

You haven't found both the upper and lower margins of the teabagger bunch even though

you acknowledge that the immutable, unbendable, irrefutable and...(wait for it)...

unimpeachable laws of light and shadow dictate that there MUST be a horizontal

artifact in that location with distinct upper and lower margins.

No such artifact exists where you put your fantasy fold, Craig.

This is obvious to anyone who isn't a Kennedy-hating crank drunk on Sarah Palin's Kool-Aid.

Craig, no where in the above do you point out both the upper and lower margins

of the teabagger bunch "return," which YOU have claimed MUST be clearly visible

in full sunshine.

You have failed to offer any proof of your conclusion whatsoever.

You have failed to show us what 3+" of bunched shirt and jacket fabric look like.

Absent these proofs, what is to stop someone from concluding that Craig Lamson is

an intellectually corrupt hack?

None of your graphics show the distinct upper and lower margins of the

horizontal "return" you claim MUST be visible in Betzner. I can point out just

such an artifact, and you cannot. This is unimpeachable.

None of your proof of concept photos show us what 3+" of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric

look like. All you've proven is that you have no concept of what "bunched" fabric entails.

Instead, all we get are dodges, tap dancing, non sequiturs, bloviating. You think because

you draw a line on a photo that the line itself is an artifact in the photo?

It's fun watching you melt down like this, Craig.

Craig,

You claim to have replicated the 3+" elevation of JFK's shirt and jacket.

Please post this replication showing shirt and jacket fabric. Since

you've yet to show any such photo, why would we take your word for it?

You claim to have identified the distinct upper and lower margins of the horizontal

artifact you claim to see in Betzner. Please post your analysis with arrows pointing

to these distinct upper and lower margins.

Thank you.

What does 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like?

No answer.

Answered many times

Never answered. None of Craig's "proof of concept" photos show bunched fabric,

much less 3+" of bunched fabric, much less 3+" of bunched up shirt and

jacket fabric.

All we get is bluff and bluster.

Where are the distinct upper and lower margins of your fantasy fold?

No answer.

Answered many times

Answered not at all. The unbendable laws of light and shadow dictate that the

"return" at the top of the fold show distinct upper and lower margins.

I can show these on the ONLY horizontal artifact that matches the criteria to which

Craig himself stipulated.

All we get from Craig is bluff and bluster.

How did JFK's shirt and jacket hike up his back in 10 seconds?

No answer.

Answered many times

Answered not at all. Because Craig can't replicate his claims he can't explain

how his fantasy fold occurred.

Three straight strikes where Craig can't even swing a bat.

You answer NO questions, Craig.

What does 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like?

No answer.

Where are the distinct upper and lower margins of your fantasy fold?

No answer.

How did JFK's shirt and jacket hike up his back in 10 seconds?

No answer.

Your bluff has been called, Craig. You're holding 7-Duece off-suit and none

of that matches the board.

Show us what 3+" of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like.

Point out the upper and lower margins of your teabagger bunch which the

unbendable laws of light and shadow dictate MUST be apparent in Betzner.

Demonstrate how JFK's shirt and jacket hiked up his back and neck 3+" in 10

seconds.

We don't get answers to these direct questions, just more bluff from the

ideologically addled Craig Lamson.

This is the graphic that is making Craig Lamson's brain meltdown.

Please note, gentle reader, that the red lines in this graphic do not represent

the upper and lower margins of the fold artifact -- I have no idea where Craig

got that impression, since the artifact is between the red lines and

not under them.

The red lines frame the obvious horizontal artifact with it's upper and

lower margins. Craig draws a line on blurry shadow and insists that the line is

an artifact, where no such artifact exists.

Can Craig show us what 3+ inches of bunched shirt and jacket fabric look like?

No, he has FAILED to show that such a thing is even possible.

Can Craig point out the upper and lower margins of his teabagger bunch?

No, he FAILED to point out the upper and lower margins of his imaginary fold,

since no such things exist in Betzner.

Can Craig explain how JFK's shirt and jacket scaled his upper back and neck in

ten seconds?

No, Craig has FAILED to show how such a thing occurred.

No wonder Craig has to resort to puerile rhetoric, it's all he has...

I will take any of them over the Parrot memo any day. Or that crazy flechette gun story. Yeah, make us all look like kooks ready for Alex Jones and his bullhorn and LBJ calling in bazookas and hand grenades to Dealey Plaza.

I couldn't disagree more.

The "flechette gun story" comes from the "general feeling" of the prosectors who faced

two entrance wounds -- one in the back in the vicinity of the third thoracic vertebra,

and an entrance in the throat -- which had no exits, and no rounds were recovered.

The reason that FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab was to find out about just such

a weapon that fired rounds which "dissolved after contact."

Why do you assume they were wrong, Jim?

Cliff, I like your work and I think most of it is good. I particularly admire you going after that xxxxx Lamson.

But you don't even know what I am talking about here. What I meant was in Hankey's JFK 2,where he has Bush going into Hoover's office and threatening to kill him with a flechette gun. Seamus went over this thoroughly in his essay. I guess you didn't read it.

Not thoroughly, no. Seamus convinced me early on that Hankey wasn't worth checking out past

that bit about the Hoover memo, which I have a different take on entirely.

Pardon my knee-jerk response to perceived pooh-poohing of "flechette gun stories."

You might say I'm a flechettophile. A flechetticist?

I mean Baker ignores the real crimes of the Bush family e.g. Iran-Contra, Gulf War I and April Glaspie, The October Surprise, Florida 2000, etc etc. Things for which there is real evidence.

I couldn't agree more. The Contra drug running operations escaped Baker's notice.

I will take any of them over the Parrot memo any day. Or that crazy flechette gun story. Yeah, make us all look like kooks ready for Alex Jones and his bullhorn and LBJ calling in bazookas and hand grenades to Dealey Plaza.

I couldn't disagree more.

The "flechette gun story" comes from the "general feeling" of the prosectors who faced

two entrance wounds -- one in the back in the vicinity of the third thoracic vertebra,

and an entrance in the throat -- which had no exits, and no rounds were recovered.

The reason that FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab was to find out about just such

a weapon that fired rounds which "dissolved after contact."

Why do you assume they were wrong, Jim?

Because it sounds "kooky"?

Care to explain JFK seizing up paralyzed in two seconds; care to explain a neck x-ray

that shows a bruised lung tip, a hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process,

and an air pocket. There was no exit, no round recovered.

Other than JFK being hit with blood soluble rounds you'll have a hard time explaining

two entrances, no exits, no rounds recovered.

Were the rounds removed on AF1?

Craig, unlike you I don't draw lines on top of the artifact. Unlike you, I'm not trying

to conceal anything.

This is a very simple task for you, Craig.

Draw an arrow to point out the upper margin of your artifact, and then use another arrow to point

out the lower margin of the artifact.

It can't be that difficult.

Look, see how easy this is?

Not going to happen Cliff. I posted a very nice graphic that clearly shows the top and the bottom margins of the highlight on the top of fold in Betzner.

No, your graphic does NOT point to both the upper and lower margins of the highlight.

The artifact I have pointed out in the below -- and bracketed in another analysis -- didn't change shape or size at all.

Where do you come up with this gibberish?

Point out the upper and lower margins of the 1/8" "return, as I have done below.

If I can do it, why can't you manage it?

Craig,

You still haven't posted your Betzner analysis with the two arrows: the one

arrow pointing to the upper margin of the horizontal artifact, and the other

arrow pointing to the lower margin of the horizontal artifact.

You acknowledge that both MUST be apparent in Betzner.

And yet you fail to point them both out.

Why can't you perform this simple task, Craig?

Why? This one too hard for you cliffy?

It obviously doesn't point out the upper and lower margins of the fold.

Why can't you point out the upper and lower margins of the fold, instead of drawing

a thick line to represent something that isn't there?

Why is it so hard for you to show us what 3+ inches of bunched shirt and jacket

fabric look like?

Why can't you back up any of your claims?

Your purpose here has nothing to do with photo-analysis, it's all about your hatred for

all things Kennedy. Be honest, Craig.

Craig,

Will you please post an analysis of the Betzner close-up with two (2) lines,

a red line to indicate the upper margin of the horizontal fold, and a green

line pointing to the lower margin of the fold.

Like this:

The upper and lower margins of the highlight on the top of the 3+inch fold of fabric on JFK's back are CLEARLY indicated here.

Where? Don't draw a thick line over the non-existent artifact, use arrows to point

out the upper margin of the artifact and the lower margin of the artifact.

You can't do this because there is no such artifact at that location.

Like all Teabagger Partiers Craig Lamson just makes up nonsense and repeats it

endlessly.

Craig, you remain unclear on this whole "burden of proof" thing.

According to your analysis there was a massive jacket/shirt fold below JFK's

shirt collar at the left-back of his neck that extended up around his ear on

the right-back of JFK's neck.

This psychedelic artifact MUST have a 1/8" "return" according to YOUR analysis.

You have shown us the upper margins of this fantastic fold, but you still haven't

shown us the lower margin.

There MUST be both an upper and lower margin of the 1/8" fold.

And, of course, there is.

Upper margin indicated by the red line, lower margin indicated by the green line (below).

You can't show us the lower margin of the teabagger bunch because it didn't exist.

Otherwise, you could show us the lower margin. But you can't.

This should be simple enough for you to grasp, Craig.

Please note, gentle reader, that in this reply Craig Lamson fails yet AGAIN to

point out both an upper and a lower margin to his 1/8" teabagger

bunch return.

Craig has reached the point of no return.

According to the unbendable laws of light and shadow the horizontal 1/8" return

MUST be in full sunlight.

According to the immutable, unbendable laws of light and shadow there MUST be

an upper margin and a lower margin.

Craig can only point to the absurd upper margins BELOW the shirt collar on the

left side and up by the ear on the right side.

The unimpeachable fact is that the lower horizontal artifact is the lip of the fold.

Craig,

Your last two Betzner analyses show the upper margin of the teabagger bunch

to be under the shirt collar on the left side of JFK's upper body, and up

around the level of his ears on the right side.

Funny, thats nowhere in the studies. Is this just more of Varnell telling falsehoods? I must say, telling these l... I mean falshoods has become quite the pattern for you. Do you actually think telling them earns you points or advances your position...or undermines mine?

If the fabric was bunched up 3+ inches on the left side, it had to have been

bunched up what? -- another 6 inches on the right side?

Blatant and very poor attempt at the strawman arguement. You really do suck, don't you?

No wonder you can't replicate your claims!

Replicate? How in the world can I replicate what happened to the jacket in Dealey Plaza. I can't place JFK in the Limo, I don't have his coat, I can't exactly recreate his motions...in short NO ONE can replicate it.

We can however inspect the Betzner photo and test different arrqangements of fabric to prove what will or will not produce the artifact seen in the photo. Of course those tests prove in an unimpeachable manner that only a 3+ inch fold of fabric can obscure the jacket collar at the point where the neck shadow MUST pass over it. Since that is TRUE, your claim the jacket has fallem is FALSE. Unimpeachable.

Now, while you've shown us where you claim the top of the bunch was, you've yet

to point out the lower margin of the 1/8" return.

The unbendable laws of light and shadow dictate that there must be both upper

and lower margins to the 1/8" return.

But Cliff, thats exactly what I provided for you as you asked. The fact you are simply unable to comprehend does not an objection make.

You don't have to produce this right away, Craig. Spend the weekend on your

Betzner studies and get back with us Monday.

I'll be out of town and away from my computer until then.

Take your time Cliff. As we have seen for the last few days, you have nothing of substance to offer anyways.

I think its about time to detail the varnell ignorance. I think we are gonna need a webpage to properly present your "insights".

This once again brings us to game over.

Varnell, unwittingly, sealed his own fate by drawing lines he says indicate the fold on JFK's back in Betzner. The unbendable laws of light and shaodw AND angle of incidence ( remember that one, its a killer for Varnell) which he invoked in his own claim lay waste to his silly cliam. His fold simply cannot produce the artifact seen in Betzner nor can it elininate the shadow from JFK's neck that MUST fall over his jacket colar and jacket back. This is UNIMPEACHABLE.

Squirm, deflect and insult all you want Cliff, you can't bend the unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Your very own claim proves you wrong and ends the debate.

Craig,

Your last two Betzner analyses show the upper margin of the teabagger bunch

to be under the shirt collar on the left side of JFK's upper body, and up

around the level of his ears on the right side.

If the fabric was bunched up 3+ inches on the left side, it had to have been

bunched up what? -- another 6 inches on the right side?

No wonder you can't replicate your claims!

Now, while you've shown us where you claim the top of the bunch was, you've yet

to point out the lower margin of the 1/8" return.

The unbendable laws of light and shadow dictate that there must be both upper

and lower margins to the 1/8" return.

You don't have to produce this right away, Craig. Spend the weekend on your

Betzner studies and get back with us Monday.

I'll be out of town and away from my computer until then.

Craig, I'm going to make it real easy for you.

I'm not going to ask you to do anything impossible -- like replicate your claim,

which you have conceded you cannot do.

All I'm going to challenge you with is this: show us the upper and lower margins of

your teabagger bunch in Betzner.

That's it.

I'll show you how easy this is...According to the immutable laws of light and

shadow the lip of the fold we see in Towner and Croft MUST be visible in Betzner

as a horizontal artifact with 1) a visible upper margin, and 2) a visible lower

margin.

I'll go first, then it's your turn...

Wonderful Cliff, you have just described an arrangement of fabric that, based on the very unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence you trumpet, CANNOT produce the artifact seen in Betzner.

Excuse me?

According to the unbendable laws of light and shadow the lip of the Towner/Croft fold MUST

be visible in Betzner.

This is unimpeachable.

Now the challenge for you, Craig, especially in light of the fact that you

cannot show us what 3+ inches of shirt + jacket fabric looks like,

is to point out in the Betzner photo the upper margin of the teabagger bunch

"return," and the lower margin of the "return."

If you cannot replicate 3+" of shirt + jacket bunch-up -- and cannot

point out the upper and lower margins of the teabagger bunch return -- then

you simply have no case.

Craig, I'm going to make it real easy for you.

I'm not going to ask you to do anything impossible -- like replicate your claim,

which you have conceded you cannot do.

All I'm going to challenge you with is this: show us the upper and lower margins of

your teabagger bunch in Betzner.

That's it.

I'll show you how easy this is...According to the immutable laws of light and

shadow the lip of the fold we see in Towner and Croft MUST be visible in Betzner

as a horizontal artifact with 1) a visible upper margin, and 2) a visible lower

margin.

I'll go first, then it's your turn...

More tap dance.

Your proof of concept photos demonstrate nothing. Show us in the Betzner photo

where is the upper margin of the fold, and where is the lower margin of the fold?

Btw, that red outline is JFK's hand. Just look at Z186 and you'll see it.

You're bluffing.

Point out the upper and lower margins of this 1/8" "return". Drawing lines

in shadow and murk count for nothing, especially since you've conceded that

you have failed to replicate 3+" of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric.

Oh Cliff, I never bluff.

Bingo!

When pressed to point out the upper and lower margins of this so-called fold

Craig tap dances.

Again: point out the upper and lower margins of this 1/8" "return" which MUST

be visible in full sunlight.

You're bluffing.

Point out the upper and lower margins of this 1/8" "return". Drawing lines

in shadow and murk count for nothing, especially since you've conceded that

you have failed to replicate 3+" of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric.

All you've done is draw a blue line on shadow. Show us where the jacket bulge is distinct from the shirt collar.

It's at the blue line Cliff. I'm really sorry but you fail again.

What's "at the blue line"? The blue line does not indicate this 1/8" visible "return"

of your fantasy fold. Use arrows to point out where the 1/2" shirt collar is, and use

another set of arrows to show us where the distinct bulge is.

1/2 inch of shirt collar? Clearly you jest. It right where it should be,

where the shadow of the neck falls over it.

Where does the shadow of the neck fall over the left shoulder?

Where is this bulge at the left base of JFK's neck, Craig? The immutable laws

of light and shadow dictate that a massive 3+" bulge at the left base of JFK's

neck MUST catch sunshine and appear distinct from the shirt collar.

No such artifact exists.

None of your faux-studies address bunched fabric, much less 3+ inches of shirt

and jacket bunch.

You can't identify the fold in any of the photos; you can't replicate the fold;

you can't point out any other photos on Elm St. which show the top of the fold

above the bottom of the collar.

The facts of the case matter not to you -- only the push-back, no matter how

transparently absurd.

Lets help Varnell out here. The 3+ inch fold of fabric DOES catch sunlight in Betzner.

Where? Where is the top of the jacket fold distinct from the shirt collar?

Where? I've pointed it out time and time again. Your failure to understand is not a rebuttal, it ignornance.

All you've done is draw a blue line on shadow. Show us where the jacket bulge is distinct from the shirt collar.

It's at the blue line Cliff. I'm really sorry but you fail again.

What's "at the blue line"? The blue line does not indicate this 1/8" visible "return"

of your fantasy fold. Use arrows to point out where the 1/2" shirt collar is, and use

another set of arrows to show us where the distinct bulge is.

But you can't do that because there is no such horizontal artifact in Betzner.

The top of the fold in Croft is CLEARLY below the top of the jacket collar.

Unimpeachable.

You cannot point out the bulge in Betzner because it didn't exist.

You cannot replicate your claims because they are impossible to replicate

Your presence here is purely for political reasons.