Cliff Varnell

Oh no, Mr. Lamson, thank you for once again failing to show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like. It makes your fraud so much more apparent. And thanks again for failing to point out the distinct horizontal margins of the lip of the Elm St. fold. You confirm the fact that no such fold existed.

Thanks so much for proving once again your total lack of visual acuity and ability to reason. The graphic I created indicates the four points of contention. Your orange dot (!) points to nothing, obviously. You claim there is a horizontal artifact with two distinct horizontal features -- the upper and lower margins of the lip of the fold -- but when pressed to point out these features you produce an orange dot (!) and expect people to take your word for it. When challenged to show us what 3+ of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like you pull out a towel that's "pulled directly up" in one photo, and twisted in another. No one pulled up on JFK's jacket, obviously. The burden of proof is on you to point out the horizontal features you claim are in Betzner. You have failed to point to the upper and lower margins of the horizontal artifact because it simply isn't there.

Craig Lamson has repeatedly concluded that the Betzner 3 photo, taken at Z186, shows the same fold at the back of JFK's jacket as seen in other Elm St. films and photos such as the Towner photo, the Towner film, Willis #4, and Croft #3. Craig has also acknowledged that JFK's shirt collar is visible in those images. Up to that point we are in agreement: that the Betzner photo MUST show the shirt collar and the 1/8" lip of the Elm St. fold. Craig agrees with me that both of these horizontal artifacts MUST have distinct upper and lower margins. However, where I can point directly to the upper and lower margins of the shirt collar and fold lip, Craig is content to draw an orange dot on the shirt collar. An orange dot! Craig Lamson's "work" on the Betzner photo is a transparent fraud.

Here's an interesting article in the Boston Globe about what I call The Lamson Effect -- the deleterious impact of partisan political views on human cognition. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full Emphasis added... The Lamson Effect. Indeed.

No you clearly did not. I requested four arrows to point out four horizontal features. These features must be distinct from one another. Your orange dot indicates no location or distinction for these horizontal features. Not even a good attempt at a bluff, Craig.

Intellectual corruption becomes you. You can't show us what your claim looks like, and you can't point out the distinct margins of the artifacts. Who do you think is falling for this nonsense, Craig? With an orange dot? The bottom of the dot aligns with the bottom of the shirt collar -- where are the upper and lower margins of the fold return, Craig? Why can't you use arrows to point to ALL FOUR margins? If they're there, you can point them out. One small round object added to a photo marks nothing. Want to try again?

I suggest you look again, your vison appears impaired. Not at all. You drew an orange dot on the shirt collar. An orange dot! Dots do not define. They do not point. Please use arrows to point to the upper and lower margin of the 1/8" horizontal fold artifact. These features MUST be distinct according to YOUR analysis. What part of the word "distinct" don't you grasp exactly, Craig?

Then you should have no problem pointing to them. Draw arrows pointing to the four distinct horizontal features. Nope I 've done my part, now you do yours What part? Drawing an orange dot on the shirt collar? How does that "define" the horizontal features you claim are right below the shirt collar? Your "part" is actually one part non sequitur and three parts bile. Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like, Craig. Not three millimeters of pulled up towel fabric -- 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric. Aren't you curious what such a sight would look like, Craig? I know I am. Why don't you accomplish that and show us what it looks like? Then, when you're done with that, use arrows to point out the distinct upper and lower margins of the teabagger fold return which you concede MUST be visible in Betzner,according to the unbendable, immutable, irrefutable, unimpeachable laws of light and shadow etc etc... Why is all this so difficult for you, Craig?

Then you should have no problem pointing to them. Draw arrows pointing to the four distinct horizontal features.

No, all four margins are clearly not defined. All you did was draw an orange dot on the shirt collar. This bluff of yours is pathetic! You can't use arrows when there's nothing to point to. You've stipulated to the FACT that there MUST be four distinct horizontal features. Point them out, Craig. (Dots don't point.)

The eyes are always the first to go for crackpots. The graphic shows clearly the four margins you requested. No, you merely drew an orange dot on the shirt collar. Non sequitur. The top of the dot is the upper margin of the shirt collar, the bottom of the dot is the lower margin of the shirt collar. This does not indicate anything about the fold return. Please point to the four distinct horizontal features the unbendable laws of light and shadow dictate MUST be visible in Betzner. Use arrows.

Craig, you put an orange dot on the shirt collar. You've tried this dodge already. When asked to point out multiple distinct horizontal features you always respond with one indication! How in the world does that orange dot point to the upper and lower margins of the fold return? Why can't you use arrows to point to the upper and lower margins of the fold return? Why is this so difficult for you?

None of your graphics point to the distinct horizontal features you concede MUST be present. When are you going to prepare a graphic which points out the following: 1) The upper margin of the shirt collar. 2) The lower margin of the shirt collar. 3) The upper margin of the fold return. 4) The lower margin of the fold return. You've been caught bluffing, Craig. You have nothing to show us relevant to the Betzner photo.

No it isn't. In the first graphic I used lines to locate and bracket the visible fold artifact, and the second graphic pointed out the upper and lower margins of the artifact. Two different graphics, two different purposes. You can't challenge the facts I cite, so you attempt little "gotcha" games. Telling. You have failed to provide a graphic which points to the distinct lower margin of the shirt collar, the upper margin of the fold return, and the lower margin of the fold return. All your graphics show those three features as ONE, no distinction pointed out whatsoever. But you've stipulated to the FACT that all four margins of shirt collar and fold return MUST be distinct. Please point out these four distinct horizontal features. Why is that so hard for you, Craig?

This rhetoric is bizarre. I produced one graphic that bracketed the horizontal fold artifact and the another graphic pointed out the upper and lower margins -- two different purposes. There's lots of things Craig can't get his head around... No cliffy, thats not what you did at all. We have the quotes. Truth is really beyond your ability. It seems with your continued telling of falsehoods, you can't remember what falsehood you told and when. I can however. Count on it. What quotes? Where is your graphic pointing out the four distinct horizontal features of the shirt collar and the fold return? Why can't you show us what 3+" of bunched shirt and jacket fabric look like?

This rhetoric is bizarre. I produced one graphic that bracketed the horizontal fold artifact and the another graphic pointed out the upper and lower margins -- two different purposes. There's lots of things Craig can't get his head around...

Sure you do. You claimed an event occurred but you can't show us what this event looked like. Why can't you just get 3+ inches of shirt and jacket to bunch up and take a photo instead of showing us a towel you pulled on as if that meant something? Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like. Why is that so hard? Show us the three distinct horizontal features: the lower margin of the shirt collar, the upper margin of the return, and the lower margin of the return. You've already stipulated to the FACT that these features MUST be found in Betzner. Why can't you point these out?

You have to throw a pitch to get a strike, Craig. We're analyzing the artifacts in Betzner, not producing them. That's your department -- showing us what 3+" of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like -- but so far you've whiffed. Again, these facts are not challenged. The 1/2" of JFK's shirt collar MUST be a visible artifact with distinct upper and lower margins. Same with the 1/8" Towner/Croft lip. And yet Craig cannot point out these four distinct features -- a concession that his teabagger bunch is his own fantasy. You're bluffing! You've produced no such thing. You are shameless. By all means prepare a graphic that points to the four distinct horizontal features: the upper margin of the shirt collar, the lower margin of the shirt collar, the upper margin of the Towner/Croft lip, the lower margin of the Towner/Croft lip. Like this:

Those photos do not show 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric. Did JFK wear a towel in the motorcade? did someone pull up on the towel? It's a bluff. You can't show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like, and you can't identify the upper and lower margins of the fold return to which you have already stipulated. But the tap dancing is great!

Gentle reader, please note that Craig Lamson attacks my conclusions but he stipulates to the facts upon which I based my conclusions. 1) There are two measurable horizontal artifacts that MUST appear in the Betzner photo: the 1/2" of exposed shirt collar and 1/8" lip of the Towner/Croft fold return. 2) Both of these artifacts MUST feature distinct lower and upper margins. And yet when challenged to point out the distinct horizontal features of his teabagger bunch all Craig does is huff and puff and point to the lower margin of the shirt collar. He acknowledges that these distinct features MUST be in Betzner, but he invariably fails to point them out as distinct from the lower margin of the collar. Why is that, Craig?

Craig Lamson is a "bunch theorist" who has no clue what it means to "bunch" fabric. In his "proof of concept" photo "Betzner/Croft fold" Craig shows us unrelated fabric which he admits he arranged by pulling directly up on it. Pulling on fabric is the exact opposite of bunching fabric. Craig needs to unroll that towel he used in his clue-less concept photos and lay it out flat on the table. Then Craig needs to stand over the towel and casually grip the edges of the towel with his little mitts. Holding the left side of the towel with his left hand and the right side of the towel with his right hand, Craig then needs to move his hands out in opposite directions, stretching the towel in front of him. If Craig does this he will notice a horizontal or horizontal/diagonal fold in the fabric. Next, Craig will keep his light grip on the edges of the towel but this time he will move his little mitts toward each other, pushing the fabric together. If Craig does this he will notice a vertical or vertical/diagonal fold in the fabric. Pulling on fabric is the opposite of bunching fabric, and achieves the opposite results. But for the life of him, Craig Lamson cannot get his brain around this simple demonstration.

You have perfected the art of making a azz of yourself Cliff! ROFLMAO! You have identifed: (green) the natural shadow created by the shoulder. Wrong! There are many photos of JFK in the motorcade -- including one in the set Chris posted upthread -- that show the exact same horizontal fold in the exact same place on the jacket. Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like so we can verify what is otherwise a baseless assertion. Show us what a 3+ inch shirt + jacket fabric fold looks like. Why should anyone take your word for it? You've never seen such a fold, Craig, how would you know what it looked like?

I'll have a beer with you someday Pat and convince you I'm not that kind of guy.

Not the return, Craig. In order for there to be a shadow something must cast the shadow. The 1/8" fold return MUST be visible in sunshine. This is unimpeachable. There MUST be an artifact with distinct upper and lower margins. Your fold exists only in your mind, Craig, otherwise you could readily point to these features. And there is a horizontal artifact with distinct upper and lower margins. Right below the indented shadow area, which was right below the jacket collar which was occluded by the glare off the shirt collar. This is unimpeachable. I can point to 4 distinct horizontal features in Betzner. Craig Lamson can't.

Yeah. You're probably right. And ya know what's really funny? A guy must have been pretending to be Craig Lamson on the same page!!! Check it out: Smells like the work of a Varnell... LOL. What about it, Cliff? I dislike talk of "CIA disinfo" agents. Don't put this xxxx on me, pal. I think the powers that be learned decades ago that the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community would generate vast mis-information out of ridiculous pet theories (like your T1 back wound, Pat) and thoroughly obfuscate the crucial evidence in the case with the best of intentions. With guys like you around, Pat, the government can save the money.