Cliff Varnell

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

All you've done is draw a blue line on shadow. Show us where the jacket bulge is distinct from the shirt collar. The jacket bulge MUST be in full sunshine and MUST be distinct from the shirt collar. You cannot show us this. This didn't exist.

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? All your arrows point to the shirt collar-line. This is unimpeachable. Show us where the jacket bulge in sunshine is distinct from the shirt collar in sunshine. You can't point this out, Craig. It isn't there. In one of your proof of concept photos you "pulled directly UP" (your description) on the fabric, which is not the same as "bunching" fabric; the other proof of concept photo shows fabric you've twisted or rolled. The reason you can't show us what 3+ inches of bunched shirt and jacket fabric look like is because this event is impossible. You and Sarah Palin think you can create an alternative reality simply by making repeated assertions. Go Teabaggers!

Let's help Craig out here, shall we gentle reader? Any bulge of fabric in Betzner must catch sunlight. There is only one horizontal artifact in Betzner consistent with the lip of the fold as seen in Towner and Croft. Red line indicates the lip of the Towner/Croft fold, clearly distinct from the shirt collar.

The endgame... Vanrnell MUST find a suitable alternative to the 3+ inch fabric fold and prove it works given the natural constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Lamson MUST show us what 3+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric look like. The fact that he cannot tells us he's bluffing. Indeed. So where are your experimental, empirical proof of concept photos that show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and fabric look like? Why do you insist that the top of the jacket fold in Towner is level with the top of the collar when it clearly is level with the bottom of the collar? Where is your 1/8" top of the jacket fold which MUST be distinct from the shirt collar in Betzner? Gentle reader, is the top of the jacket fold level with the top of the collar in Towner? Of course not.

All you pointed out was the shirt collar-line. There MUST be a horizontal 1/8" artifact distinct from the shirt collar. But no such artifact exists. There is. I'm sorry you can't understand. Where is it? The 1/8" top of the jacket fold MUST be distinct from the shirt collar. But all you do is point out the shirt collar line. Where is the 1/8" horizontal fold that MUST be distinct from the shirt collar? Where is your replication of your claims? Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like, Craig. Why can't you do that?

The burden of proof is on you, Craig. You must show us where this 1/8" horizontal artifact is, but you cannot. The top of the jacket fold MUST be distinct from the shirt collar, but it isn't since it never existed. Is it even possible to bunch up 3+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric? No one has ever replicated this event. It's contrary to the nature of reality, and cannot be done.

All you pointed out was the shirt collar-line. There MUST be a horizontal 1/8" artifact distinct from the shirt collar. But no such artifact exists.

Such a massive bulge MUST be in full sunshine. But it isn't. In order to prove his claim Craig must demonstrate that it's even possible to bunch up 3+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric. But he can't. Since Towner and Croft show the top of the small folds to be level with the bottom of the jacket collar, Craig must explain how JFK's clothing hiked up his back in seconds. But Craig cannot explain this. Craig's purpose here is purely political, part of the right wing noise machine. Thank goodness Teabagger Partiers are so amusing!

The top of the fold MUST be in full sunshine, but it isn't because it didn't exist. Where is your replication of this 3+ inch jacket fold, Craig? No where, since you've only produced photos of fabric you've pulled or twisted. Still haven't figured out what it means to "bunch" fabric, have you Craig?

No, we can't see half of that! Where is this horizontal artifact that MUST be there? And this horizontal fold MUST extend to the left of the shirt collar -- but there is a vertical/diagonal artifact there instead. None of your proof of concept photos show bunched up jacket fabric. When are you going to show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like? Answer: never. Such a thing is contrary to the nature of reality.

I'll take care of the light work, Martin. Making Craig's head explode is amusing entertainment.

Martin, here's how it works on the internet: any time someone posts the prima facie case for conspiracy (the low back wound, the throat entrance wound), there is push-back. It's automatic. The argument that JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy makes Craig's brain explode, and making up stuff about the Dealey Plaza photographs is the only way he can push-back. People like Craig don't care how unprovable their claims are -- the important thing for him is to make a counter-argument, no matter how idiotic. I get a kick out of watching Craig blow smoke while he back-peddles from one absurdity to the next.

You've ignored everything! Or at least tried to ignore everything... First of all, you can't produce a photo of what 3+ inches of jacked up shirt and jacket fabric look like. Secondly, you claim there is a .5" "return" on the top of your imaginary jacket fold, but half of that (.25") must be visible in Betzner. But there is no .25" thick artifact. You merely point out the shirt collar line and pretend that the glare off the shirt is the top of the fold. The shirt collar-line, obviously. Where is the horizontal return line that MUST extend to the left of the edge of the shirt collar? But there is a vertical/diagonal fold artifact in Betzner instead, right where your arrows put it. This is why you're afraid to show us your attempts to replicate this fantasy of yours. You can't bunch fabric in this manner -- it's contrary to the nature of reality. You claim the return is ".50 inch" -- half of that would be .25 inch. In Towner and Croft the top of the fold is even with the bottom of the collar. That is obvious, unimpeachable. You cannot identify a "return" line in Betzner, instead you disingenuously point to the shirt collar-line. You've failed to prove that you grasp the concept of "bunched" fabric, much less show us a photo of what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like. The burden of proof is on you, Craig. Show us the "return" line of the top of the fold; show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like; explain how JFK's shirt and jacket hiked up his back multiple inches in a matter of seconds. [cue "Final Jeopardy"]

Craig Lamson is clearly bluffing about the Dealey Plaza photos. The fact that he cannot replicate his claims should tell you that they're bogus.