Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,633 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Snip the Varnell Fantasy Blovation...
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.
The proof must consist of experimental, empirical, proof of concept photos.
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.
-
No, we can't see half of that!
sure we can, It's right where I pointed it out.
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?
-
Cue the endgame...
Either you can produce an alternative to the 3+ inch fold of fabric in Betzer and PROVE it works within the constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence..and do so by providing photographic proof of concept, experimental, empirical evidence. or you lose. Simple as that.
All the rest is just ignorance on display by Cliff "fantasy" Varnell
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.
-
No, we can't see half of that!
sure we can, It's right where I pointed it out.
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.
-
That however dose not change the unimpeachable fact that there is 3+ inch fold of fabric in Betzner...that you can't deal with in an honest fashion....
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!
Was George Herbert Walker Bush Involved in Kennedy Assassination?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Cliff Varnell
I couldn't agree more. The Contra drug running operations escaped Baker's notice.
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?