Cliff Varnell

fwiw I think is as close to the truth as we've gotten. Cast of characters in bold Tosh Plumlee wrote: We have an account of a FBI teletype coming in on November 17, warning of a "revolutionary group" plotting to assassinate JFK in Dallas. We have Democratic Party advance man Marty Underwood reporting: "We were getting all sorts of rumors that the President was going to be assassinated in Dallas; there were no ifs, ands, or buts about it." These warnings are consistent with attempts afoot to stop JFK's assassination, which obviously bolsters Tosh's account. I suspect that it was JFK himself who overruled this "they" I highlighted above, who were probably the Secret Service. Makes sense to me that the Dallas Cubans would not have been involved in something like that in their own backyard. Reading the above, I find it interesting that the only group on the ball was military intelligence. All the FBI and the CIA could come up in the way of fore-warning was a Mob guy in Austin? And that probably came from the FBI. All these heavy rumors coming out about Dallas and it appears that the FBI intentionally failed to pass it on to Dallas PD, even after canceled motorcades in Tampa and Chicago. I do not find it co-incidental that all this activity occured after November 1, 1963. The over-throw of Diem in Vietnam may have split the original sponsors of the JFK assassination into two camps. The one in Dallas got their way. I find your account totally credible, sir. But I still think Morales put a long day in at JMWAVE co-ordinating the hit from HQ. Thank you for your insight, Tosh. You're a damn great American.

If its impossible to know, then why do you claim as a FACT that 2-3" of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of his jacket were bunched up entirely above the base of his neck (without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck -- <snicker>). As you so ably demonstrate. Cliff, did you show "your guys" Croft? Cliff, Did you show your guys Croft? once more just in case you missed it again... Cliff, did you show your guys Croft? Tha fact you refuse to answer this simple questions speaks VOLUMES! It does? What did I write? You have written NOTHING in reply to the direct question: No reply needed. I showed one photo, the same photo, to the both of them. Have you already forgotten what that one photo was? Go back over the posts again and find out what photo I showed Mr. Shirt. You're obviously asking a rhetorical question. Now, what do you have to say about the mass migration of JFK's clothing in less than 1.5 seconds between Croft and Betzner? I've asked you plenty of other direct questions you've dodged; but I think its amusing when people show they have no argument.

That's interesting. In my e-mail conversation with him a year ago he seemed patently disinterested in what the photo-film evidence showed in regards to the movement of JFK's clothing. I found this odd since a stray remark of his upon release of the Jefferies film sparked world-wide headlines about "new evidence," that being the position of JFK's jacket in Jefferies, 90 seconds before the shooting. I quite reasonably asserted that surely photo-films taken within 10 seconds of the shooting trumped Jefferies, but he wasn't interested in discussing it much. Curious attitude, I found.

No sweat, Dawn I eat 'em for lunch. They don't grind me down, I grind them down. Cue Patton

Gary Mack's arbitrary dismissal of the clothing evidence as "hard evidence" of more than one shooter is an abrogation of his responsibility as a historian. Among the American people, conspiracy in the murder of JFK is a historical fact.

If its impossible to know, then why do you claim as a FACT that 2-3" of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of his jacket were bunched up entirely above the base of his neck (without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck -- <snicker>). As you so ably demonstrate. Cliff, did you show "your guys" Croft? Cliff, Did you show your guys Croft? once more just in case you missed it again... Cliff, did you show your guys Croft? Tha fact you refuse to answer this simple questions speaks VOLUMES! It does? What did I write?

I didn't fabricate any statement. I asked for an explanation. In our previous discussion of Altgens, you referred to jpeg compression artifacts. In response to my very reasonable question as to the artifact in the black box, you started slobbering about some "losing rehash" of yours. And so, since our prior discussion concerned jpeg compression artifacts, I assumed that was what you were referring to. You have repeatedly claimed there was a convex-shaped hump of clothing at the right-shoulder one in every photo in Dealey Plaza. That artifact is in the exact location you claim a gross clothing bunch. But there is no gross clothing bunch. That artifact is not part of JFK. It's part of the background. I find it interesting that you claim to see all these amazing things in the motorcade photos but when it gets to proving them you keep running into low res, bad camera angles that don't allow you to really see very much, different photographer perspectives that hide your Betzner Bunch, etc, etc belly-ache, whine, moan, sniffle, rationalize etc... You say the Betzner Bunch is in every photo, but you keep putting photos into evidence that destroy your inane little theory. Let's put your Betzner and the color Croft up together, hm? So tell us, Craig, how did that fold at the nape of JFK's neck in Croft (z161) migrate several inches over to right to land on JFK's right shoulder, as you claim to see in Betzner (Z186)? 25 Z frames is less than a second and a half. What occurred in that limo in less than a second and a half that would have caused this gross movement of JFK's clothing? C'mon, Craig -- you make the claim, where's the argument? It's been your position that every DP photographic image shows Betzner Bunch. But Altgens clearly shows a smooth right-shoulder-line and what certainly appears to be a background gap between the man's leg and JFK's jacket collar. Make up your mind, Craig -- does every DP photo show Betzner Bunch, or not? Hilarious! You've been putting words in my mouth about "Varnell Magic Jacket Theory" when all I was referring to was gravity. How is gravity a Magic anything, Craig? You don't believe in gravity? Seems like you're having a tough time here, Craig. Are you okay?

Charles, We're in a Media guerrilla war. The venues change and our understanding deepens and we take our best shots where we find them. All blessings to you in the next stage of your work, sir!

Okay. Please explain how the artifact in the black box above is a jpeg compression artifact.

If its impossible to know, then why do you claim as a FACT that 2-3" of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of his jacket were bunched up entirely above the base of his neck (without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck -- <snicker>). As you so ably demonstrate.

I see a normal 3/4" "bunch" in Croft, Duncan. What do you see?

btw, Craig, will you explain to us how the normal fold at the nape of JFK's neck in Croft (Z161) migrated several inches over to JFK's right shoulder-line in less than a second and a half, as you claim to see in Betzner(Z186)? Don't shake your head, Craig -- it might fall off.

You posit JFK's clothing behaving in a manner contrary to the nature of reality, which is why you cannot replicate Betzner Bunch. The burden of proof is on you, but all you do devise rationales for why you can't carry that burden. Yes, and according to your brilliant photographic analysis, 2-3" of JFK's jacket and 2-3" of JFK's shirt bunched up to wrap around JFK's neck in the Altgens photo in a manner of a collar. Just one of your utterly inane claims. And tell us about this artifact in the black box in Altgens: That is the gap between the leg of the man in the background and JFK's jacket collar. According to you its part of 4-6" of bunched up fabric that no one else can see, but we know its there because photo expert Craig Lamson says it has to be there. Your circular logic is a constant source of amusement.

The same non sequitur pimped endlessly: Any fold in fabric = "bunch" "bunch" = 2-3" of fabric Any fold in fabric = 2-3" of fabric.

By the size of the cup in the fold. In Towner the "trough" of the fold is visible and very small. In the Lattimer pic the trough is very large. Using the 1.25" jacket collar the sentient among us will instantly see that the Towner fold is small, which is why you can't really see much bunch. We see the same stubby 3/4" fold in Willis #4, and in Croft that fold is bowed out slightly. The red line is 1.25" jacket collar, the green line points to the cup of the very normal 3/4" jacket fold -- the same fold we see in Towner and Willis #4 -- and the yellow lines point to JFK's visible shirt collar. Willis #4:

(Cue Vin Scully) Translated from Cliffspeak: I'm clueless about all of this technical photography talk so I'll just make up some silly BS in the hopes no one will notice. " I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong. What's the big deal? Your intellectual dishonesty is matched only by your intellectual snobbery. Mr Shirt spent 30 years seeing untold hundreds of thousands of these 3/4" inch folds. The 2-time winner of the LA Drama Critics Award for Costume Design is one of the world's leading textile conservators, having been the only textile conservator to have ever curated their own exhibit at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Master degree in Design from NYU -- long stints of work and study at the De Young Museum in San Francisco and Hampton Court in London. Alan Flusser, the author of the book I cited earlier, Clothes and the Man: The Principles of Fine Men's Dress, was for decades the leading men's fashion designer and historian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Flusser You referred to Alan Flusser's expertise as (I paraphrase) -- "just words." Just words? Some guy? Quotation marks around the word "expert" when it comes to clothing expertise? You think because you handle a camera you're "more of an expert" (your attitude, if not your words) than top people in the clothing biz? Pathetic.

Go for the green. Previously, Varnell coolly observed: Lamson self-debunks: Varnell zings: Craig, holding 3 fingers in the air as he sinks into rip tide: Wow Cliff, you are really in bad shape if you need to alter the quotes to try and make them fit your failed position. Wow Craig, you are in really bad shape if you think the phrase "not much" isn't an acceptable paraphrase of your line -- "The problem is we can't really see much in Towner." Do I need to parse this? Let's try again converting your "can't" to "can not" with the appropriate emphasis added: You observed: The problem is yours alone. The fact is we can see the cupped fold which we can compare to the 1.25" jacket collar and also we can compare it to the Lattimer fold and we can exercise a little common sense. At least some of us can... Craig, you have repeatedly attributed to me an argument I've never made: that there were no folds in the jacket. My argument all along very clearly is: of course there were folds in the jacket! This little bitch fit of yours is more than a tad disingenuous. After all, you put quotation marks around the word "slide" and attributed that to me. I didn't use that word but I didn't skwawk because it all means the same thing -- "can't really see much" and "not much" are the same thing. You haven't addressed the methodology I've presented. Instead, you have little tidies twisters over semantics. Go figure...

My new comments in burgandy. Previously, Varnell coolly observed: Lamson self-debunks: Varnell zings: Craig scrambles to recover: Craig, if you "can't see" anything in Towner, why did you put it into evidence? You put it into evidence because you can see the cupped fold at the nape of his neck. You describe the "bunch" accurately thus: Your problem is that you eagerly put into evidence the photo that has been the root of my research since 1997. I showed that photo to a San Francisco shirt-maker with 30 years experience who had handled untold hundreds of thousands of such common fabric folds. He pronounced it a 3/4" fold. I showed Towner to a 2-time winner of the LA Drama Critics Circle Award for Costume Design, who pointed out the jacket collar as a way to measure the fold. I've been waiting for you to put this into evidence, Craig. Thank you. I didn't want to put it into evidence myself because I knew you'd pull that nonsense about there being no information in the photo. If there were no information in the photo, you wouldn't have put it into evidence. But you did, indicating you are cognizant of the presence in that photo of a small fabric fold, the size of which you have accurately characterized as "can't really see much." You "can't really see much" because there ain't much there to see. Using the 1.25" jacket collar as an improvised ruler, we can tell that the fold involves a fraction of an inch of fabric. Which is why you "can't really see much." Craig drops da bomb! It settled down from a 3/4" fold to a 1/8" fold. The red arrow points to it: Craig breaks into hysterics: I'll leave it to the gentle reader to conclude whether or not it takes "magic" for a jacket to settle down 5/8".

They hadn't passed the law of gravity in Dallas that year? And I wouldn't call going from a 3/4" fold to a 1/8" -- a "slide." I have a pet name for it --I call it -- The Crypto-LN Creep. Look folks, even MORE slight of hand from Cliff! His Magic Jacket Theory now says this material pinned by the body and the seat "slides" away into nothingness. This is amazing! You say it was no problem for JFK's tucked-in custom-made shirt to ride up three inches, but for the jacket to fall 5/8" inch you'd think it took a miracle. How does a 3/4" fold dropping 5/8" into a 1/8" constitute a slide away into nothingness? The folds in your clothes ease in fractions of an inch everytime you casually move. Same with JFK. Did they fail to pass the law of gravity in your hometown, Craig? As far as the jacket being pinned to the seat -- how many times do I have to go over this? Here's JFK leaning forward to talk to Nellie on Houston St. And a split second later, here's JFK leaning back from his chat with Nellie which caused his jacket to drop thus exposing the shirt collar.

Thanks for posting this! However, Duncan, I have insisted all along that there were, indeed, folds in JFK's jacket. That there could possibly be folds less than 2 inches doesn't seem to register as a possiblility with you, Duncan. Why is that? Duncan, do you know the difference between a 3/4" jacket fold and a 3" jacket fold? Craig says that's a 3" jacket fold, but when pressed for his methodology for determining this, he offers none. How about you? What is your evidence that the small, normal, fraction of an inch "bunch" in this photo involves 3" of fabric as opposed to 3/4" of fabric?

You have no idea what you're doing. You appear unaware that Croft #3 is a glorious color photograph. Really stunning. Shows far more detail of the back of the jacket. Tell ya what, Craigy, why don't you go out and get a good quality version of Croft #3 and point out the Betzner Bunch -- and quit pimping this b&w pig. Hint: T r a s k

They hadn't passed the law of gravity in Dallas that year? And I wouldn't call going from a 3/4" fold to a 1/8" -- a "slide." I have a pet name for it --I call it -- The Crypto-LN Creep.

The reason we can't see much in the way of bunch in Towner is because there obviously isn't much bunch to be seen. Can't see much in Towner? Me neither. I used the 1.25" jacket collar to roughly measure the small cupped fold, and compared the little Elm St.-corner fold to the much larger Lattimer fold. You put Towner into evidence -- you put the small fold into evidence and declared it "not much." Maybe you aren't so cognitively impaired after all!

(Cue Vin Scully)

I want to know what the hard evidence is that someone else was firing. As one who is convinced the acoustics findings of two gunmen is correct, I would love to use it...but the acoustics has been called into question. So please answer my question if you can. Gary JFK changed his shirt a few minutes before landing in Dallas and tucked his shirt in so he'd look sharp, like he always did. The location of the holes in the clothes are 2-3" below the SBT location and tailored shirts only have 3/4" of slack. If anyone wants to call this into question the burden of proof is one them to reconcile this 2-3" shirt and jacket movement with the motorcade photos. Otherwise, the clothing evidence stands as prima facie evidence of conspiracy.