Cliff Varnell

It was not always this way. I remember back in the beginning we critics worked together

So I've noticed, by reading John Kelin's excellent work "Praise From a Future Generation."

What happened? And why?

In the mid-60's, all the first generation researchers had to do was point

to the bullet holes in JFK's clothes to establish the fact of conspiracy.

I guess this explanation was too simple for the arm-chair detectives who

followed.

Tink, would you care to tell us why you abandoned the emphasis on this

elegant and irrefutable evidence in favor the the highly technical NAA and acoustics

studies, which, after all, require a advanced college degrees to verify?

Craig went red.

My new comments in: green.

Craig Lamson had written:

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because

I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and

I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

To which Varnell yawned:

The burden of proof isn't on me.

You are the one making the claim here that the jacket fell, so yes you

have the burden of proof. Anyways none of your post really matters, what matters is the

last seconds before the shot.

And by what alchemy of logic did you arrive at that conclusion? JFK was in Dealey Plaza

30-35 seconds. The Weaver photo clearly shows there was no Lamson Fantasy on his

right shoulder-line. But who ya gonna believe -- Craig Lamson or yer own lyin' eyes?

Varnell auto-pilots, bored:

You claimed as a FACT that 2-3" of JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated entirely above

the SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

And I have shown just that with the measurement of Croft.

You wish.

1) You used a less than stellar version of the photo. The better the resolution the

smaller the appearance of the fold.

2) You based your measurements on the exposed shirt collar, another root

fallacy. As we've seen, the amount of exposed shirt collar could shift fractions

of an inch in a split second, according to JFK's movements.

The jacket collar was always 1.25", but the shirt collar exposure was not a fixed

amount.

I didn't arbitrarily draw lines on Towner the way you did on Croft. I simply drew

a line down the 1.25" jacket collar. You have no idea exactly how much shirt collar

was exposed in Croft.

The important thing is that any of the shirt collar was visible on Elm St.

According to one of your conflicted claims, the jacket hid the shirt collar -- but

then you draw a line to represent the highly visible shirt collar.

3) Your second measurement is absurd -- you can't claim to represent a three

dimensional object with a line on a two-dimensional photo.

You haven't even examined You have yet to show my measurments were wrong.

You ignore my critique in hopes it'll go away?

Varnell earlier issued a challenge that cannot be met:

One thing for sure, your rebuttal will not include a replication of your claims using

a suit coat and a tuck-in custom made dress shirt. You, and others who make these

unsupported claims, will find such impossible.

Why do I need a replication?

The question speaks a thousand words about your methodology, or rather your

lack of same.

The actual photos show everything.

They do indeed.

Varnell threw an elbow:

3/4" does not equal 3" no matter how hard you blow.

Your 3/4 of an inch claim has never been established.

To the contrary, you were very helpful in establishing it, Craig. Thank you.

You put Towner into evidence as an example of a photo showing

2-3" of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of JFK's jacket all bunched up in tandem above

the base of his neck.

You wouldn't have put it into evidence unless you saw the cupped fold. We

can see the inside of the cupped fold -- the trough, if you will -- as it extended

across the nape of JFK's neck.

When it dawned on you that Towner was killing your case, you shifted gears

and tried to say -- "can't really see much."

John Hunt and Chad Zimmerman are also champion back-pedalers.

You guys ought to get together and form an Olympic Back-Pedaling Team.

The gold is a lock...

We have seen how you limited the evidence to your expert when he gave his ESTIMATE

( notice he did not MEASURE anything).

Sure he did! The 1.25" jacket collar is right next to the fold. Those with minimum

cognitive ability can see that the fold is small compared to the jacket collar.

And compare it to the huge fold in the Lattimer photo. Was that fold 6-8" of bunched

up shirt/jacket fabric? <snicker>

As you've observed, the Towner fold is a garden variety fold and not much to

see -- just as it is in Willis, the Towner film, the Croft photo, and Betzner.

Your provide nothing to back your claim of 3/4 of an inch. Please tell us how you

measured the Towner. Until you do you have nothing CLiff. But you already knew

that.

I went over this Towner business already, as I did again above.

All you do is repeat the Lamson Universal Rationale over and over -- "you can't

really see much" -- which supports my case, thank you.

Alas, you've called me out very publicly and now you have to say something.

When you're digging yourself a hole, Craig, it's best to first stop digging.

Varnell earlier noted:

That you cannot even define the phrase "clothing fit" speaks volumes

about your lack of knowledge in this area.

I never claimed any expertise in the clothing and I don't need

"clothing fit" because you have never established the true nature of JFK's shirt nor

jacket. Until you do that there is nothing to discuss about how JFK's clothing "fit"

that day.

So you don't need to know anything about the movement of clothing to make

statements of FACT concerning the movement of clothing??

Of course you don't, Craig. It doesn't take any expertise at all to repeat

non sequiturs endlessly.

And just what in hell do you mean by establishing "the true nature of JFK's

shirt and jacket."

What is "true nature"?

I mean, is that anything like establishing the "true nature" of the Javier Bardem

character in the latest Coen Bros. flick? <snicker>

I'll give you a little hint, Craig. Maybe you could break down and do a little

research.

Three words:

Updated American Silhouette.

Google it.

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

The burden of proof isn't on me.

You claimed as a FACT that 2-3" of JFK's shirt and jacket were

elevated entirely above the SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

One thing for sure, your rebuttal will not include a replication of

your claims using a suit coat and a tuck-in custom made dress

shirt. You, and others who make these unsupported claims, will

find such impossible.

3/4" does not equal 3" no matter how hard you blow.

That you cannot even define the phrase "clothing fit" speaks volumes

about your lack of knowledge in this area.

Miles, Craig,

Don't be fooled by the folds in the back of JFK's jacket in that shot.

Those are vertical and vertical/diagonal folds.

What difference does that make, you may ask?

Vertical folds are created by bunching the fabric sideways.

Sideways ain't the same as up, but I've encountered legions of LNers who

swear it is.

Both JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated no more than an inch in that shot,

as indicated by the ride of the shirt collar near the hairline.

That, my friend, is a historical fact.

Cliff,

Where is the back entrance puncture point?

Thanks

Bingo! I'd say it's the small defect suggested by your graphic.

I see what you're saying about the autopsy photo.

Nice work, Miles!

Thats your OPINION Cliff. The photo is inconclusive. My opinion is

that the fold and bunch hides the jacket and shirt collar.

That's the left side of JFK's head visible in Altgens, Craig.

So?

It's your opinion that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt collar on

the left side of JFK's head in Altgens?

Yes

And haven't you also claimed that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt

collar on the right side of his head in Betzner, taken about 30 seconds after

Altgens?

[quotr

Yes

And yet you were raving about the visible shirt collar in Croft?

Yes, and they are all consistant. You however lack the ability to understand.

I think we have the operative definition of cognitive impairment.

No we have the operative definition of Cliffs total ignorance of basics of the photographic process.

Good god Cliff, learn about parallax.

You're bluffing.

Parallax isn't going to explain the sudden appearance of JFK's shirt collar

in the Nix film.

Did Nix's perspective significantly change in that fraction of an instant?

No.

The limo only moved a few feet when JFK leaned back from his chat

with Nellie and the jacket dropped.

Every photo image of JFK prior to his chat with Nellie shows the jacket collar

riding over the top of the shirt collar.

Every photo image of JFK after his chat with Nellie shows the exposed shirt

collar.

You cannot explain this discrepancy by "parallax."

Good god Craig, learn about gravity.

You have made yourself look even more foolish that ever. How do you contain your embarassment? You side and not suffer from a complete disconnect with reality, you also suffer from a decided lack of ability understand even the most simple of photographic principals

That principal doesn't apply given the varied perspectives of the

photographers and the consistency of the information in the photos.

Consider:

The above is the "Adolphus Hotel" photo taken on Main St. 2 minutes

before the shooting.

The photo was taken from behind and above JFK. The jacket clearly rode into

the hairline and the shirt collar is not visible. Note JFK's posture: head turned

to the right, right arm waving. This is a similar posture as in Betzner. The

fold in the jacket is also similar to the fold in Betzner.

Consider:

This is a frame of the Jefferies film, taken on Main St. 90 seconds before

the shooting, which clearly shows the jacket riding up over the top of the

shirt collar and into the hairline. Vastly different perspective than the

Adolphus photo, same information.

Consider:

This is the Weaver photo taken on the corner of Houston and Main.

This is where JFK started to knock his jacket down.

The padded right-shoulder of the jacket pushed down on the jacket

fabric, creating the obvious horizontal fold. The jacket collar had dropped

from the hairline but still occluded the shirt collar.

At this point JFK's jacket wasn't elevated more than an inch.

At the 10 second mark of the Huges film there was no visible shirt collar.

The 10 second mark of the Martin film shows no visible shirt collar

and a smooth right shoulder-line.

Consider:

The jacket collar stays roughly in the same place as as in the Weaver

photo, but the jacket has smoothed out and JFK's right shoulder line

is smooth.

Consider:

Nix is the seventh shot showing the same information.

Different perspectives all, all showing the jacket riding above the shirt

collar.

This Nix frame shows JFK leaning forward to chat with Nellie, un-pinning

his jacket. The jacket begins to fall.

A few seconds later on the corner of Elm and Houston we clearly see that

the jacket collar had dropped leaving a 3/4" fabric fold symmetrically

placed at the nape of his neck in the Towner photo:

The Tina Towner movie shows JFK's clearly visible shirt collar throughout.

http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg

Within a second of the Towner film there's Willis #4 and its highly visible

shirt collar:

Croft (z161):

Betzner: (z186)

Let's take an inventory:

These images were all taken before JFK leaned back from his chat with

Nellie, all show the jacket collar occluding the shirt collar:

The Adolphus photo

The Jefferies film

The Weaver photo

The Martin film

The Hughes film

The Altgens photo

The Nix film

These were taken after JFK leaned back from his chat with Nellie, all

showing the exposed collar:

The Nix film

The Towner photo

The Towner Film

The Willis photo

The Croft photo

The Betzner photo.

The motorcade films and photos show a clear record of the

movement of JFK's jacket.

JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

That, my friend, is a historical fact.

It's "cognitive impairment" -- as Charles so rightly puts it.

This is for you, Charles Drago! You called it! Check out our man Craig Lamson

re the Altgens photo on Houston St.

His comments in red, mine follow:

Thats your OPINION Cliff. The photo is inconclusive. My opinion is

that the fold and bunch hides the jacket and shirt collar.

That's the left side of JFK's head visible in Altgens, Craig.

It's your opinion that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt collar on

the left side of JFK's head in Altgens?

And haven't you also claimed that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt

collar on the right side of his head in Betzner, taken about 30 seconds after

Altgens?

And yet you were raving about the visible shirt collar in Croft?

I think we have the operative definition of cognitive impairment.

Craig:

"Clothing fit" is a term of art which you are using improperly.

Do some research before you go spouting off with phrases the

meaning of which you have no clue.

Thats your OPINION Cliff. The photo is inconclusive. My opinion is

that the fold and bunch hides the jacket and shirt collar.

That's the left side of JFK's head visible in Altgens, Craig.

It's your opinion that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt collar on

the left side of JFK's head in Altgens?

And haven't you also claimed that the "fold and bunch" hides the jacket and shirt

collar on the right side of his head in Betzner, taken about 30 seconds after

Altgens?

And yet you were raving about the visible shirt collar in Croft?

I think we have the operative definition of cognitive impairment.

You haven't done your homework.

Well sorry Cliff but thats exactly what you ask the reader to do...inspect a line in the photos to the fold.

The cup of the fold. The inside of the fold. That's why Towner is such a

good shot because we clearly see the trough of the fold.

That's why you put it into evidence. You looked at it and recognized

the "bunch" and put it into evidence here.

Quite rightly, it's determinative.

It's also true of the Lattimer photo. Clearly visible large trough. If Towner were

2-3" -- what is Lattimer 5-6"?(!)

Croft only shows the trough partially.

That's why Mr. Shirt could instantly identify the Towner fold as 3/4" -- by the cup of

the fold.

Another look at the collar.

See red lines.

If its the collar Miles, where is the shadow line marking the bottom of the collar. There is plenty of detai available to show it.

Isn't it amazing that the jacket couldn't have been elevated the 3 millimeters

required to occlude the bottom of the jacket collar -- BUT it is a FACT that the

shirt and jacket wrapped themselves around the base of his neck in a manner

consistent with a jacket collar.

Wow. This gets better and better all the time!

Replicate this event with a tucked in custom-made dress shirt.

You never will, Craig. What you see there is his jacket collar.

Obviously.

Cliff, when are you coing to establish that the shirt was tightly fitted and was properly tucked in?

Oh yes...thats right, you can't.

Of course we can.

We're talking about John F. Kennedy.

Of all the intellectual buffoonery you have authored, Craig, this takes the cake!

Are you seriously suggesting JFK's clothes were ill-fitted and when he changed

his shirt for the last time on the flight to Dallas...he didn't tuck his shirt in??

What man doesn't tuck his dress shirt in? I have never heard of that about

anybody, much less John F. Kennedy.

Because you grasp so little about clothing fit, the following is not going to make

much of an impression on you, Craig. I know it won't because I cited this once

before and you dismissed it as "just words" or something to that effect.

The Clothes and the Man: The Principles of Fine Mens Dress, by Alan Flusser,

was used as a reference book at the New York University School of Design.

(Craig, that means they teach people stuff out of the book. At important universities

and stuff).

Emphasis mine:

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary

for a man to sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff

could destroy the lines of the jacket...The length of the shirt is also an

important concern. It should hang at least six inches below the waist so

that it STAYS TUCKED IN WHEN YOU MOVE AROUND.

Would it be too mcuh to ask that you exercise a little more consistency

to your rhetoric?

This is what you get Cliff, take it or leave it. At least I tell the truth, you on the other hand....

It was rhetorical question. I know you're not interested in consistency.

And anyone who describes a symmetrical fold as grossly asymmetrical is very

far from telling the truth.

All the folds in the DP photos were symmetrical -- you claim the opposite.

And since you continually refer to gravity as a "magic theory," let me point

out the obvious drop of JFK's jacket on Houston St. -- one more time!

Altgens puts us right back to where we started with that image, Inconclusive. We are

using it why?

No. Your claim that JFK's shirt and jacket could ride up tightly around his neck

in the manner of a jacket collar is another one of your howlers.

JFK's jacket was elevated about an inch in Altgens. The jacket collar is visible,

the smooth shoulder-lines are visible, precluding this Betzner Delusion of yours.

Hi, all:

I can no longer contain my anger and disappointment at the constant stream of vitriolic abuse that is directed at Gary Mack (and others, like Josiah Thompson, to a lesser extent) on this Forum.

I am proud to say that I've known and corresponded with Gary Mack for over 20 years, and I have never found him to be anything other that helpful, courteous, and generous. To read the abuse that is being hurled at him on a daily basis is nothing short of sickening, particularly when he cannot publicly respond for work reasons.

No two human beings agree on everything, all the time. If we did, this would be a very boring world. However, to indulge in the sort of personal abuse that has become the norm on this Forum will resolve no differences.

To John and the Moderators - can you do nothing to put a stop to this?

To Gary, and all the others who have given so much to research - my sincere thanks.

And, to those who are engaged in this abuse - GIVE IT UP....!

Chris Scally.

I'm not abusing anybody. I'm taking Gary Mack to task for his cavalier

dismissal of the clothing evidence as "hard evidence" of 2+ shooters.

I have not found Gary Mack to be all that helpful in our two private

e-mail exchanges on this matter.

He dismissed me the first time -- "Theorist"

And he referred to my "theory" in my second exchange.

I present no theory.

I present the following:

FACT: The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are 2-3" below the

SBT wound location.

FACT: A tucked in custom made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch

of slack, a fact pressed by most forcefully by Vincent Salandria and

Gaeton Fonzi 40+ years ago.

FACT: The motorcade photos show JFK's jacket dropping.

FACT: The location of the holes in the clothes match the T3 wound descriptions

in Burkley's death certificate (marked "verified"); in the autopsy face sheet

diagram (marked "verified"); the FBI autopsy report; the wound diagrams

and sworn statements of 6 federal agents; the statements of more than a

half-dozen medical witnesses.

To dismiss this profoundly redundant body of evidence as "virtually no hard evidence"

was irresponsible, to put it mildly.

This is an experiment Chad Zimmerman conducted. I challenged him

to include a tucked-in custom-made dress in his experiment but he

dismissed the need to do that since, in his opinion, custom-made dress

shirts and off-the-rack dress shirts fit the same. When I assured him that

it did indeed make a difference, he'd go into spasms of scoffing, and dismissed

tailors as guys who were just soaking the well off.

He hewed to that view throughout my discussion with him. He also scoffed

at the notion that JFK was a fashion icon.

But he did run a jacket experiment several times. This is the first one.

Note that the top of the jacket collar rides over the top of the shirt collar.

JFK's shirt collar was visible on Elm St. -- a fact Craig seems to grasp in

those moments of lucidity, but not thoroughly process.

I'm asking you. Can you see the shadowline of the bottom of the collar? There is enough information to see it if it was there.

I see a faint line of demarcation, very faint, between the bulge & the collar behind the bulge: the upper purple line marks that.

[FBI Exhibit 59, JFK's suit coat, measures the bullet hole in the jacket to be 5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar, and appears to be directly in the middle of the back.

FBI Exhibit 60, JFK's shirt, measures the bullet hole in the shirt is 5 3/4 from top of collar and about 3/4 inch from center. Autopsy drawings of President Kennedy conducted by Dr. Humes, shows a bullet hole in JFK's back that would match the location of the hole in his clothing. Hole is in the middle of back approximately 6 inches down from the neck.

Autopsy photograph of Kennedy's body shows a bullet hole in Kennedy's back clearly away from base of neck and matching the location of hole in shirt.]

So, the shirt & coat holes were not perfectly aligned.

Miles, you're getting ahead of me! The corroborating evidence is overwhelming!

The death certificate filled out by Buckley put the wound about the level of T3

(and marked "verified"); the autopsy face sheet diagram in the vicinity of T3

(and marked "verified"); the FBI autopsy report in the vicinity of T3; wound

diagrams and other sworn testimony by 6 federal agents put the wound at T3;

more than a half-dozen medical witnesses stated to the wound location at T3.

It's overwhelming.

But like I say, we get ahead of ourselves.

(Don't agree on the autopsy photo, but I'll get to that.)

AI have measured actual jacket folds and I have measured the fold in Croft.

You haven't measured the folds in Croft, all you did was draw a line

on a two dimensional photo and pretend that it represents a three

dimensional object.

You can draw lines on a photo anyway you want, but you haven't even seen the

high quality prints of the photo.

You haven't done your homework.

btw, Craig, I've barely scratched the surface of my argument.

I've been waiting for you to make my case for me.

Thanks!

Towner is far for all the evidence. Have you asked your experts to revisit

their opinion and shown them the entire body of photographic evidence?

I know Towner is far from all the evidence. I was not answering your

question with regard to that, as you know well by now.

And no, sadly, I cannot revisit the issue with them.

I made one follow-up call to Mr. Shirt and he politely answered some

follow-up questions, emphatically declaring (I paraphrase), "There's

not enough fabric -- it cannot be." However, he said to me that his son

warned him not to discuss the JFK assassination, and that was that.

My other expert was a casual LNer when I brought this evidence to

their attention. I was advised at first to speak with tailors, which I

did, then I went back to discuss it with my other expert. The jacket

collar was pointed out as an effective way to measure the fraction

of an inch fold. My expert said there was no way 2-3" of shirt and

jacket fabric could ride up without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Chad Zimmerman's x-ray experiments have verified this.

At the end of the analysis, my expert was a very reluctant CT and wanted

to make sure that their name was never associated with this analysis. I

haven't discussed it with this individual since, nor will I.

I'm asking you. Can you see the shadowline of the bottom of the collar? There is enough information to see it if it was there.

Not if the jacket were elevated a couple of millimeters to occlude the bottom

of the collar.

It must be a strange universe where clothing can make a gross migration

in a couple of seconds but it can't make normal movements at all.

Craig, you are so far out of your depth in this discussion.

Really, so now you claim that the jacket collar is pushed up over the shirt collar and the back of the jacket is folded below the collar bottom upwards so that it covers the bottom of the collar? Wow! Amazing!

No. For a guy who gets bent out of shape when his arguments are accurately

paraphrased, you have a distinct habit of putting words in other people mouths.

If the back of the jacket rode up 1.125" and the jacket collar rode up 1" then

the extra 1/8" would occlude the bottom of the jacket collar.

This isn't too hard, is it?

Varnell Magic Jacket Theory.

So why not show us how this claim of your works.?

What I call gravity you call the Varnell Magic Jacket Theory.

You make all kinds of ad hominem attacks when you don't think

I'm correctly characterizing your position, but you readily attribute

to me arguments I never made.

Would it be too mcuh to ask that you exercise a little more consistency

to your rhetoric?

I'm asking you. Can you see the shadowline of the bottom of the collar? There is enough information to see it if it was there.

Not if the jacket were elevated a couple of millimeters to occlude the bottom

of the collar.

It must be a strange universe where clothing can make a gross migration

in a couple of seconds but it can't make normal movements at all.

Craig, you are so far out of your depth in this discussion.

Another look at the collar.

See red lines.

This methodology is phonier than a 3-dollar bill.

Sorry Craig, but there are higher resolution versions of this image.

Get the Trask book.

Besides, I could draw a line on any two-dimensional photo and get any

measurement I want. What counts is the line in the photo -- and that

line is the jacket collar. For that, Towner still is the king.

Let's make a photo comparo:

It's clear that the red arrow in Betzner points to the same fold we

see at the midline in Croft.

Betzner and Croft both show the fraction of an inch fold.

Another look at the collar.

See red lines.

If its the collar Miles, where is the shadow line marking the bottom of the collar. There is plenty of detai available to show it.

Isn't it amazing that the jacket couldn't have been elevated the 3 millimeters

required to occlude the bottom of the jacket collar -- BUT it is a FACT that the

shirt and jacket wrapped themselves around the base of his neck in a manner

consistent with a jacket collar.

Wow. This gets better and better all the time!

Replicate this event with a tucked in custom-made dress shirt.

You never will, Craig. What you see there is his jacket collar.

Obviously.

Cliff writes about the evidence he showed 'his guys" when asking for their

opinion about the fold and bulge in JFK's jacket:

"As to the 3/4" measurement, careful readers of this exchange will recall

that I cited the expertise of a San Francisco tailor, one Mr. Shirt, who

looked at the Towner #1 photo (below, left) and instantly identified the fold

there as a garden variety 3/4" cupped fold."

Cliff has been asked many times over if he showed Croft to "his guys". He refuses

to answer the question directly. WHy.

Could it be this?

Because it's a nonsense question. I showed the Towner photo to them.

You said they were privy to all of the evidence.

No, I didn't. The "yes" was to your brilliant analytical ability. As indicated

in the structure of the sentence, and in my repeated reiterations.

When all ya got is puerile "gotcha"...make lemonade.

Towner is far for all the evidence. Have you asked your experts to revisit

their opinion and shown them the entire body of photographic evidence?

And what part of the sentence -- "I showed them the Towner photo" -- don't

you grasp.

I hear the death rasp in your desperation here, Craig.

It was a perfect good question that required only a simple yes

or no from you.

I've asked many good questions that you don't answer.

For instance, since you said it was impossible to measure the fold,

how can you state as a fact that the fold involved 2-3"?

I don't have to get hysterical to press for an answer to a question.

Craig writes:

"Why is that important? Because thats the medium we have to deal with. Its not quite the

same as viewing something in hand like a person wearing a jacket, now is it Cliff? This

question is still unanswered Cliff...Did you show them Croft after you showed them Towner?

If you did show them how can you place ANY value in their opinion if they were not given all

of the evidence available to from an opinion?

If Craig had done a modicum of research he'd know that the color version of Croft had

not been published in 1997.

Why thank you Cliff I welcome new information. Now back to the

question at hand. Were there ANY versions of Croft available in 1997 Cliff?

Very poor, like the Hunt b&w.

This was the deal: in discussing the evidence with friendly LN types like Ron Judge

and JudyM (two people for whom I will always have a warm spot in my heart) we

agreed that Towner was the piece of evidence because it showed the inside

of the cupped fold right next to the identifiable 1.25" jacket collar.

The Croft photo was deemed insufficient.

Now, John Hunt based a lot of his case on that b&w Croft. Then one day

he found the color version. At first he crowed about its discovery. Then

he fell silent on the issue, and wouldn't come out to defend his academic

fraud to save his life.

You see, Craig, the higher the resolution of the Croft photo the smaller

"the bunch" appears.

I suspect Hunt took it to his own tailors and was told it was a garden

variety symmetric 3/4" jacket fold.

Now, the problem for you is that you went to Hunt's site and pulled

his Croft and made the same analysis as he did.

You both analyzed Betzner the same way.

But you did not have access to all the evidence, Craig. I saw you

walk right into the color Croft face first -- when I told you you had no

idea what you were doing.

You have made your analyses without seriously studying the photos, Craig.

I'm having trouble seeing what the fuss is all about.

It's Posner's line in the sand. He established last February that the SBT

requires JFK's clothing to be in the position they were in in the Jefferies

film.

But the jacket dropped.

40+ years ago Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi handed the JFK

research community the smoking gun in the Kennedy assassination,

the bullet holes in JFK's clothes.

The JFK research community as a whole ignores this smoking gun.

My two favorite writers here are Charles Drago and Robert Charles-Dunne.

They are in a class by themselves.

However, in their response to Gary Mack recently neither one cited the

smoking gun Salandria and Fonzi gave us.

The JFK research community has been lead seriously astray.

Am I throwing rocks, as Tosh calls it?

You bet.

Cliff writes about the evidence he showed 'his guys" when asking for their

opinion about the fold and bulge in JFK's jacket:

"As to the 3/4" measurement, careful readers of this exchange will recall

that I cited the expertise of a San Francisco tailor, one Mr. Shirt, who

looked at the Towner #1 photo (below, left) and instantly identified the fold

there as a garden variety 3/4" cupped fold."

Cliff has been asked many times over if he showed Croft to "his guys". He refuses

to answer the question directly. WHy.

Could it be this?

Because it's a nonsense question. I showed the Towner photo to them.

But you are too busy playing semantic "gotcha" to mount an actual

argument.

Craig writes:

"Why is that important? Because thats the medium we have to deal with. Its not quite the

same as viewing something in hand like a person wearing a jacket, now is it Cliff? This

question is still unanswered Cliff...Did you show them Croft after you showed them Towner?

If you did show them how can you place ANY value in their opinion if they were not given all

of the evidence available to from an opinion?

If Craig had done a modicum of research he'd know that the color version of Croft had

not been published in 1997.

But when you lack any argument -- make an issue up out of thin air, right, Craig?

As for my attitude, why yes, I think I'm more of an expert in the study of

photographic images than your clothing experts. I'm privy to all the photographic

evidence , were they? "

Cliff answers in part:

"Yes,

Yes, I agree you are more of an expert in the study of photographic images.

I was agreeing with your description of your experience, that's it. That's

why the whole phrase was:

"Yes, and according to your brilliant photographic analysis,

I was refering to your stated expertise, Craig -- but you have to pull

that "Yes" out of context like a drowning man pulling a piece of wood

off a sinking ship.

Since I had already made it clear I showed the Towner photo only,

I find this clumsy "gotcha" game most revealing.