Cliff Varnell

Egregious mis-statement of fact. This is Altgens #5 which shows the jacket flat across his back. According to Bunch Theorist Chad Zimmerman, JFK's jacket was elevated no more than one inch in this photo. YOU are making the claim that this photo shows JFK's shirt and jacket elevated asymmetrically 2-3" at the right base of his neck. But you offer nothing more than a conclusion repeated ad infinitum... If you can't tell that JFK's shoulderlines are symmetrical in Altgens -- you have a lot more to worry about than my memory. The smooth, symmetrical right shoulder-line is clearly visible against the man in the back ground. Your Betzner bunch is above the right shoulder-line. Nice try. Then ALL THE PHOTOS don't show this absurd fantasy of yours, do they? And the fact that there is no bulge visible at all is consistent with the conclusion there was no bulge at all. I don't need to prove the jacket flat. YOU need to prove that it's elevated 2-3". As I've pointed out more times than I can count, clothing normally moves in fractions of an inch. Do you know the difference between a 3/4" fold and a 3" fold? There is no indication that the "bunch" involved more than a fraction of an inch of fabric. But when all you've got to pimp is the same old non sequitur -- work your whore to the bone, baby.

They are cognitively impaired by the overwhelming force of their own intellectual dishonesty.

Your defense of Gary Mack's statement that there is virtually no evidence of two shooters. The necessary subtext of that defense is the defense of the claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2-3" at the time of the shooting. I can't for the life of me figure out why you jumped into this thread without understanding the issues involved. Great! So what's your point? If you haven't figured out the issues involved, you should withhold comment.

Am I requesting too much? Doesn't seem like all that much to ask. I don't think anyone should have to come on this forum and be threatened with "peril" in any shape or form. Whats the matter Cliff, your jacket all in a bunch? I look for lively but polite discourse. If you are incapable of the latter, so be it. You've made the claim that only JFK's jacket collar fell in Dealey Plaza. So everything above the top of the shirt collar is solely comprised of JFK's jacket collar?

Egregious mis-statement of fact. This is Altgens #5 which shows the jacket flat across his back. According to Bunch Theorist Chad Zimmerman, JFK's jacket was elevated no more than one inch in this photo. YOU are making the claim that this photo shows JFK's shirt and jacket elevated asymmetrically 2-3" at the right base of his neck. But you offer nothing more than a conclusion repeated ad infinitum...

I see a fraction of an inch of "bunch." So did Mr. Shirt, a San Francisco tailor I visted in 1997. He examined the Elm St. photos told me the fold in JFK's jacket involved 3/4" of fabric. This is the non sequitur you and Craig will ceaselessly promote: 1) The SBT requires 2-3" of JFK's shirt and jacket to have elevated in near-tandem entirely above the wound at the base of his neck. 2) JFK's jacket had folds in it. 3) Therefore -- JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2-3" entirely above the wound at the base of his neck. Or are you claiming that every fold of fabric involves 2-3" of fabric to the absolute exclusion of, say, folds of 1/8" of fabric? If so, mama dress you funny. Non sequitur. What's your proof that the "bunch" involved more than a fraction of an inch of fabric? How many times do I ask you this? -- the same number of times you ignore it. All Craig showed me was shadow; all you do is point to fabric folds and say that they involve 2-3" of fabric. I ask for your proof and you ignore it. On the contrary, I have argued forcefully for the fact that the jacket was bunched up. It had to have been bunched up -- the hole in the jacket is 1/8" below the hole in the shirt, ergo the jacket was bunched up 1/8". Now, where is your proof that it was bunched up 2-3"? No, Gary Mack has made the claim that there is "virtually no evidence" of 2 shooters and I am pointing to the location of the holes in the clothes, which happen to match the death certificate, the autolpsy face sheet diagram, the FBI autopsy report, the sworn deposition of a half-dozen Fed agents, and the wound descriptions of more than a half-dozen other medical witnesses. If you want to say all this evidence is wrong and that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2-3" -- the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. After you...

The left side of the circle. Not that it matters. You don't know if your convex "bunch" is anything more than shadow.

Whats the matter Cliff? I'm superstitious. Since I have not threatened you in any manner, I think you should refrain from predicting "peril."

Am I requesting too much? Doesn't seem like all that much to ask. I don't think anyone should have to come on this forum and be threatened with "peril" in any shape or form.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the jacket fold seen in this photo involves 2-3" of upwardly displaced fabric. Make a fact based argument and we'll continue.

One small problem here Cliffy, you can't tell us for certain that your "fold" is really the fold at all. One small problem here, Craigy: the same thing goes for your imagined Betzner bunch, which might just as well be shadow. You do understand shadow, don't you? The burden of proof is on YOU to show where in any of the photographs JFK's jacket is "bunched" 2-3". Do so, we'll continue to discuss.

Gentle readers and fellow researchers, To understand the fundamental facts of clothing movement, please follow the following simple exercise. 1) Lay a hand towel out flat on a table. 2) Place your left palm flat on the left side of the towel. 3) Place your right palm flat on the right side of the towel with about 2" between your hands. 3) Keep holding the left side of the towel in place, and slowly move your right hand and the towel underneath it a couple of inches up, away from your body but still flat on the table. 4) Notice that diagonal folds will form in the fabric between your hands. 5) Observe the horizontal fold indicated by the red arrow in the following: 6) Ask yourself: How could the right side of JFK's jacket ride up 2-3" without pulling up on the horizontal fold at the midline of the jacket? 7) Congratulate yourself: you've just observed prima facie evidence of 2+ shooters in the murder of John F. Kennedy. Next time someone tells you that all the hard evidence points to the sole guilt of LHO, you'll have a ready rebuttal.

Will the moderators please remove the statement "enter at your peril Cliff" from this header.

If my posts on this thread are moved I'm not going to appreciate it very much, to say the least. I find it interesting that Charles Drago, who started this thread, hasn't asked me to take it elsewhere. btw, for all of those crying about my posting the HARD EVIDENCE directly debunking Mack's comments, I did start a seperate thread which drew no comments. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12289

I protest most vigorously. I started a thread called "The Operative Definition of 'Intellectual Dishonesty' which no one chose to comment upon. Are we going to start yet a third thread?

Robert, it pains me to disagree with you so wholeheartedly, but I do. The clothing holes and the motorcade photos are hard evidence of 2+ shooters. We will see opinions to the contrary posted all day -- but what we'll never see is an actual fact based argument that JFK's clothing was elevated more than an inch in Dealey Plaza. At 4 inches below the collar, the holes in the clothes constitute prima facie evidence of 2+ shooters. The burden of proof lies not with the critics of the SBT -- the burden of proof of 2-3" "bunch" on Elm St. lies with those who make the claim. Craig Lamson's spectacular failure in this regard should demonstrate something...

Too true. Duncan, What's this all about? Miles, The white bit there is his shirt collar. The blackish band appears to be the darker under-side of the jacket collar. The jacket bulge on Main St. pushed the collar into the hairline and it appears that the collar flipped up a bit. The other arrow seems to point to a random blur.

Oh? "I'll rip you a new one...if you had the brains to check..." I know the rhetoric is weak, but a snarl none the less. Well, Duncan, if and when you develop a photographic analysis, we'll discuss it. In order for you to do that, however, you should share with us your methodology for making the determination that this photo, say, shows 2-3" of JFK's jacket/shirt bunched up entirely above the base of his neck. After you...

JFK wore his back brace around his waist. The back brace did not cause "the bunching we see." Other photos of JFK on Main St. show the jacket riding up to his hairline. All the Elm St. photos show the jacket collar riding in a normal position at the base of his neck and a fraction of an inch fold in the jacket. To gauge how effective the presentation of this simple evidence can be, I'd like to point out the manner in which Craig Lamson was sent snarling out of this thread -- he twice declared victory and departed the field with his tail between his legs. Gary Mack had a similar meltdown when I discussed this with him a year ago. There is no other topic in the case that will reduce LNers to babbling self-contradictions, non sequiturs, and other acts of intellectual buffoonery nearly as well as citing the HARD EVIDENCE of 2+ shooters: the holes in the clothes and the motorcade photos which redundantly prove the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. We're in a gunfight here, folks. With all due respect, I wish the folks on my side would show up in the foxhole with more in their hands than a butter knife.

"This inclination to denounce this or that person as a tool of the coverup is irresponsible, anti-intellectual and silly." The cover-up thrives on Parlor Games. False debates. The collateral damage of good research can often be obfuscationary. I admit that in my 9 years on usenet Iserved an obfuscationary purpose by making an open and shut case a question of "debate." Any intellectually dishonest motive or assertion serves the cover-up, obfuscationary. In my case, my intellectually dishonest motive is that I enjoyed getting people to make fools of themselves. I still do. I'm one of the worst, frankly. We're all human. Gary Mack, for whatever reason, said something intellectually dishonest when he claimed that there is "virtually no evidence" of two shooters. My purpose here is to correct this record. "History" is not up to Gary Mack. The people know the fact of conspiracy, which is why that opinion places high on periodic polls. I don't have anything against Gary Mack personally. I don't buy that "disinfo agent" crap about anybody. I think the cover-up crew discovered early on that with hundreds of armchair detectives out there raising pet theories, nothing clear would ever penetrate the din.

No, it's his jacket. Remember that jackets have padded shoulders and short tails. Shirts and jacket don't move the same. The Jefferies film was taken 90 seconds before the shooting. The Towner film was taken 5 seconds before the shooting and clearly shows the shirt collar and a fraction of an inch fold. I think the alteration argument is a black hole distraction, frankly.

Welcome back! There's nothing wrong with this thread. The subject is hard evidence of two shooters and Gary Mack's inability to address this evidence. It appears there are a lot of people who can't address this evidence. You don't care to the tune of -- what? a quarter million words between Della Rosa and Simkin? I've been reading you for years, Craig (I'm a big fan of the motorcade photo evidence, too). You care very deeply about the LN, not just the authenticity of the DP photo evidence. You can fool yourself about that all you want. It's not any sort of "label" that's getting slapped here, Craig. Let's return to Betzner. The red arrow points to a horizontal fold on the midline of the jacket. According to your scenario the right side of the jacket rode up 2-3" into a convex shape at the right base of JFK's neck. How did the fold on the midline stay horizontal when the fabric a few inches away was pushed up several inches? Such a movement of fabric on the right side would have pulled that fold on the midline up from horizontal to diagonal. The horizontal Betzner fold had to have been diagonal if what you say were true. What you say is false, Craig, obviously. To say nothing of your inability to tell the difference between a convex and concave curve. (Own it, man, you'll be better for it.) ...Uh, ouch? No more on this thread... You wish. I'm just getting started, and this thread has all your prior arguments, Craig. Why do you want to run away from what you've already claimed?

Welcome back! There's nothing wrong with this thread. The subject is hard evidence of two shooters and Gary Mack's inability to address this evidence. It appears there are a lot of people who can't address this evidence. You don't care to the tune of -- what? a quarter million words between Della Rosa and Simkin? I've been reading you for years, Craig (I'm a big fan of the motorcade photo evidence, too). You care very deeply about the LN, not just the authenticity of the DP photo evidence. You can fool yourself about that all you want. It's not any sort of "label" that's getting slapped here, Craig. Let's return to Betzner. The red arrow points to a horizontal fold on the midline of the jacket. According to your scenario the right side of the jacket rode up 2-3" into a convex shape at the right base of JFK's neck. How did the fold on the midline stay horizontal when the fabric a few inches away was pushed up several inches? Such a movement of fabric on the right side would have pulled that fold on the midline up from horizontal to diagonal. The horizontal Betzner fold had to have been diagonal if what you say were true. What you say is false, Craig, obviously. To say nothing of your inability to tell the difference between a convex and concave curve. (Own it, man, you'll be better for it.) ...Uh, ouch?

Classic psychological projection. Craig Lamson is so invested in LN theory he is cognitively impaired as to the difference between a convex curve and a concave curve.

Thanks so much for posting more images that support my position and destroy yours Cliff. Truck on Cliff! Thank you for your input, Craig. Thanks for drawing a convex curve in the exact location Willis #5 shows a concave curve. Don't let the door nick you on the way out, pal. Of course you're out of this thread. You bailed out of the "Eject!" thread at the same time -- when photos clearly show the opposite of what you claim. The object lessons for CTs here is that when you want to shut an LNer up just cite the holes in the clothes. They fall all over themselves demolishing their own opinions.