Cliff Varnell

fwiw I think is as close to the truth as we've gotten.

Cast of characters in bold

Tosh Plumlee wrote:

There were many dispatches from November 17 through the 20th about persons

unknown going to hit Kennedy. One of those was from Dallas and it mentioned

the hotel but it could not be confirmed, The Secret Service did not feel it was a

threat (so I was told) However the report was extremely detailed, I was told later.

MI (Military Intel) and the Pentagon were the first to react to that information

and forwarded their Intel to the JCS. The matter was brought up at a meeting in

the "Situation Room" of the White House, with the National Security Staff,

(not the NSC) but no action was taken at that time. The matter was turned over to

the CIA and they in turn sent dispatches to Miami JMWAVE and the Dallas

FBI for any and all information concerning a possible assassination attempt on the

President; Dallas or anywhere else. one report came back about a threat from Austin

Texas and the information came from a Mob informat, but the information was

discounted as un reliable. Sometime between Nov. [1]7 and the 20 Information was

received from two Cubans detained at West Palm Beach about a Hit at Dallas,

soon....The old hotel information was brough back on the table and it was said they

would not let the President go to Dallas... The White House overuled and said it was

a go... at that time the planned routing was changed and that led to the Plaza and the

team going there at short notice. Some of the Dallas information came from Rosellie

and from the Dallas Cubans who lived in Oak Cliff. The FBI was instructed to

alert the Dallas PD but they were not put on notice. The information was not

forwarded to Dallas by the FBI, for whatever reasons.

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.

Its impossible to know where the fold starts and so we cant measure.

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>).

I'm always ready to play Cliff, because its fun to see people make fools of themself.

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.

a self proclaimed JFK assassination photo-film evidence expert.

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.

This forum seems to be taken over by the defenders of the WC, not those who

KNOW it was a conspiracy.

No sweat, Dawn

I eat 'em for lunch. They don't grind me down, I grind them down.

Cue Patton

I love it. God help me I do love it so.

There are two Mack's IMO - the Gary that has his own private opinions about the assassination and the Gary who is a historian. I don't see how some people not seeing the difference is Mack's fault.

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.

Its impossible to know where the fold starts and so we cant measure.

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>).

I'm always ready to play Cliff, because its fun to see people make fools of themself.

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?

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.

Save your losing rehash Cliff you are beat. Now you want the argument all over

again! Talk about circular! Amazing.

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

compression artifact.

Cliff I can'rt believe it but I'm actually feeling sorry for you. To see you stoop so

low to begin fabricating statements from thin air.

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.

I've never claimed anything about the section of the the image you show other

than in the low res version that the image had jpg artifacts and low resolution to

eally tell what was going on.

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?

Thats been my position on the small Altgens version...including

the enlarged version that I posted on the thread.

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?

I've never made the claim that the section you have shown was ANYTHING

much less that it was part of the bunched up fabric. You have nothing left

but the hollow shell of your character now Cliff. It's amazing to see you

sink so low.

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!

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.

Save your losing rehash Cliff you are beat. Now you want the argument all over

again! Talk about circular! Amazing.

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

compression artifact.

Its impossible to know where the fold starts and so we cant measure.

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>).

I'm always ready to play Cliff, because its fun to see people make fools of themself.

As you so ably demonstrate.

Craig, Cliff, Duncan, et al.:

It appears that JFK's coat was not bunched as in the crop below.

You see it differently?

Miles

I find it incredible that you can't see a bunch Miles Maybe you too are suffering from Varnellitis

Duncan

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.

As for my attitude, why yes, I think I'm more of an expert in the study of photographic images than your clothing experts.

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.

I'm privy to all the photographic evidence , were they?

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.

Not bunched where Miles?

The same non sequitur pimped endlessly:

Any fold in fabric = "bunch"

"bunch" = 2-3" of fabric

Any fold in fabric = 2-3" of fabric.

Unless you know the bottom position how can you correctly measure the fold?

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:

Of course I can say for a fact. My business is the production of digital images.

Your "find" is a classic 8 pixel by 8 pixel jpg compression artifact over a smooth

toned area. Do some research. It can be confirmed by the very nice Altens

enlargement posted by Duncan. Try again next time.

(Cue Vin Scully)

And with one pitch...there goes the shut-out...and there goes

the no-hitter...

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?

Did I mention some guy told me how much fabric was bunched?

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:

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.

Lamson self-debunks:

He points to Towner and says...look only 3/4 of an inch of fabric..the jacket fell and

see the shirt collar...more proof! . The problem is we can't really see much in Towner,

the angle hides the back of the jacket. We cant tell what is happeing in that image.

Varnell zings:

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!

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 we can not really see much in Towner

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...

Thats really quite dishonest of you Cliff,

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:

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.

Lamson self-debunks:

He points to Towner and says...look only 3/4 of an inch of fabric..the jacket fell and

see the shirt collar...more proof! . The problem is we can't really see much in Towner,

the angle hides the back of the jacket. We cant tell what is happeing in that image.

Varnell zings:

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!

Craig scrambles to recover:

Yes Cliff, PLEASE DO TELL US what is happening on the back of JFK that you can't

see because of the camera angle...please do.

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:

The problem is we can't really see much in Towner

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!

You make your silly claim that the lacket dorpped , but where did the fabric go Cliff?

It settled down from a 3/4" fold to a 1/8" fold.

The red arrow points to it:

Craig breaks into hysterics:

Oh yes...ITS THE VARNELL MAGIC JACKET! Notice how this MAGIC JACKET

created more fabric OUT OF THIN AIR in Croft! Poof CLiff, you are gone!

I'll leave it to the gentle reader to conclude whether or not it takes

"magic" for a jacket to settle down 5/8".

Yes, please compare. Cliff asks you to believe in his Magic Jacket Theory

where bunched up fabric simply slides from sight.

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.

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.

Cliff

Croft in Color...Craig is correct.

Duncan

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?

But when we move to Croft things get a bit clearer. Much to Cliffs chagrin, the full

extent of the bunch can be seen. And we also see a nice clear shot of the shirt collar.

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

Yes, please compare. Cliff asks you to believe in his Magic Jacket Theory

where bunched up fabric simply slides from sight.

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.

He points to Towner and says...look only 3/4 of an inch of fabric..the jacket fell and

see the shirt collar...more proof! . The problem is we can't really see much in Towner,

the angle hides the back of the jacket. We cant tell what is happeing in that image.

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!

Of course I can say for a fact. My business is the production of digital images.

Your "find" is a classic 8 pixel by 8 pixel jpg compression artifact over a smooth

toned area. Do some research. It can be confirmed by the very nice Altens

enlargement posted by Duncan. Try again next time.

(Cue Vin Scully)

And with one pitch...there goes the shut-out...and there goes

the no-hitter...

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.