Cliff Varnell

JFK Lancer Productions & Publications

JFK Lancer Productions & Publications Announcement

Radio Show on Dallas DA Ruby Docs Release

Gary Mack's response to our email:

Please fix this erroneous statement on your website:

"Features David Kaiser, author of "The Road to Dallas", and Max Holland, author of the "Kennedy Assassination Tapes". Heads Up: All guests believe Lee Oswald acted alone."

David believes there was a conspiracy, though I don't know his details. And I'm on the show, too, and my personal support of the HSCA acoustics evidence of two gunmen has never wavered.

My response:

Gary,

...I thought from your recent statements on the news that you considered LHO to be the lone gunman although previously you have supported the acoustic evidence. Kaiser has not made a statement that I am aware of that he believes in more than one shooter.

Best,

Debra (Conway)

Is everyone as surprised as I am to read this? I was under the impression that Gary Mack was an early believer in "Badgeman" as a shooter, but later changed his mind. Are we guilty of a hasty rush to judgment where Mr. Mack is concerned?

Terry

No, because even if he plumps for conspiracy his statement of "virtually no hard

evidence" is debunked by the clothing evidence, which stands as prima facie hard

evidence of 2+ shooters.

Varnell:

I read you putting the word FACT in caps in conjunction with the oft-described

but-never-revealed 2-3" jacket bunch.

Show us your mannequin experiments, Craig.

If they supported your case you would have posted them long ago.

Lamson:

Where are your calculations for 3/4 of an inch Cliff?

I did not photograph them Cliff. There was no need. Anyone with a brain and a jacket can test it themself.

Let's address the second point first.

The reason you did not photograph them is because you can't get all that

fabric to bunch up in the asymmetrical shape you outlined so famously.

Your experiment has to match Betzner #3 and show the shirt collar at the

back of the neck and a convex shape above the right shoulder-line.

You have found this impossible.

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.

To get a better sense of this, keep in mind that the red line is JFK's

1.25" jacket collar, the green line points to the cupped fold.

According to you, Craig, the downslope of that cupped fold as as large or

larger than JFK's jacket collar.

I leave it to the gentle reader to assess your credibility on this point.

Gentle reader, please compare the size of the cupped fold in the photo

on the left with the inside slope of the fold in the photo on the right.

The photo on the left was taken on the corner of Elm and Houston,

and clearly shows that the jacket had dropped from the moment of

the photo on the right, taken earlier in the motorcade.

Anyone can measure this. Try it.

But nobody is going to get the drastic, grossly asymmetrical shape

your fantasy requires.

Look at the photo on the right above -- the fold is symmetrical all

the way around.

Nice try, Craig. Thanks for playing. Better luck...

Craig Lamson vs. Craig Lamson:

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 1:55 PM)

You have claimed the jacket has fallen in [betzner] , and you use the shirt collar to back

you claim. The problem is it has been established that the jacket collar and the shirt collar

are acting independent of the bunch. The burden of proof is on YOU Cliffy, to show the

jacket has dropped. You have failed to do so. What we are left with is the Cliff Varnell

Magic Jacket. The Varnell Magic Jacket

(quote off)

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 03:03 PM

I've not made the claim that I can remember that only the jacket collar fell in

Dealey plaza. I've said the jacket collar and the fold/bunch work independent

of each other. If you can find such a claim from me I will admit error and formally

withdraw it.

(quote off)

But instead of formally withdrawing a claim he made a little more than

an hour earlier, Craig continues to ridicule the obvious.

Learn to read Cliff.....

I read you putting the word FACT in caps in conjunction with the oft-described

but-never-revealed 2-3" jacket bunch.

Show us your mannequin experiments, Craig.

If they supported your case you would have posted them long ago.

Will the moderators please remove the statement "enter at your peril Cliff"

from this header.

Just kidding! I think its funny.

I decided to let Craig have the sense he'd gotten under my skin.

The strategy was to get him to lower his guard and perhaps he'd claim

especially inane things.

Worked like a charm!

Cliff: Ignore them and they will go away. Engage them and they will wear you

down. They have all the time in the world.

Dawn

Dawn, normally I would agree with you, but in the case of the clothing evidence

it's different. LNers always trip themselves up, and it's a gas to watch.

For instance, in order begin to make his case, Craig Lamson

must claim that JFK's shirt tail was out, at least partially.

Think about this a sec.

According to David Powers, JFK changed his shirt on the flight from Fort Worth

to Dallas.

According to Craig's theory, JFK had to leave his shirt tail partially out even though

doing so might ruin the lines of his slim-cut European dress jacket.

The chances of that ever happening were nil.

JFK didn't appear in public with his shirt tail out.

And yet Gary Mack et al assume that he did.

Any theory that rests on such a scenario is a monument to the power of

intellectual dishonesty.

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

Cliff: Ignore them and they will go away. Engage them and they will wear you

down. They have all the time in the world.

Dawn

Dawn, normally I would agree with you, but in the case of the clothing evidence

it's different. LNers always trip themselves up, and it's a gas to watch.

For instance, in order begin to make his case, Craig Lamson

must claim that JFK's shirt tail was out, at least partially.

Think about this a sec.

According to David Powers, JFK changed his shirt on the flight from Fort Worth

to Dallas.

According to Craig's theory, JFK had to leave his shirt tail partially out even though

doing so might ruin the lines of his slim-cut European dress jacket.

The chances of that ever happening were nil.

JFK didn't appear in public with his shirt tail out.

And yet Gary Mack et al assume that he did.

Any theory that rests on such a scenario is a monument to the power of

intellectual dishonesty.

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

Clifford,

The bad guys win when you dignify their nonsense with direct and polite response.

Expose them for what they are.

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

dishonesty.

Cliff: Ignore them and they will go away. Engage them and they will wear you down. They have all the time in the world.

Dawn

Dawn, normally I would agree with you, but in the case of the clothing evidence

it's different. LNers always trip themselves up, and it's a gas to watch.

For instance, in order begin to make his case, Craig Lamson

must claim that JFK's shirt tail was out, at least partially.

Think about this a sec.

According to David Powers, JFK changed his shirt on the flight from Fort Worth

to Dallas.

According to Craig's theory, JFK had to leave his shirt tail partially out even though

doing so might ruin the lines of his slim-cut European dress jacket.

The chances of that ever happening were nil.

JFK didn't appear in public with his shirt tail out.

Any theory that rests on such a scenario is a monument to the power of

intellectual dishonesty.

Cliff, I really find it difficult to understand your way of thinking.

Duncan

The feeling is mutual. Since you're not here to defend the SBT let's you

and I go our separate ways.

Cliff

Sure, remember to send a postcard, but please don't fold it

Duncan

A little fold, maybe...

Craig Lamson vs. Craig Lamson:

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 1:55 PM)

You have claimed the jacket has fallen in [betzner] , and you use the shirt collar to back

you claim. The problem is it has been established that the jacket collar and the shirt collar

are acting independent of the bunch. The burden of proof is on YOU Cliffy, to show the

jacket has dropped. You have failed to do so. What we are left with is the Cliff Varnell

Magic Jacket. The Varnell Magic Jacket

(quote off)

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 03:03 PM

I've not made the claim that I can remember that only the jacket collar fell in

Dealey plaza. I've said the jacket collar and the fold/bunch work independent

of each other. If you can find such a claim from me I will admit error and formally

withdraw it.

(quote off)

But instead of formally withdrawing a claim he made a little more than

an hour earlier, Craig continues to ridicule the obvious.

The bulge is too small.

Your thoughts? [/b][/color]

Miles, you're spot on!

Back in 1997 I took Groden's The Killing of a President down to Union Square

in San Francisco and spoke with several tailors about the Elm St. folds. Everyone

I talked to said it was impossible for a tucked-in custom-made shirt to bunch up

more than a fraction of an inch.

The tailor with whom I spoke the longest identified the Elm St. bulge as involving

3/4" of of fabric. He said it was a common type of fold.

I also spoke with one of the world's top textile conservators and a 2-time

winner of the LA Drama Critic Circle Awards for Costume Design, who

imparted the following:

There are two kinds of body/clothing movements: "normal" movement and

"gross" movement.

"Normal" movement is casual and causes the clothing to move in fractions

of an inch.

"Gross" movement occurs when the body is stretched out, as when one is running

or reaching up for an object on a high shelf. "Gross" body movements cause the

fabric to move in multiple inches.

All of JFK's movements in the limo were casual.

Cliff, I really find it difficult to understand your way of thinking.

Duncan

The feeling is mutual. Since you're not here to defend the SBT let's you

and I go our separate ways.

Craig Lamson = red

Cliff Varnell's reply = green

Sorry Cliff you found JPG compression artifacts.

Pure speculation on your part.

You can't say that as a fact.

The artifacts are consistent in shape and location as the small folds commonly seen

in JFK's jacket.

You cite consistencies that don't exist (Betzner bunch), and dismiss those that do exist.

You claim the JFK's jacket didn't drop, then you admit that it did.

It's fun watching you go thru this dance, Craig.

This is a perfect example of your ignorance in the process of

nspecting photographic images.

This is a perfect example of you talking out of both sides of your mouth.

When it was pointed out to you that the "Betzner bulge" was shadow, you argued

that the artifact was consistent with what is seen in EVERY photo.

As it turns out, you cannot identify the "Betzner bulge" in ANY photo/frame taken

in Dealey Plaza.

What is consistent in several photos, however, are the small horizontal artifacts at the

midline of JFK's jacket.

So on one hand you argue for a consistency that doesn't exist, and on the other

hand you dismiss consistencies that do exist.

Typical cognitive impairment.

BTW, the very fine Altgens posted by Duncan kills your theory

of slight folds. It is detailed enough to show that the jacket collar is coverd by the

bulge because we cannot see the shadow line that would have been created by the

bottom of the collar.

It's also detailed enough to show JFK's smooth right shoulder-line.

How did your fantasy bulge smoothly wrap around the back of his neck (in the manner

of a collar, coincidently) without breaking the smooth right shoulder-line?

You are describing clothing movements that are impossible to replicate.

The bulge is great enough to cover both the shirt colllar and jacket collar.

Bingo! Okay by me!

Let's accept for the sake of argument that Altgens #5 shows 2-3" of JFK's shirt

and jacket all wrapped around his neck above both the shirt collar and the jacket

collar.

And then what happened on Houston St.?

The jacket dropped to reveal the shirt collar.

But, of course, you've already conceded that the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza,

or have you forgotten that as well?

Your last hope of saving the Magic Jacket Theory has been shot down.

This is rich!

Craig Lamson on this thread wrote:

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 03:03 PM

I've not made the claim that I can remember that only the jacket collar fell in

Dealey plaza. I've said the jacket collar and the fold/bunch work independent

of each other. If you can find such a claim from me I will admit error and formally

withdraw it.

(quote off)

Out of one side of your mouth you dismiss the obvious as "Magic Jacket Theory"

and out of the other side of your mouth you admit the jacket dropped in

Dealey Plaza and exposed the shirt collar, which is my entire point.

Thank you Craig, and I hope you recover from your dizziness.

CV:

The small horizontal folds at the midline are consistent with the small horizontal

fold/artifact in Betzner.

Uh, there ARE no small horizontal folds.

The artifacts are consist with small folds

You are the one pushing for analysis on the basis of consistency. You don't

know if thoseare folds or not -- but they certainly are consistent with folds commonly

observed in JFK's jacket.

CV:

You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that the silhouette of JFK

against the light background shows the same shoulder line as your Betzner Fantasy?

Yes. its the same shoulder line..

You lack the cognitive ability to tell the difference between a convex and

concave curve? This is a true pity.

Miles, the Willis #4 photo you showed has a slight 3/4" cupped fold at the

nape of JFK's neck.

This 3/4" fold is claimed by LNers as a 2-3" fold, which it obviously isn't

to anyone familiar with custom-clothing.

Cliff..I do not have an opinion on the single bullet theory other than it's a fine piece of fiction. My only contribution to this thread is to show you the bunching of the jacket at various points between Houston and Elm.

Then you have nothing to contribute since no one ever denied that JFK's jacket

had folds in it.

I have maintained that the jacket remained bunched up all the way from Houston to Elm.

So? At one point you seemed to understand that 3/4" ain't the same as 3"...

I have blown up a good copy of Altgens, and it appears that the bunch is very minimal

at this point in time, and even shows the neck between the top of the jacket and

Kennedy's hairline.

Very good. Thank you. "Minimal" being the key word.

The consistent rise in the bunching must therefore have happened after this point in time.

Here it is.

Duncan

Duncan, please note that JFK's shirt collar is not visible in that photo.

Please note that JFK's shirt collar is visible at Z186:

The only way JFK's shirt collar could have been covered up by the

jacket collar on Houston St. but exposed on Elm St. was if the

jacket dropped.

Think about it a little before you respond...please...

Let's bring it on home.

Here's JFK at Fort Worth with his arm up casually and minor horizontal folds

in the midline of the back of his jacket.

Here's JFK on Houston St. with the same minor horizontal folds at

the midline of his jacket. Note there is no visible shirt collar.

Here's JFK at Z186 -- his jacket had dropped to reveal the normal amount

(1/2") of exposed shirt collar.

Similar horizontal fold.

I tracked this down.

This shows a dimple in the jacket, some small horizontal folds, the bottom

of the jacket collar is visible on the right.

The small horizontal folds at the midline are consistent with the small horizontal

fold/artifact in Betzner:

Yes it is, sadly its you. Willis is worthless for close, detailed inspection. Are you blind?

You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that the silhouette of JFK

against the light background shows the same shoulder line as your Betzner Fantasy?

The power of denial is amazing.

My comments in burgandy.

Craig Lamson:

You problem is that the "Bentzer Bunch" is totally consistant WITH ALL of the Dealy

Plaza images showing the bunch both before and after the back shot."

I believe that Altgens 5 shows a bulge that is consistant will the rest of the images.

Post a high quality close-up of JFK in that photo and point out the artifacts consistent

with your claim.

Its my opinion since the lighting angle makes it impossible to tell with complete certainty.

Point out anything in Altgens consistent with your claim.

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.

Your opinions about this image share the same fate. You can't show the bottom of the jacket collar.

That is his opinion. Good for him.

You've stated as a FACT that JFK's clothing was elevated 2-3" above the

inshoot at the base of his neck.

Please point out anything in Altgens #5 consistent with this conclusion.

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...

"We went down thsi road last time Cliff, is your memory gone?"

If you can't tell that JFK's shoulderlines are symmetrical in Altgens -- you

have a lot more to worry about than my memory.

A conclusion is the best either of us can offer in regards to Altgens 5.

Wrong. A good close up might show us more...

You continue to repete your conclusion ad nauseam as if its fact...its not.

They are not. Nice try though. Might I suggest new glasses.

"You cant use this image nor can I, at least not a version that is this low res.

And why?

For me its because The sun angle is near zero phase, which mean the shadow line from a fold and bulge fall behind the bulge."

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.

Thats not the way it appears in the image you posted. In addition the resolution

and jpg artifacts make it impossible to see the details of the right shoulder line.

Wrong. The right shoulder-line is NOT broken by bunched jacket.

All you can do is guess here Cliff. Strike this one for you as well.

"I cannot say for certain that the bulge is there."

Then ALL THE PHOTOS don't show this absurd fantasy of yours, do they?

Well yes they do.

The intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

I don't suffer fools gladly.

How do you live with yourself?

CV: Post photos, please, or this exercise is meaningless.

CL: Photos? Anyone can do it for themself.

No, you make the claim, you provide the evidence.

Let's see how this 3 inch fold of yours compares to the photos.

CV: Your claim that JFK's jacket was bunched up in Betzner is debunked by Willis.

CL: Dbunked? Please do tell .... you find more bystanders?

So you don't know the difference between a concave and convex curve?

Where's the convex curve in Willis #5 -- another test of intellectual honesty.

Clifford,

The bad guys win when you dignify their nonsense with direct and polite response.

Expose them for what they are.

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

dishonesty.

Tisk Tisk Cliff, it appears the one lacking intellectual honesty would be you.

You stated as a fact that JFK's clothing was elevated 2-3".

Please share your methodology for making that determination, as opposed

to the clothing being elevated 1/8" to 3/4".

Now we'll see who has intellectual honesty.

My methods are simple. I've viewed the images and then took a shirt and jacket and placed it on a Mannequin. I then placed a piece of scotch tape under the collar and down the back. I marked the tape at the bottom of the jacket collar. Next I tried a nuber of fold/bunch positions that covered both the jacket and shirt collar and marked the tape at the top of the fold. 2 inches is a slam dunk, as is 3.

Post photos, please, or this exercise is meaningless.

Better yet anyone can do it, they dont have to take my word for it.

Word for what? Your claim that JFK's jacket was bunched up in Betzner

is debunked by Willis.

I really should know better than to bust your chops over this but I'm sure you

won't mind. After all I'm only doing this because I like making you look like a

fool.

If the shoe fits...

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?

I've not made the claim that I can remember that only the jacket collar fell in Dealey plaza.

And you were worried about my memory?

Feb 19 2008, 08:47 AM Post #8

(quote)(Cliff Varnell @ Feb 19 2008, 05:38 PM)

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

And that is the salient, irrefutable FACT.(/quote)

Sure it is refutable. The COLLAR dropped, not the bulge in the jacket which remains

even AFTER the back shot.

There was a bulge on Main St. that occluded the shirt collar and a bulge

on Elm St. that rode below 1/2" of exposed shirt collar.

I find it inescapable to conclude anything other than the obvious -- the jacket

dropped.

I've said the jacket collar and the fold/bunch work independent of each other,

If you can find such a claim from me I will admit error and formally withdraw it.

Withdraw away.

The jacket collar doesn't operate entirely independent of the jacket fabric to which

it is attached, after all. If the collar falls, at least part of the jacket below the collar

will also fall.

And no, Everything above the shirt collar is folded and bunched fabric as seen from the rear.

As seen from the rear on Main St., JFK's jacket rode into his hairline above the top of

his shirt collar.

As seen from the rear on Elm St. JFK's jacket rode under the 1/2" of exposed shirt collar.

The jacket dropped. Period.

You claim to have read me for years. You know who and what I am and how

I post. I don't suffer fools gladly. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Here's a test: how did two disparate, solid objects -- the collar and the 2-3" jacket

plus 2-3" shirt bulge -- occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's

neck at the same time?

To John and the Moderators:

I'm not kidding about that superstitious thing.

For 20 years I worked in casinos frequented by Asians.

I've had Asian girlfriends, learned a bit of many languages, hung out.

If I were myself Asian and I saw the word "peril" and "Cliff" in a subject header

I'd be contacting a lawyer already.

Am I asking too much to remove that?

Awesome!

See the red circle?

See the green line?

See the red curvature to the left of the green line?

That concave curvature matches the curvature at the right

base of JFK's neck.

According to your analysis, there was a convex curvature at the right base

of JFK's neck.

This raises the question -- does Craig Lamson know the difference between

convex and concave?

Clifford,

The bad guys win when you dignify their nonsense with direct and polite response.

Expose them for what they are.

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

dishonesty.

Tisk Tisk Cliff, it appears the one lacking intellectual honesty would be you.

You stated as a fact that JFK's clothing was elevated 2-3".

Please share your methodology for making that determination, as opposed

to the clothing being elevated 1/8" to 3/4".

Now we'll see who has intellectual honesty.