Cliff Varnell

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.

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...

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.

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.

I cannot say for certain that the bulge is there.

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.

You on the the other hand need to show tha bottom of the jacket collar to

prove the jacket is flat, The sun is at such an angle that the shadow line of

the collor bottom WOULD be visable. You cannot say for certain the jacket is flat.

I don't need to prove the jacket flat. YOU need to prove that it's elevated 2-3".

I can however point to the fact that that jacket was folded and bunched as the car turned the corner.

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 of any action that might have lowered the bunch. I can also point out that the missing shirt collar would be consistant with the folded and bunched jacket we see elsewhere.

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.

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.

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.

Now, where is your proof that it was bunched up 2-3"?

Cliff

What planet are you on Cliff? Where did you get the notion that I said that 2-3 inches

of fabric was buched up.

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.

I said the jacket was bunched up all the way from Houston to Elm. I gave NO measuremEnts..

Great! So what's your point?

Now if you want to LIE about what I said, I suggest you go back through all of the posts and post back here where I mentioned the 2-3 inch measurements. Go hunting boy for something from your imagination which you won't find LOL!!!

Duncan[/b]

If you haven't figured out the issues involved, you should withhold comment.

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

from this header.

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?

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.

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 don't mean to be insulting Cliff, but if you genuinely can not see the bunching,

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.

there is definately something wrong with your visual analysis recognition system.

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.

It has been shown to you over and over again that the jacket was bunched on

both Houston and Elm

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.

Both I and Craig have shown you that proof.

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.

I now suggest that the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the jacket was

not bunched up.

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"?

You're the one who made the initial claim....................................PROVE IT!

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...

So were exactly IS the concave curvature Cliff?

The left side of the circle. Not that it matters. You don't know if your

convex "bunch" is anything more than shadow.

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

from this header.

Whats the matter Cliff?

I'm superstitious.

Since I have not threatened you in any manner, I think you should refrain from

predicting "peril."

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

from this header.

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.

Croft

Duncan

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.

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.

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.

Cliff,

Craig started a thread for both of you.

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

Ive asked Evan in a PM to please move all of the comments about the jacket bunch to a new tread...this one.

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?

while all the hard evidence points to Oswald’s sole guilt,

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...

The only kind of back brace which could have caused the bunching we see, other than the jacket simply bunching because of JFK'S movements, would have been something like this.

Duncan

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.

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.

Craig didn't go snarling out of the thread,

Oh?

Feel free to start a new thread and I'll be happy to rip you a new one there. And if

you had the brains to check before you posted your nonsense about my being a LN y

ou would have found I have no dog in this hunt, LN or CT because I simply don't care.

"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.

and I suspect that your use of these words is a ruse to try to get him to come back in to the debate. Like Craig, and with respect, I believe you are wrong, and interpreting the photographic evidence wrongly.

Duncan

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...

The only kind of back brace which could have caused the bunching we see, other than the jacket simply bunching because of JFK'S movements, would have been something like this.

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.

Cliff, et al.:

Is there alteration afoot here?

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.

Feel free to start a new thread and I'll be happy to rip you a new one there.

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.

And if you had the brains to check before you posted your nonsense about my

being a LN you would have fo0und I have no dog in this hunt, LN or CT because

I simply don't care.

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.

I'm just looking at some images and dealing with what they tell us.

The truth is the truth, regardless of the "label" you might want to slap on it.

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.)

PS, you really need to look closely at the images you post. Your statements about

the images in question really make you look the fool.

...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?

Feel free to start a new thread and I'll be happy to rip you a new one there.

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.

And if you had the brains to check before you posted your nonsense about my

being a LN you would have fo0und I have no dog in this hunt, LN or CT because

I simply don't care.

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.

I'm just looking at some images and dealing with what they tell us.

The truth is the truth, regardless of the "label" you might want to slap on it.

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.)

PS, you really need to look closely at the images you post. Your statements about

the images in question really make you look the fool.

...Uh, ouch?

Now I fully expect you to continue to pimp your theory regardless. You really have no choice do you Cliff? You are fully vested. Thats a pretty bad position for someone who claims to be about finding the truth.

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.

I'm in bit of a hurry, so we'll cut to the chase and pursue the rest of

this later (I especially want to see that spring clamp on a tucked-in shirt!)

Craig wrote:

Here the the actual bulge as seen in all of the images

Its not the collar Cliff.

And here is how it all works out, as is seen in all the images,

(excuse my crude drawing)

Back in the real world, here is Willis #5, taken at Z202, less than a second after

the Betzner.

So where is this bulge at the right side of JFK's neck in Willis #5, Craig?

The shadow you call "bulge" forms a convex curve at the right base

of JFK's neck.

But in Willis #5 the curvature at the base of JFK's neck is concave.

Of course, we shouldn't expect much from you here, Craig. After

all, on the "Eject! Eject! Eject!" thread you claimed that the shirt collar

visible in this Towner frame showed the left side of JFK's head.

Keep 'em comin', Craig!

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.

I'm out of this thread. If you want to play elsewhere, be my guest.

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.