Cliff Varnell

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.

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.