Cliff Varnell

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.

Then you have nothing to contribute since no one ever denied that JFK's jacket had folds in it. So? At one point you seemed to understand that 3/4" ain't the same as 3"... Very good. Thank you. "Minimal" being the key word. 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: 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. 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. 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." 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." Well yes they do. The intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

How do you live with yourself?

No, you make the claim, you provide the evidence. Let's see how this 3 inch fold of yours compares to the photos. 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.

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. Word for what? Your claim that JFK's jacket was bunched up in Betzner is debunked by Willis.

If the shoe fits...

And you were worried about my memory? 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. 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. 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. 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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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