Cliff Varnell

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.

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

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?

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...

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.

Oh? "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. 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...

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.) ...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?

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. 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. 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.) ...Uh, ouch?

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.

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. 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.

No, Peter. Your request is unreasonable. Mack made a statement about the HARD EVIDENCE and I'm making a rebuttal. Go play thread cop somewhere else.

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!

Thank you Bernice, and thank you Don Jeffries! A couple of other people have accused me of hijacking the thread, so I greatly appreciate the support of you both. The key topic here is "hard evidence," after all...

Not in America. And ever since the Sex Pistols released Never Mind the Bollocks 30+ years ago I'd have to say the Brits have developed a tolerance for it.

I fail to see the accuracy of the statement "virtually no hard evidence." In response to this egregious inaccuracy passed by Mack, I've endeavored to lay it out an abundance of hard evidence of two plus shooters, contrary to Mack's claim. All I see his defenders do is repeat his conclusions over and over sans any actual fact based argument. But thanks for providing those images, Duncan.

Craig Lamson: Cliff Varnell: Craig's remarks are in red. Mine are in this lovely green. I do many different things Cliff, including using gaffer tape, clothes pins, binder clips and one time a bungee cord and a shot bag. Bulging jackets are very common, more so when the subject raises his arm or waves. Shirt bulges of more than a fraction of an inch are non-existent as long as the shirt is custom-made and the tail is tucked-in. Does Craig also have to tape the shirt down? Depends. Sometimes its a a tool such as a spring clamp and sometimes its just a good tug. You use a spring clamp on the shirt? That I'd like to see. Next time you use a spring clamp to hold a bulging shirt down -- will you photograph it and share it with us? Of course not. A shirt is tucked in. The wearer sits on the tail of the shirt. Shirts and jackets do not move the same way, as Craig knows better than anyone. Actually they do move and do so quite often. Shirts and jackets often move in tandem? You have to clamp both the shirt and the jacket down? Please, document this procedure and share! I don't know if the "wearer" is sitting on the tail or not. I've never put my head inside their pants to find out. Have you? You may be suprised to learn this but there are people in this world who spend all their working life knowing what goes on with shirt tails. It isn't a mystery. CLOTHES AND THE MAN - THE PRINCIPLES OF FINE MEN'S DRESS (Alan Flusser) pg 79: (quote on, emphasis added) The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could DESTROY THE LINES OF THE JACKET...The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang at least six inches below the waist so that it STAYS TUCKED IN WHEN YOU MOVE AROUND. (quote off) Do a Google on Alan Flusser, Craig. Since JFK's jacket and shirt had to move 2-3" in near-tandem to satisfy the Single Bullet Theory, Craig knows better than anyone that this never happens. Don't you, Craig? No I don't know that Cliff, and neither do you. We all know it, Craig, if we do a little research. A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt only requires about 3/4" of slack for the wearer to look good and move comfortably. The motorcade photos show the jacket dropped. Now, I know you don't want to admit that, and you want to claim that only the jacket collar dropped. But how could the jacket collar drop to a normal position at the base of the neck if there were multiple inches of shirt and jacket occupying the exact same space? What I DO know is that the photography shows a bulge of 2-3 inches of fabric at the back of JFK before, and after the back shot, and that includes the last frames we see in the Towner film. Here's the last photo taken before the shooting. The blue arrow points to 1/2" of exposed shirt collar. The red arrow points to 1/8" of bulged jacket fabric. You claim that the red arrow points to 2-3" of bunched up jacket and 2-3" of bunched up shirt all bunched up above the base of JFK's neck -- all of this occurring without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of JFK's neck! One of us is being intellectually dishonest. I'll leave it to the gentle reader to figure it out. Now since the jacket has this artifact in all the images, Where have you ever established that this artifact was a 2-3" bulge as opposed to a fraction of an inch bulge? Your circular logic is amazing! and since the holes in the shirt and jacket match for position, that leaves only one conclusion....that the shirt and the jacket must have moved together. Correct! The shirt and jacket moved a fraction of an inch together. That's what clothes do.

Duncan, the photo was taken behind JFK. The shirt collar you see is at the back of his neck. On Main St. the jacket rode up into his hairline. That's why the shirt collar was occluded on Main St. Since the jacket was riding up into his hairline on Main St. but below the top of the shirt collar on Elm St. -- it means the jacket dropped. What part of this don't you get? Bollocks! Mack said on national television that there was no hard evidence of two plus shooters and I'm discussing hard evidence that there was. Does Gary Mack have some mandate of heaven where he can broadcast egregious mis-statements of historical fact and we must not ever criticize him?

Then we are in agreement. Jackets move. In this case the jacket dropped. Thank you, Duncan. Most reasonable. ...Come again? Where did that come from? Things move. Jackets move. That is my entire point. The jacket dropped. I wrote: You answered: I don't think you realize that there must be a bulge in the jacket, for this simple fact: the hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the collar while the hole in the shirt is 4" even below the collar. The jacket had to have a bulge in it. 1/8" is 3 millimeters. We are clear on the fact that 3 millimeters does not equal 3 inches? Which brings us right back to point #1: how is it -- then -- that the shirt collar is totally occluded on Main St. and yet so highly visible on Elm St.? Jackets move. The jacket dropped. Me: You: So what? The blue arrow points to 1/2" of exposed shirt collar. The red arrow points to a 1/8" fabric bulge. The burden of proof is on you and Gary Mack (et al) to establish that the bulge involves 4-6" of shirt/jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the base of JFK's neck. This is a burden you won't begin to meet.

Interesting. How do you account for the shirt collar being visible on Elm St. but not visible on Main St.? And that big Main St. bulge is sticking out so much -- right? -- but in Betzner (Z186) there is nothing but shadow in that area. How do you account for the one half inch (1/2") of exposed shirt collar catching sunshine while this purported multi-inch bunch of shirt/jacket fabric lies in shadow?

That is a good starter lesson! Not too much of a leap, going forward, to the understanding that 3/4" does not equal 3". Gary Mack claims that 3/4" of slack shirt fabric moves 2-3". That's not how it is, Duncan. Gary Mack claims that JFK's jacket was in the same position on Elm St. as it was on Main St. Is that what these terrific images of yours show, Duncan? Main St. Elm St. Mack claims that the observable drop of JFK's jacket is a "theory." No, that is not what it is...It is an irrefutable fact.

I haven't hijacked the thread at all. The claim that Mack makes is that the "hard evidence" indicates Oswald acted alone. I am demonstrating that the "hard evidence" proves beyond doubt that at least two shooters fired. I correctly made reference to Mack's attempt to finesse the issue by (his) claiming that the actual position of the jacket is irrelevant to the actual position of the jacket. Doesn't seem out of line to challenge him on such a point, does it? Perhaps you've done some new work. Your original version of "Coat Check" was an impressive case against "bunch theory." Then you re-wrote it into something very very weak. And apparently all along you've maintained that the back wound was at T1 -- not much difference between T1 and C7/T1, is there? As long as you maintain a provable falsehood, you cannot help the case. Yes, but you've turned a prima facie case into one that requires all this needless extra analysis. It appears to me that people interested in this case have some strange need to make it needlessly complicated. Aha! I can hire out a bright 5 year old from the school down the street and demonstrate that 3 millimeters does not equal 3 inches. And that's all the case for conspiracy boils down to. Chad Zimmedrman knew as soon as his first x-ray came back that his "bunch" theory was shattered. But he went on TV and came to a conclusion he knew to be wrong. I swear, if intellectual dishonesty could be converted to megawatts this case would light up the world.