Dr. Costella's smoking gun:

[Craig Lamson]

Whats the matter Paul? You STILL unable to figure out something as simple as ANGLE OF VIEW, so you are left to trolling? Much like Varnell, your ignorance of the finer points of photography is simply STUNNING!. Hey I have a suggestion! Why don't you team up with Varnell and maybe the two of you together can summon up at least HALF a brain and find that missing shadow in Bentzer, and then figure out why you are so wrong about the Altgens.

And what missing shadow would that be, Craig?

Care to actually analyze the photo?

Or are you content to insult people for not seeing what you have

so far failed to point out?

I'm going to throw you a bone Varnell, since you keep puking on your shoes.

You say the the jacket has fallen and the jacket collar is visible.

Noooooo, Craig, I've pointed out the visible shirt collar.

What is the white artifact in the red box if not the shirt collar, Craig?

Where did I mention the SHIRT collar Varnell? You analysis is childish and your conclusion ignorant, and now you try to deflect from your failure by posting a strawman!

You just hurled another round on your shoes Varnell, quite par for the course....

Now I guess we need to start again for the third grader Varnell...

You say the jacket has fallen and the jacket collar is visible. So tell us, where is the shadow that MUST fall over the jacket collar and down over the back of the jacket? Physics demands it be there, IF the jacket collar is visible. If the shadow is NOT there, the jacket collar MUST be hidden and the jacket has not fallen in Bentzer, and your stupid claim is false.

Analyze away Varnell, if you have the brains....again.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Whats the matter Paul? You STILL unable to figure out something as simple as ANGLE OF VIEW, so you are left to trolling? Much like Varnell, your ignorance of the finer points of photography is simply STUNNING!. Hey I have a suggestion! Why don't you team up with Varnell and maybe the two of you together can summon up at least HALF a brain and find that missing shadow in Bentzer, and then figure out why you are so wrong about the Altgens.

And what missing shadow would that be, Craig?

Care to actually analyze the photo?

Or are you content to insult people for not seeing what you have

so far failed to point out?

I'm going to throw you a bone Varnell, since you keep puking on your shoes.

You say the the jacket has fallen and the jacket collar is visible.

Noooooo, Craig, I've pointed out the visible shirt collar.

What is the white artifact in the red box if not the shirt collar, Craig?

Where did I mention the SHIRT collar Varnell?

I did. I've pointed out the visible shirt collar in Betzner #3.

About a million times.

Do you actually read my analysis?

You analysis is childish and your conclusion ignorant, and now you try to deflect from your failure by posting a strawman!

You just hurled another round on your shoes Varnell, quite par for the course....

Now I guess we need to start again for the third grader Varnell...

Wow.

You say the jacket has fallen and the jacket collar is visible.

You're not telling the truth here, Craig. The jacket dropped to

reveal the visible shirt collar.

If you are going to critique my analysis, you have to understand it.

It isn't that difficult, Craig, so why you insist on mis-understanding it is odd,

to say the least.

[Craig Lamson]

Whats the matter Paul? You STILL unable to figure out something as simple as ANGLE OF VIEW, so you are left to trolling? Much like Varnell, your ignorance of the finer points of photography is simply STUNNING!. Hey I have a suggestion! Why don't you team up with Varnell and maybe the two of you together can summon up at least HALF a brain and find that missing shadow in Bentzer, and then figure out why you are so wrong about the Altgens.

And what missing shadow would that be, Craig?

Care to actually analyze the photo?

Or are you content to insult people for not seeing what you have

so far failed to point out?

I'm going to throw you a bone Varnell, since you keep puking on your shoes.

You say the the jacket has fallen and the jacket collar is visible.

Noooooo, Craig, I've pointed out the visible shirt collar.

What is the white artifact in the red box if not the shirt collar, Craig?

Where did I mention the SHIRT collar Varnell?

I did. I've pointed out the visible shirt collar in Betzner #3.

About a million times.

Do you actually read my analysis?

You analysis is childish and your conclusion ignorant, and now you try to deflect from your failure by posting a strawman!

You just hurled another round on your shoes Varnell, quite par for the course....

Now I guess we need to start again for the third grader Varnell...

Wow.

You say the jacket has fallen and the jacket collar is visible.

You're not telling the truth here, Craig. The jacket dropped to

reveal the visible shirt collar.

If you are going to critique my analysis, you have to understand it.

It isn't that difficult, Craig, so why you insist on mis-understanding it is odd,

to say the least.

I really don't care about your shirt collar nonsense. It has no bearing on the fabric bunch as seen in Bentzer.

I'll ask again, for the THIRD time, WHERE is the shadow that MUST fall over the jacket collar and back of the jacket? Physics DEMANDS it must be there if the jacket collar is not obscured. If you can't show us said shadow, it's all over for Varnell's Magic Jacket Theory.

I suggest you analyze Croft and then perhaps you might find the missing shadow. This is an elemental interplay of light and a solid object. High school photography students should have no problem understanding this simple concept. Then again its Varnell we are talking about....

Oh, btw, since you don't even understand your own argument, the shirt collar is meaningless. It's a strawman...or... what is your favorite term...oh yea, its a NON-SEQUITUR. The missing shadow seals your fate. You are intellectually dishonest. Pity you wasted so many years pimping your childish claim. In the end all did was make you look the fool.

It isn't that difficult, Varnell, so why you insist on mis-understanding it is odd,

to say the least.

[Cliff Varnell]

I really don't care about your shirt collar nonsense.

You obviously don't care to address my actual argument.

I'll repeat it yet again.

Here's JFK on Main St., 90 seconds before the shooting. The object in

the red box was JFK's jacket, which clearly rode up into his hairline.

Below is JFK on Elm St. a split second before the shooting. The object in

the red box was JFK's shirt collar, clearly visible in several Elm St. photos.

(The shadow across his shirt collar is clearly visible on the extreme

right side of the red box.)

The jacket dropped to reveal the shirt collar. The Nix film captures the

moment this occurred.

JFK's jacket dropped significantly, leaving insignificant folds in his jacket.

You can blow all the smoke you want, Captain Craig, but you can't refute this

obvious fact. Hell, you can't bring yourself to honestly face what it is I'm actually

arguing here.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Oh my god Cliff, are you really this stupid or is it just your warped worldview getting in the way?

The only "smoke" is your claim that somehow the shirt collar has any significance. Here's a news flash for you. It does not. Consider your arguement addressed, and discarded. Clearly YOU can't address the fact that there is no shadow falling over JFK's jacket collar in Bentzer.

Here, I'll repeat it for you for the FORTH time.

Bentzer shows a large cup of fabric obscuring JFK's jacket collar. This is unimpeachable. Why? Because you can't see the shadow cast by JFK's neck falling over the jacket collar and the back of the jacket.

Why can't you see the shadow on the jacket collar? Simple, it is being obscured by the large cup of fabric on the back of JFK’s jacket.

How big is this cup of fabric? One half of the fold the fold that forms this cup is LARGER than the width of the jacket collar. How do we know this? Because the cup totally obscures the jacket collar as witnessed by the fact that there is no shadow crossing over the jacket collar. Physics tells us the shadow MUST be there. That is unimpeachable.

Are there examples that show us how and where this shadow must look on a jacket that does not have a cup of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar? Of course. Bentzer offers us a number of views of other jackets that show exactly how the shadow works and where it falls.

Are there any examples that show us how the shadow the falls over the jacket collar and back of the jacket can get hidden by falling INSIDE the cup of folded fabric? Of course, Croft shows us exactly that.

The evidence is simply unimpeachable. In Bentzer JFK's jacket had a fold of fabric that formed a cup around the jacket collar that was LARGE enough to obscure the jacket collar from the camera view and also obscure the shadow that fell over the jacket collar.

The shirt collar is meaningless. It's Varnell year's long strawman argument. Only an idiot would think that somehow this shirt collar had any relationship to the large fold of fabric that formed a cup on the back of JFK's jacket.

Now I'm not surprised that Varnell simply refuses to deal with the cold, hard facts and unimpeachable evidence that in Bentzer, JFK's jacket had not fallen and was in a position to support the SBT. He simply can't. He has invested too many years in a failed position to ever move away. He can’t save face, after all he has spent years telling everyone who saw the truth they were intellectually dishonest or worse. Truth be told the man totally lacking the intellectual honesty is Cliff Varnell.

I'm sure Cliff will hem and haw, claiming this or that, but the fact remains he can't show us the shadow that MUST fall over JFK’s jacket collar in Bentzer if the jacket had fallen. He can't show us because it is hidden. That is unimpeachable.

I'll post all of this in a web page sometime next week, complete with carefully illustrated examples that prove my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Varnell on the other hand will surely point to some photo of a shirt collar and claim victory.

The world can decide who's right.

The intellectually honest will discard Varnell silly claims and put them in the dustbin of history where they belong.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

More insults, baseless assertions, and aggressive gibberish from Craig Lamson...

Oh my god Cliff, are you really this stupid or is it just your warped worldview getting in the way?

You've already confirmed my observations about the shirt collar.

Craig Lamson wrote:

What is possible however, is that the jacket is bunched BELOW the collar

of the coat and that the shirt collar CAN STILL BE SHOWING.

You admit the shirt collar is showing in the Elm St photos.

You can't refute the fact that the jacket collar rode into the hairline on Main St.

So how could the shirt collar be occluded by the jacket on Main St., but visible

on Elm St.?

The jacket dropped. Obviously.

The only "smoke" is your claim that somehow the shirt collar has any significance. Here's a

news flash for you. It does not. Consider your arguement addressed, and discarded.

Consider my argument confirmed by Craig Lamson (see above).

Clearly YOU can't address the fact that there is no shadow falling over JFK's

jacket collar in Bentzer.

In my previous post I pointed out the shadow falling over the shirt collar.

I guess you missed it.

For those who are not riven with Lone Nut Disease, the shadow can

be found to the immediate right of the shirt collar (red box) and to

the immediate right of the small fold (yellow box).

Here, I'll repeat it for you for the FORTH time.

Bentzer shows a large cup of fabric obscuring JFK's jacket collar. This is unimpeachable. Why? Because you can't see the shadow cast by JFK's neck falling over the jacket collar and the back of the jacket.

You're lying. Again.

[Craig Lamson]

More insults, baseless assertions, and aggressive gibberish from Craig Lamson...

Oh my god Cliff, are you really this stupid or is it just your warped worldview getting in the way?

You've already confirmed my observations about the shirt collar.

Craig Lamson wrote:

What is possible however, is that the jacket is bunched BELOW the collar

of the coat and that the shirt collar CAN STILL BE SHOWING.

You admit the shirt collar is showing in the Elm St photos.

You can't refute the fact that the jacket collar rode into the hairline on Main St.

So how could the shirt collar be occluded by the jacket on Main St., but visible

on Elm St.?

The jacket dropped. Obviously.

The only "smoke" is your claim that somehow the shirt collar has any significance. Here's a

news flash for you. It does not. Consider your arguement addressed, and discarded.

Consider my argument confirmed by Craig Lamson (see above).

Clearly YOU can't address the fact that there is no shadow falling over JFK's

jacket collar in Bentzer.

In my previous post I pointed out the shadow falling over the shirt collar.

I guess you missed it.

For those who are not riven with Lone Nut Disease, the shadow can

be found to the immediate right of the shirt collar (red box) and to

the immediate right of the small fold (yellow box).

Here, I'll repeat it for you for the FORTH time.

Bentzer shows a large cup of fabric obscuring JFK's jacket collar. This is unimpeachable. Why? Because you can't see the shadow cast by JFK's neck falling over the jacket collar and the back of the jacket.

You're lying. Again.

Man you must be getting REALLY tired of cleaning that puke from your shoes. Every time you open your mouth, you spew more.

Next you’re called me a xxxx, which is forbidden under forum rules and the simple fact is that I'm not lying but stating cold hard fact.

That fact is that there is no shadow visible falling over JFK's jacket collar, AS IT MUST if that jacket collar was visible. The jacket collar is not visible because it is hidden by the cup of fabric around the jacket collar created by the fabric fold on the back of JKF’s jacket. Again this is unimpeachable because of the lack of a shadow falling over the jacket collar and back of the jacket. I really can't help it that you are so intellectually challenged that this simple fact flies right over your head. Your ignorance of the interplay and light and solid objects is astounding.

Your ignorance is painfully displayed by your childish attempt to cover your failed position by pointing out what you say are the "correct shadows" in JFK's jacket as seen in Bentzer.

First you point out the shadow on the shirt collar in your “red box” Yes that is correct, but what you fail to understand and what is DEMANDED by the situation…IF the jacket collar is visible…is that shadow MUST continue on down over the jacket collar and over the back of JFK’s jacket. The shadow STOPS before reaching the jacket collar. WHY? Because we can’t see the jacket collar, it is hidden by the cup of fabric created by the fold. That is unimpeachable as no other scenario can produce these results given the suns position and JFK’s body position in Bentzer. The correct placement of the shadow, IF JFK’s jacket collar were visible can be seen in a number of the jacket collars and backs of other men in the Bentzer photograph. You are simply wrong and this point alone proves your claims about the jacket having fallen in Bentzer to be completely false.

Second you point to the area in your “yellow box” as what you claim is the correct shadow for the sun falling past JFK’s neck crossing his jacket collar and continuing down over the back of his jacket. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a shadow created by the cup of fabric created by the fold in the back of JFK’s jacket. One can corroborate this by simply looking at Croft, where you can see the exact same shadow, in the exact same position, in the exact same lighting, CAUSED by the cup of fabric created by the fold in the back of JFK’s jacket. Again, unimpeachable.

The long and the short of it is that Varnell is pushing misinformation, simply because he is ignorant of the properties of light and shadow. The sick part is that he has been pushing this gross misinformation for YEARS, warping countless minds. He is the perfect example of everything that is wrong with a big part of the “critical” community. Truth does not matter, only worldview. Varnell should be ashamed. He has been given the chance to become an intellectually honest person, but his pride and worldview prohibits him from doing so.

Again, I’ll lay all of this out in my webpage, to be published sometime next week.

Let’s all join together and say goodbye to Cliff Varnell and his very silly and now disproven ” Magic Jacket Theory”.

[Cliff Varnell]

First you point out the shadow on the shirt collar in your “red box” Yes that is correct,

Bingo!

Let it be recorded that Craig Lamson has verified my analysis

that JFK's shirt collar is visible in Betzner.

Now, let's see if we can get Craig to do the easy part.

Craig, can you see the object in the red box in the photo below?

That is JFK's jacket riding into his hairline, isn't it?

[Cliff Varnell]

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by the

Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1 location is

much too low for the SBT.

JFK's shirt and jacket had to elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches

for the Lone Assassin Theory to be viable.

All that fabric -- 3 inches of jacket plus three inches of shirt -- bunched

entirely below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 but entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by

the Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1

SBT location is much too low. JFK's shirt and jacket had to

elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches for the Lone Assassin

Theory to be viable.

How could 3 inches of jacket and 3 inches of shirt fabric be

bunched up entirely above the C7 SBT in-shoot without

pushing up on the jacket collar in the same location?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

And yet Bentzer (and Croft) shows us a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric BEHIND the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket. This is unimpeachable. Cliff Varnell is contrary to the nature of reality.

[Cliff Varnell]

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by

the Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1

SBT location is much too low. JFK's shirt and jacket had to

elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches for the Lone Assassin

Theory to be viable.

All that fabric -- 3 inches of jacket plus three inches of shirt -- bunched

entirely below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 but entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

And yet Bentzer (and Croft) shows us a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric BEHIND the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket.

But below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 and above the

C7 in-shoot.

Why didn't this massive bulge of clothing fabric catch sunshine in Betzner?

[Craig Lamson]

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by

the Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1

SBT location is much too low. JFK's shirt and jacket had to

elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches for the Lone Assassin

Theory to be viable.

All that fabric -- 3 inches of jacket plus three inches of shirt -- bunched

entirely below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 but entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

And yet Bentzer (and Croft) shows us a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric BEHIND the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket.

But below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 and above the

C7 in-shoot.

Why didn't this massive bulge of clothing fabric catch sunshine in Betzner?

So are you FINALLY admitting that the jacket has NOT fallen and that there is a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric around and behind the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

I guess you really DON"T understand light and shadow do you Cliffy? Maybe if you were to spend some time in the realy world doing some observation you might just learn about how light and solid oblests interact and then take a basic black and white photography course and study tonal range and tone merges.

Then perhaps you can speak on the subject without ralphing on your shoes everytime you open your mouth.

Games over Varnell, and you lost...BIG TIME. zNow all that remains to see is if you have any intellectual honesty.....

[Cliff Varnell]

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by

the Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1

SBT location is much too low. JFK's shirt and jacket had to

elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches for the Lone Assassin

Theory to be viable.

All that fabric -- 3 inches of jacket plus three inches of shirt -- bunched

entirely below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 but entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

And yet Bentzer (and Croft) shows us a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric BEHIND the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket.

But below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 and above the

C7 in-shoot.

Why didn't this massive bulge of clothing fabric catch sunshine in Betzner?

So are you FINALLY admitting that the jacket has NOT fallen and that there is a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric around and behind the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

No, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your claim that 3 inches

of JFK's shirt wrapped in 3 inches of his two-layered jacket were

bunched up entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7 but entirely below

the jacket collar at C6/C7.

How does 3 (+3) inches of bunched fabric stick straight out of

the back of JFK's neck without folding over?

Contrary to the nature of reality, indeed.

[Craig Lamson]

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by

the Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1

SBT location is much too low. JFK's shirt and jacket had to

elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches for the Lone Assassin

Theory to be viable.

All that fabric -- 3 inches of jacket plus three inches of shirt -- bunched

entirely below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 but entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

And yet Bentzer (and Croft) shows us a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric BEHIND the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket.

But below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 and above the

C7 in-shoot.

Why didn't this massive bulge of clothing fabric catch sunshine in Betzner?

So are you FINALLY admitting that the jacket has NOT fallen and that there is a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric around and behind the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

No, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your claim that 3 inches

of JFK's shirt wrapped in 3 inches of his two-layered jacket were

bunched up entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7 but entirely below

the jacket collar at C6/C7.

How does 3 (+3) inches of bunched fabric stick straight out of

the back of JFK's neck without folding over?

Contrary to the nature of reality, indeed.

So you DON'T have any intellectual honesty. Good to know.

The photos tell us everything we need to know about the cup of fabric around JFK's jacket collar. That it was there in Bentzer is unimpeachable, as it is in Croft. I can't help it your ignorance will not allowyou to see the truth.

Your claim the jacket had fallen flat on JFK's back with only a small wrinkle (or is it a depression, who knows, Varnells story is a changling) has been shown via uninpeachable evidence to be false. It's game over. Deal with it. The rest of your spew is just mumbo jumbo...more of your standard fare...dis-information.

Thanks for the grins and the material Varnel. It will be my great pleasure to publish yet another webppage for the world to see busting another ignorant CT myth. Working you is like shootig fish in a barrel.

[Cliff Varnell]

On the left, JFK on Main St. 2 minutes before the shooting. On the right,

that morning in Fort Worth.

When JFK's shirt collar was exposed in the back, his jacket collar

rode in a normal position at the base of his neck, C6/C7.

According to the updated Single Bullet Theory established by

the Discovery Channel's "Australian SBT Team," the C7/T1

SBT location is much too low. JFK's shirt and jacket had to

elevate in near-tandem a good 3 inches for the Lone Assassin

Theory to be viable.

All that fabric -- 3 inches of jacket plus three inches of shirt -- bunched

entirely below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 but entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7?

This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality.

And yet Bentzer (and Croft) shows us a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric BEHIND the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket.

But below the bottom of the jacket collar at C6/C7 and above the

C7 in-shoot.

Why didn't this massive bulge of clothing fabric catch sunshine in Betzner?

So are you FINALLY admitting that the jacket has NOT fallen and that there is a 3 inch-ish cup of fabric around and behind the jacket collar caused by the fabric fold in the back of JFK's jacket? Inquiring minds REALLY want to know.

No, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your claim that 3 inches

of JFK's shirt wrapped in 3 inches of his two-layered jacket were

bunched up entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7 but entirely below

the jacket collar at C6/C7.

How does 3 (+3) inches of bunched fabric stick straight out of

the back of JFK's neck without folding over?

Contrary to the nature of reality, indeed.

So you DON'T have any intellectual honesty. Good to know.

The photos tell us everything we need to know about the cup of fabric around JFK's jacket collar. That it was there in Bentzer is unimpeachable, as it is in Croft. I can't help it your ignorance will not allowyou to see the truth.

The fold in Croft was entirely above the base of JFK's neck?

Prove it.