Craig Lamson Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 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. I don't have to prove anything about the cup of fabric around the jacket collar caused by the fold of fabric from the back of JFK's jacket in Bentzer and Croft other than show it is THERE to prove your crazy Varnell Magic Jacket Theory wrong. Sorry you still lose. I'm not interested in arguing shoot in points or the SBT. Ive accomplished what I set out to do and that was to simply show your claim that jacket had fallen in Bentzer was false. That has been done. How you deal with this point of fact is your business, I reallly don't care. But I did have the pleasure in all of this to show the world your utter ignorance and total lack of intellecdtual honesty in this matter. The fact that you can't admit that there was a 3 inch or so cup of fabric around the jacket collar in Bentzer is just icing on the cake of your destruction. Enjoy the webpage when it's posted. It may well haunt you forever.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) 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. I don't have to prove anything about the cup of fabric around the jacket collar caused by the fold of fabric from the back of JFK's jacket in Bentzer and Croft other than show it is THERE to prove your crazy Varnell Magic Jacket Theory wrong. <removed>. You haven't shown one single photo to illustrate your claims. Except for this grotesque absurdity: Out of one side of your mouth you claim "the bunch" was at his hairline, and then out of the other side of your mouth you claim the "bunch" was below the bottom of the collars. <removed> Edited May 31, 2009 by Evan Burton Removed banned word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) 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. I don't have to prove anything about the cup of fabric around the jacket collar caused by the fold of fabric from the back of JFK's jacket in Bentzer and Croft other than show it is THERE to prove your crazy Varnell Magic Jacket Theory wrong. <removed>. You haven't shown one single photo to illustrate your claims. Except for this grotesque absurdity: Out of one side of your mouth you claim "the bunch" was at his hairline, and then out of the other side of your mouth you claim the "bunch" was below the bottom of the collars. <removed>. Poor Varnell, his long term, but false claim that JFK’s jacket had dropped at Bentzer, lies in tatters on the floor, and he is reduced to breaking the forum rules by calling me <removed>. A claim he cannot prove I might add. Boy this is getting to be REAL fun now. Varnell spewed on his shoes, in desperation: “<removed>. You haven't shown one single photo to illustrate your claims. “ Photos are not required to illustrate my claim. I have described the situation in a sufficient detail. Besides, you can’t “read’ a photo anyway so what good would it do you? But never fear Varnell, my webpage thrashing your silly claim will contain plenty of illustrations. With another smelly hurl Varnell, tossed his cookies again: “Out of one side of your mouth you claim "the bunch" was at his hairline, and then out of the other side of your mouth you claim the "bunch" was below the bottom of the collars.” Are you so ignorant that you can’t see that both are true? The top edge of the cup of fabric created by the fold in the back of JFK’s jacket extends to a height level with his hairline as seen from the camera, obscuring the jacket and shirt collar. The inside bottom of this fold is at the base of the jacket collar. Both true and unimpeachable. It must really suck to be you right now Varnell. Your years of being a pompous a-hole and bullying people with your disinformation are over. Next weeks publication will cement your downfall. The TRUTH will finally be availabe for the world to read. Dang this is getting to be REAL fun now. Thanks so much, you have made my year. Edited May 31, 2009 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) I don't have to prove anything about the cup of fabric around the jacket collar caused by the fold of fabric from the back of JFK's jacket in Bentzer and Croft other than show it is THERE to prove your crazy Varnell Magic Jacket Theory wrong. <removed>. You haven't shown one single photo to illustrate your claims. Except for this grotesque absurdity: Out of one side of your mouth you claim "the bunch" was at his hairline, and then out of the other side of your mouth you claim the "bunch" was below the bottom of the collars. <removed>. Poor Varnell, his long term, but false claim that JFK’s jacket had dropped at Bentzer, lies in tatters on the floor, and he is reduced to breaking the forum rules by calling me <removed> A claim he cannot prove I might add. Boy this is getting to be REAL fun now.Varnell spewed on his shoes, in desperation: “<removed>. You haven't shown one single photo to illustrate your claims. “ Photos are not required to illustrate my claim. I have described the situation in a sufficient detail. The amount of exposed shirt collar, which you have acknowledged: one half inch. You are claiming a fold in Betzner which is three times the size of the exposed shirt collar on only one side of the fold. Betzner shows no such thing. The claim is <removed>. Your assertions are not arguments. That you break the Forum rules constantly yourself marks you not only as <removed>, but a hypocrite. Besides, you can’t “read’ a photo anyway so what good would it do you? But never fear Varnell, my webpage thrashing your silly claim will contain plenty of illustrations. With another smelly hurl Varnell, tossed his cookies again: “Out of one side of your mouth you claim "the bunch" was at his hairline, and then out of the other side of your mouth you claim the "bunch" was below the bottom of the collars.” Are you so ignorant that you can’t see that both are true? The top edge of the cup of fabric created by the fold in the back of JFK’s jacket extends to a height level with his hairline as seen from the camera, obscuring the jacket and shirt collar. The above claim is flatly contradicted by Craig Lamson himself: First you point out the shadow on the shirt collar in your “red box” Yes that is correct You admit there's the shadow on the shirt collar, and yet you claim the bunch rode into the hairline occluding the shirt collar. You are claiming the shirt collar was exposed and occluded simultaneously. I bet you dance with two left feet. Edited May 31, 2009 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Your years of being a pompous a-hole and bullying people with your disinformation are over. Next weeks publication will cement your downfall. Rock'n good news! I'll now have a fifth subject for my master-work: The Gross Ease Fallacists (Case Studies of Fraud In The Single Bullet Theory) Arlen Specter Gerald Posner John Hunt Chad Zimmerman Craig Lamson If the five of you clowns were a basketball team -- you'd be the Washington Generals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Your years of being a pompous a-hole and bullying people with your disinformation are over. Next weeks publication will cement your downfall. Rock'n good news! I'll now have a fifth subject for my master-work: The Gross Ease Fallacists (Case Studies of Fraud In The Single Bullet Theory) Arlen Specter Gerald Posner John Hunt Chad Zimmerman Craig Lamson If the five of you clowns were a basketball team -- you'd be the Washington Generals. kicking their rear-ends is quite easy. As displayed below: http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/index.html rank amateur(s) comes to mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) I don't have to prove anything about the cup of fabric around the jacket collar caused by the fold of fabric from the back of JFK's jacket in Bentzer and Croft other than show it is THERE to prove your crazy Varnell Magic Jacket Theory wrong. <removed>. You haven't shown one single photo to illustrate your claims. Except for this grotesque absurdity: Out of one side of your mouth you claim "the bunch" was at his hairline, and then out of the other side of your mouth you claim the "bunch" was below the bottom of the collars. <removed>. Poor Varnell, his long term, but false claim that JFK’s jacket had dropped at Bentzer, lies in tatters on the floor, and he is reduced to breaking the forum rules by calling me <removed>. A claim he cannot prove I might add. Boy this is getting to be REAL fun now.Varnell spewed on his shoes, in desperation: “<removed>. You haven't shown one single photo to illustrate your claims. “ Photos are not required to illustrate my claim. I have described the situation in a sufficient detail. The amount of exposed shirt collar, which you have acknowledged: one half inch. You are claiming a fold in Betzner which is three times the size of the exposed shirt collar on only one side of the fold. Betzner shows no such thing. The claim is <removed>. Yep, thats exactly what Bentzer shows. Now in addition to your brain benig disfunctional we can add your eyes. Your assertions are not arguments. You are correct, they are not arguments, they are cold hard fact. That you break the Forum rules constantly yourself marks you not only as <removed>, but a hypocrite. Oh Varnell, its oh so much fun to see you all pissy, just like a little girl who lost her dollie...it must really suck to get destroyed this badly! Besides, you can’t “read’ a photo anyway so what good would it do you? But never fear Varnell, my webpage thrashing your silly claim will contain plenty of illustrations. With another smelly hurl Varnell, tossed his cookies again: “Out of one side of your mouth you claim "the bunch" was at his hairline, and then out of the other side of your mouth you claim the "bunch" was below the bottom of the collars.” Are you so ignorant that you can’t see that both are true? The top edge of the cup of fabric created by the fold in the back of JFK’s jacket extends to a height level with his hairline as seen from the camera, obscuring the jacket and shirt collar. The above claim is flatly contradicted by Craig Lamson himself: First you point out the shadow on the shirt collar in your “red box” Yes that is correct You admit there's the shadow on the shirt collar, and yet you claim the bunch rode into the hairline occluding the shirt collar. You are claiming the shirt collar was exposed and occluded simultaneously. Yep! The shirt collar at the back of JFK's neck is obsured along with jacket collar. Might I suggest you review Jefferies for a graphic illustration of exactly how this works, that is if you can find the "ON" switch for your brain and eyes. Edited May 31, 2009 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Your years of being a pompous a-hole and bullying people with your disinformation are over. Next weeks publication will cement your downfall. Rock'n good news! I'll now have a fifth subject for my master-work: The Gross Ease Fallacists (Case Studies of Fraud In The Single Bullet Theory) Arlen Specter Gerald Posner John Hunt Chad Zimmerman Craig Lamson If the five of you clowns were a basketball team -- you'd be the Washington Generals. Good luck, your "master work" is destroyed. Your claim to have proven JFK's jacket had fallen has been shown to be blatant disinformation, and you to be an intellectually dishonest person. I guess that makes you the "Arlen Spector" of the CT world. BTW, have you found that shadow where it falls over JFK's jacket collar in Bentzer yet? ROFLMAO! Thanks for the grins Varnell, you are a real hoot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) Your years of being a pompous a-hole and bullying people with your disinformation are over. Next weeks publication will cement your downfall. Rock'n good news! I'll now have a fifth subject for my master-work: The Gross Ease Fallacists (Case Studies of Fraud In The Single Bullet Theory) Arlen Specter Gerald Posner John Hunt Chad Zimmerman Craig Lamson If the five of you clowns were a basketball team -- you'd be the Washington Generals. I knew it would only be a matter of time until old "say nothing Healy" showed up. kicking their rear-ends is quite easy. As displayed below: http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/index.html Would that be John Costella, PhD in Physics who can't understand basic physics? Surely you can find someone who actually knows what they are talking about can't you Davie? http://www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm rank amateur(s) comes to mind... Yes, that's exactly what Costella is....and you too Davie. Edited May 30, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) I wrote: That you break the Forum rules constantly yourself marks you not only as <removed>, but a hypocrite. Oh Varnell, its oh so much fun to see you all pissy, just like a little girl who lost her dollie...it must really suck to get destroyed this badly! Gentle reader, there is a purpose to this. The first time I called Craig <removed> -- with considerable justice -- he produced this comment: First you point out the shadow on the shirt collar in your “red box”Yes that is correct Craig inadvertantly spoke the truth, which he now regrets. This time, I was able to get Craig to make this statement: The shirt collar at the back of JFK's neck is obsured along with jacket collar. Might I suggest you review Jefferies for a graphic illustration of exactly how this works, that is if you can find the "ON" switch for your brain and eyes. Here's a frame from the Jefferies film, 90 seconds before the shooting. As you can see Craig is correct that the jacket rode over the top of the shirt collar, and it clearly elevated into the hairline. Compare that with Betzner and its clearly exposed shirt collar. The jacket was UP on Main St. (as per Craig's description) and DOWN on Elm St. (as per Craig's description.) Thank you for making my case, Craig! Edited May 31, 2009 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) I wrote:That you break the Forum rules constantly yourself marks you not only as <removed>, but a hypocrite. Oh Varnell, its oh so much fun to see you all pissy, just like a little girl who lost her dollie...it must really suck to get destroyed this badly! Gentle reader, there is a purpose to this. The first time I called Craig <removed> -- with considerable justice -- he produced this comment: First you point out the shadow on the shirt collar in your “red box”Yes that is correct Craig inadvertantly spoke the truth, which he now regrets. It was not inadvertent at all Varnell, it was just the truth and I don't regret it all at, in fact helps MAKE my case and destroy yours. I'm not surprised you don't understand this given your limited intellect and warped worldview. Now can you show us where the shadow is THAT MUST CONTINUE on down from the shirt collar shadow and FALL OVER the jacket collar IF the jacket collars not obscured in Bentzer? Why of course you can't show us this shadow, because the jacket collar is obscured by the cup of fabric created by the fabric fold on the back of JFK's jacket. This time, I was able to get Craig to make this statement: The shirt collar at the back of JFK's neck is obsured along with jacket collar. Might I suggest you review Jefferies for a graphic illustration of exactly how this works, that is if you can find the "ON" switch for your brain and eyes. Here's a frame from the Jefferies film, 90 seconds before the shooting. As you can see Craig is correct that the jacket rode over the top of the shirt collar, and it clearly elevated into the hairline. LOL! You MADE me make this statement? That’s funny. I made this completely TRUE statement so I could get you to comment again on your SELECT frame from Jefferies. I really wanted a fresh quote for the webpage. Thanks you so much for providing it. I wanted this statement from you to show your complete intellectual dishonesty by posting blatant disinformation. You see you mislead the readers. This will become very clear when I publish my webpage. Until then I suggest to everyone that they simply view Jefferies and see quite clearly that Varnell is posting pure disinformation, as is standard fare. We will have a LOT of fun making you look the fool with this one really soon! Compare that with Betzner and its clearly exposed shirt collar. Yes, lets give the readers a little taste..and compare.... The jacket was UP on Main St. (as per Craig's description) and DOWN on Elm St. (as per Craig's description.) No, the jacket was up on main Street and UP on Elm. How do we know this? Simple. There is a shadow missing that must fall over the JFK's jacket collar in Bentzer. Cliff can't find it which he MUST if his claim that the jacket has fallen in Bentzer is true. But he can't because the jacket collar is obscured. The jacket has not fallen. True to form and to my prediction Varnell has resorted to the mumbo jumbo about shirt collars and claimed victory. He has no victory, only failure once again. What has been very clearly shown and is unimpeachable is that Varnell's claim is pure disinformation. Thank you for making my case, Craig! No Varnell, you just puked on your shoes again. The only "case" you have is the case of the missing shadow and you can't solve that one. But thanks for the laughs. Edited May 31, 2009 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Cliff - that word is banned here. Please cease using it or you'll be subject to moderation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Craig / Cliff - everyone continually quoting what the other person has said means the posts are longer and it's difficult to remove all instances of banned word because it's quoted in every post thereafter! Just my opinion, and no - it is not a rule - could you only quote when there is a reason to? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Craig / Cliff - everyone continually quoting what the other person has said means the posts are longer and it's difficult to remove all instances of banned word because it's quoted in every post thereafter!Just my opinion, and no - it is not a rule - could you only quote when there is a reason to? Thanks. has it EVER occurred to the MOD's that good old Craigster does nothing but piss people off (I'm jealous)? Seems to be the only defense Ed Forum defenders of the WCR have left in their quivers. Sad, such a waste for no-talent researchers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) Craig, do you really expect us to believe that you don't know the difference between the "side" of the neck and the "back" of the neck? The red line indicates the back of JFK's neck, where the jacket rode over the top of the shirt collar. The red line in the following points to JFK's exposed shirt collar at the back of his neck. And do you expect us to believe that you don't know the difference between a convex curvature (bulge) and a concave curvature (indentation)? In Jefferies, the clothing bulged. 30 seconds later in the Weaver photo, there was an indentation along the right shoulder-line. Since you obviously know those things, it is reasonable to conclude you are a bald-faced <removed> who <removes> as readily as you breathe. Edited June 1, 2009 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now