Gary Mack and Keith Olbermann

[Cliff Varnell]

So what? The blue arrow points to 1/2" of exposed shirt collar.

The red arrow points to a 1/8" fabric bulge.

Tell me Cliff..What is the point you are trying to make abot the side of his shirt collar showing?..I don't get it, and it's relevance to the shot in question.

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?

As Pat Speer rightly said, you have semi hijacked this thread. My only contribution is telling you that the bulge stayed in the same place and you want to develop the argument here. I think a new thread would be appropriate.

Duncan[/b]

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?

Edited February 20, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Dawn Meredith]

Duncan,

I cannot divine your intellect and instincts from the few posts you've offered with which I'm familiar.

Try getting an education then, and maybe you'll be able to comprehend things a lot better. Here's a starter lesson 2 = 2 = 4 although i'm sure you and some of the other nutters on here would argue that

So what follows is far more general than specific, if you take my meaning.

Don't f**k with semantics! This is too serious. This is life and death. Get serious or get lost.

Yeah I take your meaning...Try saying it to my face big man..... Who the hell do you think you are talking to me or anyone in the above tone. I noticed a disgusting nasty remark from you recently towards an admin, Antti if I remember correctly, which was deleted. Seems gutteral language is a habit of yours, and you think that your self proclaimed intellect and knowledge is above everyone here when in fact you're nothing but a little...well I don't want to break the forum rules, so i'll pass, but i'm sure with your incredible intellect, you'll be able to work it out.

The "key word in Gary's statement" is NOT "virtually." The statement in its ENTIRETY is key. What YOU are chasing, and what I and others have caught up to, captured, understood, and presented to the world, is not a "belief" but the REALITY of conspiracy in the murder of JFK.

The only reality is that you are living in cloud Cuckoo land where paranoia reigns supreme.

If "Gary Mack" -- and I now must enclose that pseudonym in quotes because I'm told on excellent authority that the given name of that poster is Larry Dunkel -- is about the business of "promot[ing] Oswald [as] the lone shooter," then "he and his players" would be EXPECTED to endorse a Badgeman or Gordon Arnold in order to ingratiate themselves to the truth tellers.

As I said, paranoia running wild. You have zero proof of your accusations. If you have proof, post it, if you don't have proof STFU

You need to go back to square one, Duncan, and think long and hard about the complexities and sophistication of the world on which you would comment.

Charles

There's nothing complex about Gary Mack..He says it how it is..You guys should be thanking him for his contributions to this case, not mocking him. Now please excuse me while I go call Gary and the rest of our boys..wink wink Charles , and tell him you're on to his cover...geeeeeeeeeeeeeez

Duncan

Just curious as to why you have no bio. (Since it's a rule here). You're right, there is nothing complex about Gary. But he does NOT say "it how it is". What ever THAT means. He used to believe in conspiracy- or pretend to. Now he's a LNutter. And you? You're sounding a lot like his mouthpiece. People were onto GM's cover well before the advent of this forum. And his contributions were exactly what again?

Dawn

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson:

You need to open your eyes and see the TRUTH Cliff.

Cliff Varnell:

With your fine help I think we can open everyone's eyes, Craig.

You see, gentle readers and fellow researchers, Craig Lamson is a professional

Jacket Wrangler.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Craig Lamson was the finest Jacket Wrangler

in the biz.

When folks come into his place of business and want to be photographed at

their finest its Craig's job to make sure the suit jacket doesn't ride up at the

back of the guy's neck.

So what does Craig do?

Craig tapes the bottom of the jacket down so it doesn't ride up.

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.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Bollocks!

lol..seems I have a habit of making people reply with what is generally considered foul language.

Mack said on national television that there was no hard evidence

of two plus shooters and I'm discussing hard evidence that there was.

You see Cliff, this is where you guys get all in a tangle. He didn't say what you have just quoted him as saying. I suggest you have another look at what he said. I'll give you a clue though in case you miss it. He said " Virtually" before the word " Hard"

Duncan

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.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Bollocks!

lol..seems I have a habit of making people reply with what is generally considered foul language.

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.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Thank you Charles,

and what exactly does that make his gofers.....

Cliff also........Cheers.......

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...

Edited February 20, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Charles Drago]

Yeah I take your meaning...Try saying it to my face big man..... Who the hell do you think you are talking to me or anyone in the above tone. I noticed a disgusting nasty remark from you recently towards an admin, Antti if I remember correctly, which was deleted. Seems gutteral language is a habit of yours, and you think that your self proclaimed intellect and knowledge is above everyone here when in fact you're nothing but a little...well I don't want to break the forum rules, so i'll pass, but i'm sure with your incredible intellect, you'll be able to work it out.

The only reality is that you are living in cloud Cuckoo land where paranoia reigns supreme.

Duncan

It's not the physical threat that's disturbing.

Rather, its the ... disturbance.

If you take my meaning.

Looks like we coaxed another one into the light.

[Charles Drago]

Bollocks!

lol..seems I have a habit of making people reply with what is generally considered foul language.

Mack said on national television that there was no hard evidence

of two plus shooters and I'm discussing hard evidence that there was.

You see Cliff, this is where you guys get all in a tangle. He didn't say what you have just quoted him as saying. I suggest you have another look at what he said. I'll give you a clue though in case you miss it. He said " Virtually" before the word " Hard"

Duncan

I fail to see the accuracy of the statement "virtually no hard evidence."

Cliff,

This semantics nonsense gives the game away -- yet again.

For Mack and his acolytes would have us believe that word gaming and linguistic subtlety -- especially when coming from an "expert" on the case who allegedly is on the side of the angels and who is speaking on a truly rare-as-hens'-teeth American television forum -- are wholly appropriate within the context of our struggle.

"Virtually" + "hard" = "cover-up."

Not to mention "accessory after the fact."

Charles

[Mark Stapleton]

Bollocks!

lol..seems I have a habit of making people reply with what is generally considered foul language.

Mack said on national television that there was no hard evidence

of two plus shooters and I'm discussing hard evidence that there was.

You see Cliff, this is where you guys get all in a tangle. He didn't say what you have just quoted him as saying. I suggest you have another look at what he said. I'll give you a clue though in case you miss it. He said " Virtually" before the word " Hard"

Duncan

I fail to see the accuracy of the statement "virtually no hard evidence."

Cliff,

This semantics nonsense gives the game away -- yet again.

For Mack and his acolytes would have us believe that word gaming and linguistic subtlety -- especially when coming from an "expert" on the case who allegedly is on the side of the angels and who is speaking on a truly rare-as-hens'-teeth American television forum -- are wholly appropriate within the context of our struggle.

"Virtually" + "hard" = "cover-up."

Not to mention "accessory after the fact."

Charles

Those who maintain that Mack is entitled to his opinions are forgetting that he is not like any other researcher. When he makes public comments like this, his position bestows on him the imprimatur of the official museum. That gives him credibility in the eyes of the public. An officially sanctioned expert and public figure has more weight (in the public mind) than a dozen diligent, yet anonomous researchers.

It's like a step backwards in the battle to win the hearts and minds of the general public about the urgent need to resolve this unfinished business.

And it's a plain slap in the face for the research community. An insult.

[Ron Ecker]

I'm not sure I understand the importance of the issue of whether JFK's coat and shirt were bunched up or not. We know the location of JFK's back wound, from FBI and SS statements as well as a photo of JFK's back. (I don't mention the autopsy report, which should be authoritative, because of Humes's imaginative way of measuring wound locations, and his imaginative way of having them drawn later.) Is not the photographed and confirmed wound location "hard evidence," regardless of what he was wearing (which does happen to match the wound location)?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson:

You need to open your eyes and see the TRUTH Cliff.

Cliff Varnell:

With your fine help I think we can open everyone's eyes, Craig.

You see, gentle readers and fellow researchers, Craig Lamson is a professional

Jacket Wrangler.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Craig Lamson was the finest Jacket Wrangler

in the biz.

When folks come into his place of business and want to be photographed at

their finest its Craig's job to make sure the suit jacket doesn't ride up at the

back of the guy's neck.

So what does Craig do?

Craig tapes the bottom of the jacket down so it doesn't ride up.

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.

No, That's you ASSUMPTION. You can't show that JKF's shirt was "tucked-in" to the extent it would not bulge. Game over on you pimping that one.

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?

Be happy to do just that, but mind you its standard practice in the advertising photography business.

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!

Yep..again standard stuff Cliff.

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.

Of course that proves nothing when it comes to JKF because you don't have a clue about the actual condition of his shirt and now well it stayed "tucked" or if it moved or bulged with the jacket. All the quotes in world will not change this simple fact.

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.

So what? What proof do you have that JFK's shirt did not move? Oh, thats right...none.

The motorcade photos show the jacket dropped.

No they do not.

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?

They were not occupying the same space. What a lovely strawman you have created and continue to pimp. Too bad its a strawman. There was a fold in the jacket right below the collar. Its as plain as day in the photos. That fold never fell. The bulge takes place from the fold upward into the back of the jacket. The collar of the jacket and the collar of the shirt never come into play.

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.

Yes the dishonest one would be you Cliff.

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)

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!

All of the images establish the bulge, and none establish the fraction of an inch. The artifact, which consists of a fold right under the collar and the bulge inthe back of the jacket is consistant in all the image. You inability to see beyond your theory 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.

Yes it is correct. There was a bulge of 2-3 inches in the back of the jacket that never went away. And since the holes in the shirt and jacket match they had to move to in tandem.

Now I fully expect you to continue to pimp your theory regardless. You really have no choice do you Cliff? You are fully vested. Thats a pretty bad position for someone who claims to be about finding the truth.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Charles Drago]

I'm not sure I understand the importance of the issue of whether JFK's coat and shirt were bunched up or not. We know the location of JFK's back wound, from FBI and SS statements as well as a photo of JFK's back. (I don't mention the autopsy report, which should be authoritative, because of Humes's imaginative way of measuring wound locations, and his imaginative way of having them drawn later.) Is not the photographed and confirmed wound location "hard evidence," regardless of what he was wearing (which does happen to match the wound location)?

Precisely, Ron.

And let us not forget Warren Commissioner and Profiles in Courage Award winner Gerald "The Unelected" Ford's wilfull falsification of evidence -- making him an accessory after the fact to murder -- relating to the location of the posterior wound of entry.

Then again ... JFK was not in tip-top physical condition, his skin was flaccid, perhaps it was carried skyward by that dastardly ill-fitting shirt ... or if the Z-film was altered, perhaps what we cannot see is that he was actually bent over tying his shoe or kisisng his wife on her inner left thigh (didn't Seymour Hersh report that she liked to be aroused in such a fashion?) ... almost ANY explanation other than the facts!

Then again, and in relation to where this thread has traveled, facts are not ... wait for it ... in fashion.

PS -- Cliff is right, but we don't need the clothes to know the truth of the location of JFK's back wound.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Cliff Varnell]

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!

Edited February 20, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Could those of you who want to talk about bunched-up shirts and jackets please do that on another thread.....thanks. This is about Mack's modified limited hangout.

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.

[Craig Lamson]

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!

Thanks so much for posting more images that support my position and destroy yours Cliff.

Truck on Cliff!

I'm out of this thread. If you want to play elsewhere, be my guest.