Craig Lamson Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Ive asked Evan in a PM to please move all of the comments about the jacket bunch to a new tread...this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Ive asked Evan in a PM to please move all of the comments about the jacket bunch to a new tread...this one. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Will the moderators please remove the statement "enter at your peril Cliff" from this header. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 Will the moderators please remove the statement "enter at your peril Cliff"from this header. Whats the matter Cliff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) 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. One small problem here Cliffy, you can't tell us for certain that your "fold" is really the fold at all. That's pure speculatation on your part. Given the angle of the sun it might just as well be the edge of the highlight from the sun. You do understand how the sun and shadow work...right? Back to the drawing board for you I'm afraid. Now lets get back to you making a fool of yourself while showing your visual impairment. You posted this image: and made the following statement: "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. " So were exactly IS the concave curvature Cliff? Edited February 21, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) 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. One small problem here Cliffy, you can't tell us for certain that your "fold" is really the fold at all. One small problem here, Craigy: the same thing goes for your imagined Betzner bunch, which might just as well be shadow. You do understand shadow, don't you? The burden of proof is on YOU to show where in any of the photographs JFK's jacket is "bunched" 2-3". Do so, we'll continue to discuss. Edited February 21, 2008 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Croft Duncan The burden of proof is on you to show that the jacket fold seen in this photo involves 2-3" of upwardly displaced fabric. Make a fact based argument and we'll continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Will the moderators please remove the statement "enter at your peril Cliff"from this header. Am I requesting too much? Doesn't seem like all that much to ask. I don't think anyone should have to come on this forum and be threatened with "peril" in any shape or form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Will the moderators please remove the statement "enter at your peril Cliff"from this header. Whats the matter Cliff? I'm superstitious. Since I have not threatened you in any manner, I think you should refrain from predicting "peril." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) So were exactly IS the concave curvature Cliff? The left side of the circle. Not that it matters. You don't know if your convex "bunch" is anything more than shadow. Edited February 21, 2008 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 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. One small problem here Cliffy, you can't tell us for certain that your "fold" is really the fold at all. One small problem here, Craigy: the same thing goes for your imagined Betzner bunch, which might just as well be shadow. You do understand shadow, don't you? The burden of proof is on YOU to show where in any of the photographs JFK's jacket is "bunched" 2-3". Do so, we'll continue to discuss. Oh yes I understand shadows very well, after all its my business. You problem is that the "Bentzer Bunch" is totally consistant WITH ALL of the Dealy Plaza images showing the bunch both before and after the back shot. Do I need to post all of the images? You have claimed the jacket has fallen in this image , and you use the shirt collar to back you claim. The problem is it has been established that the jacket collar and the shirt collar are acting independent of the bunch. The burden of proof is on YOU Cliffy, to show the jacket has dropped. You have failed to do so. What we are left with is the Cliff Varnell Magic Jacket. The Varnell Magic Jacket...folded and bunched for its entire ride through Deaky Plaza except for the few seconds it fell right before the backshot, and suddenly appear right after the back shot. How does it feel to be in the same league as the Magic Bullet? You are not doing to well Cliff. You have shot your wad and still come up short. Wanna try again? BTW, we are still waiting for you to show all of us that Willis 5...where is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) I don't mean to be insulting Cliff, but if you genuinely can not see the bunching, I see a fraction of an inch of "bunch." So did Mr. Shirt, a San Francisco tailor I visted in 1997. He examined the Elm St. photos told me the fold in JFK's jacket involved 3/4" of fabric. there is definately something wrong with your visual analysis recognition system. This is the non sequitur you and Craig will ceaselessly promote: 1) The SBT requires 2-3" of JFK's shirt and jacket to have elevated in near-tandem entirely above the wound at the base of his neck. 2) JFK's jacket had folds in it. 3) Therefore -- JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2-3" entirely above the wound at the base of his neck. Or are you claiming that every fold of fabric involves 2-3" of fabric to the absolute exclusion of, say, folds of 1/8" of fabric? If so, mama dress you funny. It has been shown to you over and over again that the jacket was bunched on both Houston and Elm Non sequitur. What's your proof that the "bunch" involved more than a fraction of an inch of fabric? How many times do I ask you this? -- the same number of times you ignore it. Both I and Craig have shown you that proof. All Craig showed me was shadow; all you do is point to fabric folds and say that they involve 2-3" of fabric. I ask for your proof and you ignore it. I now suggest that the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the jacket was not bunched up. On the contrary, I have argued forcefully for the fact that the jacket was bunched up. It had to have been bunched up -- the hole in the jacket is 1/8" below the hole in the shirt, ergo the jacket was bunched up 1/8". Now, where is your proof that it was bunched up 2-3"? You're the one who made the initial claim....................................PROVE IT! No, Gary Mack has made the claim that there is "virtually no evidence" of 2 shooters and I am pointing to the location of the holes in the clothes, which happen to match the death certificate, the autolpsy face sheet diagram, the FBI autopsy report, the sworn deposition of a half-dozen Fed agents, and the wound descriptions of more than a half-dozen other medical witnesses. If you want to say all this evidence is wrong and that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2-3" -- the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. After you... Edited February 21, 2008 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 So were exactly IS the concave curvature Cliff? The left side of the circle. Not that it matters. You don't know if your convex "bunch" is anything more than shadow. Thank you so much Cliff, you made my day! I'm still LMAO! You pointed out the bystander on the oter side of the street, not JFK's jacket! This enlagred crop is from the Willis at the Mc Adams site. Your posted image has so many artifacts from someone trying(in vain I might add) to remove the printing rosettes, its all but worthless for the study you proposed. So where does that leave you in your quest to show the jacket has fallen? Bentzer is gone.. Willis 5 is gone... You have anything left? I really should know better than to bust your chops over this but I'm sure you won't mind. After all I'm only doing this because I like making you look like a fool. ( or someting like that...whatever it was you said...) Try again next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 Will the moderators please remove the statement "enter at your peril Cliff"from this header. Am I requesting too much? Doesn't seem like all that much to ask. I don't think anyone should have to come on this forum and be threatened with "peril" in any shape or form. Whats the matter Cliff, your jacket all in a bunch? 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