New thread for the bunched jacket debate...

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Egregious mis-statement of fact.

This is Altgens #5 which shows the jacket flat across his back.

According to Bunch Theorist Chad Zimmerman, JFK's jacket was

elevated no more than one inch in this photo.

YOU are making the claim that this photo shows JFK's shirt and

jacket elevated asymmetrically 2-3" at the right base of his neck.

But you offer nothing more than a conclusion repeated ad infinitum...

[Miles Scull]

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.

Egregious mis-statement of fact.

This is Altgens #5 which shows the jacket flat across his back.

According to Bunch Theorist Chad Zimmerman, JFK's jacket was

elevated no more than one inch in this photo.

YOU are making the claim that this photo shows JFK's shirt and

jacket elevated asymmetrically 2-3" at the right base of his neck.

But you offer nothing more than a conclusion repeated ad infinitum...

What's up?

[Cliff Varnell]

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?

I look for lively but polite discourse. If you are incapable of the latter,

so be it.

You've made the claim that only JFK's jacket collar fell in Dealey Plaza.

So everything above the top of the shirt collar is solely comprised

of JFK's jacket collar?

Edited February 21, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Now, where is your proof that it was bunched up 2-3"?

Cliff

What planet are you on Cliff? Where did you get the notion that I said that 2-3 inches

of fabric was buched up.

Your defense of Gary Mack's statement that there is virtually no evidence of

two shooters.

The necessary subtext of that defense is the defense of the claim that

JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2-3" at the time of the shooting.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you jumped into this thread without

understanding the issues involved.

I said the jacket was bunched up all the way from Houston to Elm. I gave NO measuremEnts..

Great! So what's your point?

Now if you want to LIE about what I said, I suggest you go back through all of the posts and post back here where I mentioned the 2-3 inch measurements. Go hunting boy for something from your imagination which you won't find LOL!!!

Duncan[/b]

If you haven't figured out the issues involved, you should withhold comment.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Charles Drago]

Clifford,

The bad guys win when you dignify their nonsense with direct and polite response.

Expose them for what they are.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Egregious mis-statement of fact.

This is Altgens #5 which shows the jacket flat across his back.

According to Bunch Theorist Chad Zimmerman, JFK's jacket was

elevated no more than one inch in this photo.

YOU are making the claim that this photo shows JFK's shirt and

jacket elevated asymmetrically 2-3" at the right base of his neck.

But you offer nothing more than a conclusion repeated ad infinitum...

We went down thsi road last time Cliff, is your memory gone?

You cant use this image nor can I, at least not a version that is this low res.

And why?

For me its because The sun angle is near zero phase, which mean the shadow line from a fold and bulge fall behind the bulge. I cannot say for certain that the bulge is there.

You on the the other hand need to show tha bottom of the jacket collar to prove the jacket is flat, The sun is at such an angle that the shadow line of the collor bottom WOULD be visable. You cannot say for certain the jacket is flat.

I can however point to the fact that that jacket was folded and bunched as the car turned the corner. There is no indication of any action that might have lowered the bunch. I can also point out that the missing shirt collar would be consistant with the folded and bunched jacket we see elsewhere.

Zimmerman words are of no value here.

Altens is gone for you now as well,

Strike three.

[Cliff Varnell]

Clifford,

The bad guys win when you dignify their nonsense with direct and polite response.

Expose them for what they are.

They are cognitively impaired by the overwhelming force of their own intellectual

dishonesty.

[Craig Lamson]

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?

I look for lively but polite discourse. If you are incapable of the latter,

so be it.

You've made the claim that only JFK's jacket collar fell in Dealey Plaza.

So everything above the top of the shirt collar is solely comprised

of JFK's jacket collar?

I've not made the claim that I can remember that only the jacket collar fell in Dealey plaza. I've said the jacket collar and the fold/bunch work independent of each other, If you can find such a claim from me I will admit error and formally withdraw it.

And no, Everything above the shirt collar is folded and bunched fabric as seen from the rear.

You claim to have read me for years. You know who and what I am and how I post. I don't suffer fools gladly. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Clifford,

The bad guys win when you dignify their nonsense with direct and polite response.

Expose them for what they are.

They are cognitively impaired by the overwhelming force of their own intellectual

dishonesty.

Tisk Tisk Cliff, it appears the one lacking intellectual honesty would be you.

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Egregious mis-statement of fact.

This is Altgens #5 which shows the jacket flat across his back.

According to Bunch Theorist Chad Zimmerman, JFK's jacket was

elevated no more than one inch in this photo.

YOU are making the claim that this photo shows JFK's shirt and

jacket elevated asymmetrically 2-3" at the right base of his neck.

But you offer nothing more than a conclusion repeated ad infinitum...

We went down thsi road last time Cliff, is your memory gone?

If you can't tell that JFK's shoulderlines are symmetrical in Altgens -- you

have a lot more to worry about than my memory.

You cant use this image nor can I, at least not a version that is this low res.

And why?

For me its because The sun angle is near zero phase, which mean the shadow line from a fold and bulge fall behind the bulge.

The smooth, symmetrical right shoulder-line is clearly visible against the man

in the back ground.

Your Betzner bunch is above the right shoulder-line.

Nice try.

I cannot say for certain that the bulge is there.

Then ALL THE PHOTOS don't show this absurd fantasy of yours, do they?

And the fact that there is no bulge visible at all is consistent with the

conclusion there was no bulge at all.

You on the the other hand need to show tha bottom of the jacket collar to

prove the jacket is flat, The sun is at such an angle that the shadow line of

the collor bottom WOULD be visable. You cannot say for certain the jacket is flat.

I don't need to prove the jacket flat. YOU need to prove that it's elevated 2-3".

I can however point to the fact that that jacket was folded and bunched as the car turned the corner.

As I've pointed out more times than I can count, clothing normally moves

in fractions of an inch.

Do you know the difference between a 3/4" fold and a 3" fold?

There is no indication of any action that might have lowered the bunch. I can also point out that the missing shirt collar would be consistant with the folded and bunched jacket we see elsewhere.

There is no indication that the "bunch" involved more than a fraction

of an inch of fabric.

But when all you've got to pimp is the same old non sequitur -- work your

whore to the bone, baby.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Clifford,

The bad guys win when you dignify their nonsense with direct and polite response.

Expose them for what they are.

They are cognitively impaired by the overwhelming force of their own intellectual

dishonesty.

Tisk Tisk Cliff, it appears the one lacking intellectual honesty would be you.

You stated as a fact that JFK's clothing was elevated 2-3".

Please share your methodology for making that determination, as opposed

to the clothing being elevated 1/8" to 3/4".

Now we'll see who has intellectual honesty.

[Cliff Varnell]

Awesome!

See the red circle?

See the green line?

See the red curvature to the left of the green line?

That concave curvature matches the curvature at the right

base of JFK's neck.

According to your analysis, there was a convex curvature at the right base

of JFK's neck.

This raises the question -- does Craig Lamson know the difference between

convex and concave?

[Pat Speer]

My two cents. Cliff is overly quick to call others "intellectually dishonest." But he's also right as rain on this issue. The jacket does not bunch up remotely enough to support the single-bullet theory, Craig.

If you think it does, you're welcome to try and show us how a coat's sticking out an inch at the back of the collar lifts a hole more than five inches below the top of this collar three inches higher on the back. The coat goes out and goes down. It does not fold over. The coat bunching drawing posted by Miles came from some fool's webpage (my own) and is a drawing created by Dr. John Lattimer, THE guru of the single-bullet theory. In order to make the jacket holes align with his proposed entrance--and the entrance used by Posner Bugliosi, etc--he has the jacket folding upwards at the back of Kennedy's head.

Tell us, Craig, do you see Kennedy's clothing-remember the hole was in the same place on Kennedy's shirt--folding up at the back of his head, a la Lattimer> If not, are you willing to acknowledge that his drawing is a pathetic joke?

[Cliff Varnell]

To John and the Moderators:

I'm not kidding about that superstitious thing.

For 20 years I worked in casinos frequented by Asians.

I've had Asian girlfriends, learned a bit of many languages, hung out.

If I were myself Asian and I saw the word "peril" and "Cliff" in a subject header

I'd be contacting a lawyer already.

Am I asking too much to remove that?

[Cliff Varnell]

You've made the claim that only JFK's jacket collar fell in Dealey Plaza.

So everything above the top of the shirt collar is solely comprised

of JFK's jacket collar?

I've not made the claim that I can remember that only the jacket collar fell in Dealey plaza.

And you were worried about my memory?

Feb 19 2008, 08:47 AM Post #8

(quote)(Cliff Varnell @ Feb 19 2008, 05:38 PM)

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

And that is the salient, irrefutable FACT.(/quote)

Sure it is refutable. The COLLAR dropped, not the bulge in the jacket which remains

even AFTER the back shot.

There was a bulge on Main St. that occluded the shirt collar and a bulge

on Elm St. that rode below 1/2" of exposed shirt collar.

I find it inescapable to conclude anything other than the obvious -- the jacket

dropped.

I've said the jacket collar and the fold/bunch work independent of each other,

If you can find such a claim from me I will admit error and formally withdraw it.

Withdraw away.

The jacket collar doesn't operate entirely independent of the jacket fabric to which

it is attached, after all. If the collar falls, at least part of the jacket below the collar

will also fall.

And no, Everything above the shirt collar is folded and bunched fabric as seen from the rear.

As seen from the rear on Main St., JFK's jacket rode into his hairline above the top of

his shirt collar.

As seen from the rear on Elm St. JFK's jacket rode under the 1/2" of exposed shirt collar.

The jacket dropped. Period.

You claim to have read me for years. You know who and what I am and how

I post. I don't suffer fools gladly. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Here's a test: how did two disparate, solid objects -- the collar and the 2-3" jacket

plus 2-3" shirt bulge -- occupy the same physical space at the base of JFK's

neck at the same time?

Edited February 22, 2008 by Cliff Varnell