New thread for the bunched jacket debate...

[Cliff Varnell]

Will the moderators please remove the statement "enter at your peril Cliff"

from this header.

Just kidding! I think its funny.

I decided to let Craig have the sense he'd gotten under my skin.

The strategy was to get him to lower his guard and perhaps he'd claim

especially inane things.

Worked like a charm!

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson = red

Cliff Varnell's reply = green

Craig's thrashing of Cliff is in Blue

Sorry Cliff you found JPG compression artifacts.

Pure speculation on your part.

You can't say that as a fact.

The artifacts are consistent in shape and location as the small folds commonly seen

in JFK's jacket.

Of course I can say for a fact. My business is the production of digital images. Your "find" is a classic 8 pixel by 8 pixel jpg compression artifact over a smooth toned area. Do some research. It can be confirmed by the very nice Altens enlargement posted by Duncan. Try again next time.

You cite consistencies that don't exist (Betzner bunch), and dismiss those that do exist.

Bentzer is consistent with all the images from Jefferies to Zapruder and beyond. You would be suprised to see what you find as far as "gross fabric movements" when you do a simple google search for JFK.

If your are claiming that I am dismissing fabricated "folds" it's because they don't exist.

You claim the JFK's jacket didn't drop, then you admit that it did.

We will deal with this one later.

It's fun watching you go thru this dance, Craig.

If you think I'm dancing its because your vision is blurry from twisting in the wind.

This is a perfect example of your ignorance in the process of

inspecting photographic images.

This is a perfect example of you talking out of both sides of your mouth.

When it was pointed out to you that the "Betzner bulge" was shadow, you argued

that the artifact was consistent with what is seen in EVERY photo.

As it turns out, you cannot identify the "Betzner bulge" in ANY photo/frame taken

in Dealey Plaza.

What is consistent in several photos, however, are the small horizontal artifacts at the

midline of JFK's jacket.

So on one hand you argue for a consistency that doesn't exist, and on the other

hand you dismiss consistencies that do exist.

Typical cognitive impairment.

Bentzer shows a bulge, a shadow needs to fall on something to become a shadow. Please try again. And it is consistant with all of the images from Jefferies to Zapruder and beyond. Has your worldview so warped your mind and sight that you can't see this?

The "horizontal folds" are a figment of your overactive imagination.

The cognative impairment is yours Cliff.

BTW, the very fine Altgens posted by Duncan kills your theory

of slight folds. It is detailed enough to show that the jacket collar is covered by the

bulge because we cannot see the shadow line that would have been created by the

bottom of the collar.

It's also detailed enough to show JFK's smooth right shoulder-line.

How did your fantasy bulge smoothly wrap around the back of his neck (in the manner

of a collar, coincidently) without breaking the smooth right shoulder-line?

You are describing clothing movements that are impossible to replicate.

Really? the folds extend down the front of the jacket. The shoulder line is uplifted from a normal position. And yes its is somewhat like a collar and it completely COVERS the real collar and shirt collar...which would require 2 or more inches of fabric.

Impossible too replicate?

The bulge is great enough to cover both the shirt colllar and jacket collar.

Bingo! Okay by me!

Let's accept for the sake of argument that Altgens #5 shows 2-3" of JFK's shirt

and jacket all wrapped around his neck above both the shirt collar and the jacket

collar.

And then what happened on Houston St.?

The jacket dropped to reveal the shirt collar.

But, of course, you've already conceded that the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza,

or have you forgotten that as well?

The Jacket never dropped Cliff. How could it? The fabric was pushed up his back and pinned in pace by the seat. Short of sitting forward enough to release the fabric and then pulling it down, just how did the jacket drop? Your claim Cliff, you flesh it out.

Your last hope of saving the Magic Jacket Theory has been shot down.

This is rich!

Craig Lamson on this thread wrote:

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.

Out of one side of your mouth you dismiss the obvious as "Magic Jacket Theory"

and out of the other side of your mouth you admit the jacket dropped in

Dealey Plaza and exposed the shirt collar, which is my entire point.

Thank you Craig, and I hope you recover from your dizziness.

Feb 19 2008, 08:47 AM Post #8

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

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

And that is the salient, irrefutable FACT.

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

even AFTER the back shot.

I am wrong. I withdraw the claim that the collar dropped. The bulge does remain

I said jacket dropped? ROFLMAO!

CV:

The small horizontal folds at the midline are consistent with the small horizontal

fold/artifact in Betzner.

Uh, there ARE no small horizontal folds.

The artifacts are consist with small folds

You are the one pushing for analysis on the basis of consistency. You don't

know if thoseare folds or not -- but they certainly are consistent with folds commonly

observed in JFK's jacket.

And I am consistant. You however have created small folds where they don't exist (and can be proven so with the Duncan crop) and created them from what anyone with an ounce of knowlege about the process of digial imaging would know were jpg compression artifacts. Pretty sad showing for you here Cliff.

CV:

You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that the silhouette of JFK

against the light background shows the same shoulder line as your Betzner Fantasy?

Yes. its the same shoulder line..

You lack the cognitive ability to tell the difference between a convex and

concave curve? This is a true pity.

Poor Cliff, this really too hard for you to understand. The camara to subject angle changes Cliff. The bulge in Bentzer covers part of the shouldline...we cant see it all. Perhaps you might want to consider some research on that subject after you finish your study of JPG compression.

Edited February 23, 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.

Cliff: Ignore them and they will go away. Engage them and they will wear you down. They have all the time in the world.

Dawn

Dawn, normally I would agree with you, but in the case of the clothing evidence

it's different. LNers always trip themselves up, and it's a gas to watch.

For instance, in order begin to make his case, Craig Lamson

must claim that JFK's shirt tail was out, at least partially.

Think about this a sec.

According to David Powers, JFK changed his shirt on the flight from Fort Worth

to Dallas.

According to Craig's theory, JFK had to leave his shirt tail partially out even though

doing so might ruin the lines of his slim-cut European dress jacket.

The chances of that ever happening were nil.

JFK didn't appear in public with his shirt tail out.

Any theory that rests on such a scenario is a monument to the power of

intellectual dishonesty.

WHat a hoot! Cliff seem seems to think a bit of shirt fabric might "ruin the lines" of JFK's jacket! Amazing! And the Cliffster talks of intellectual dishonesty! So tell us Cliff, do you think this just might ruin the line? ROFLMAO!

Please tell us exactly how you know the exact position of the shirt tail, and trhe exact extent of the fitting of that shirt. The floor is yours. Oh and "Mr. Shirt" won't cut it.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson vs. Craig Lamson:

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 1:55 PM)

You have claimed the jacket has fallen in [betzner] , 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

(quote off)

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 03:03 PM

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.

(quote off)

But instead of formally withdrawing a claim he made a little more than

an hour earlier, Craig continues to ridicule the obvious.

Learn to read Cliff.....

[Craig Lamson]

The bulge is too small.

Your thoughts? [/b][/color]

Miles, you're spot on!

Back in 1997 I took Groden's The Killing of a President down to Union Square

in San Francisco and spoke with several tailors about the Elm St. folds. Everyone

I talked to said it was impossible for a tucked-in custom-made shirt to bunch up

more than a fraction of an inch.

The tailor with whom I spoke the longest identified the Elm St. bulge as involving

3/4" of of fabric. He said it was a common type of fold.

I also spoke with one of the world's top textile conservators and a 2-time

winner of the LA Drama Critic Circle Awards for Costume Design, who

imparted the following:

There are two kinds of body/clothing movements: "normal" movement and

"gross" movement.

"Normal" movement is casual and causes the clothing to move in fractions

of an inch.

"Gross" movement occurs when the body is stretched out, as when one is running

or reaching up for an object on a high shelf. "Gross" body movements cause the

fabric to move in multiple inches.

All of JFK's movements in the limo were casual.

I guess they missed the Gross movements in DEaly Plaza then.

Exactly what method did you and your "experts" use to measure that 3/4 of an inch Cliff? I've asked you thei before and you failed to answer.

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson vs. Craig Lamson:

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 1:55 PM)

You have claimed the jacket has fallen in [betzner] , 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

(quote off)

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 03:03 PM

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.

(quote off)

But instead of formally withdrawing a claim he made a little more than

an hour earlier, Craig continues to ridicule the obvious.

Learn to read Cliff.....

I read you putting the word FACT in caps in conjunction with the oft-described

but-never-revealed 2-3" jacket bunch.

Show us your mannequin experiments, Craig.

If they supported your case you would have posted them long ago.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson vs. Craig Lamson:

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 1:55 PM)

You have claimed the jacket has fallen in [betzner] , 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

(quote off)

(quote on -- Craig Lamson @ Feb 21 2008, 03:03 PM

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.

(quote off)

But instead of formally withdrawing a claim he made a little more than

an hour earlier, Craig continues to ridicule the obvious.

Learn to read Cliff.....

I read you putting the word FACT in caps in conjunction with the oft-described

but-never-revealed 2-3" jacket bunch.

Show us your mannequin experiments, Craig.

If they supported your case you would have posted them long ago.

Where are your calculations for 3/4 of an inch Cliff?

I did not photograph them Cliff. There was no need. Anyone with a brain and a jacket can test it themself.

Consider this fact ( and backed up by your own words in the eject thread.) A jacket collar is 1.25 inches ( I measured 9 of mine and none were less than 1.25" and two were slightly more, and you stated as much in the eject thread. )

A shirt collar might be .5 inches above the jacket collar.

The fabric return of a fold is at least 1/8 of an inch perhaps more depending on the sharpness of the fold. Top and bottom that equals .25 inches.

Jacket collar of 1.25 inches plus shirt collar of .5 inches plus fabric return of .25 inches equals 2 inches.

So it takes two inches of jacket fabric minimum when folded to cover the collar and shirt. That is based on the fold being EXACTLY at the base of the collar and the shirt collar being .5 inches above the jacket collar. If the fold begins LOWER than the exact base of the colllar ( as we see in the JFK images ) the fabric length needed to cover the collar increase past the two inch mark.

Anyone can measure this. Try it.

[Cliff Varnell]

Varnell:

I read you putting the word FACT in caps in conjunction with the oft-described

but-never-revealed 2-3" jacket bunch.

Show us your mannequin experiments, Craig.

If they supported your case you would have posted them long ago.

Lamson:

Where are your calculations for 3/4 of an inch Cliff?

I did not photograph them Cliff. There was no need. Anyone with a brain and a jacket can test it themself.

Let's address the second point first.

The reason you did not photograph them is because you can't get all that

fabric to bunch up in the asymmetrical shape you outlined so famously.

Your experiment has to match Betzner #3 and show the shirt collar at the

back of the neck and a convex shape above the right shoulder-line.

You have found this impossible.

As to the 3/4" measurement, careful readers of this exchange will recall

that I cited the expertise of a San Francisco tailor, one Mr. Shirt, who

looked at the Towner #1 photo (below, left) and instantly identified the fold

there as a garden variety 3/4" cupped fold.

To get a better sense of this, keep in mind that the red line is JFK's

1.25" jacket collar, the green line points to the cupped fold.

According to you, Craig, the downslope of that cupped fold as as large or

larger than JFK's jacket collar.

I leave it to the gentle reader to assess your credibility on this point.

Gentle reader, please compare the size of the cupped fold in the photo

on the left with the inside slope of the fold in the photo on the right.

The photo on the left was taken on the corner of Elm and Houston,

and clearly shows that the jacket had dropped from the moment of

the photo on the right, taken earlier in the motorcade.

Anyone can measure this. Try it.

But nobody is going to get the drastic, grossly asymmetrical shape

your fantasy requires.

Look at the photo on the right above -- the fold is symmetrical all

the way around.

Nice try, Craig. Thanks for playing. Better luck...

Edited February 23, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Miles Scull]

Nice try, Craig. Thanks for playing. Better luck...

Cliff, Craig, Duncan, et al.:

Here's another look.

[FBI Exhibit 59, JFK's suit coat, measures the bullet hole in the jacket to be 5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar, and appears to be directly in the middle of the back.

FBI Exhibit 60, JFK's shirt, measures the bullet hole in the shirt is 5 3/4 from top of collar and about 3/4 inch from center.

Autopsy drawings of President Kennedy conducted by Dr. Humes, shows a bullet hole in JFK's back that would match the location of the hole in his clothing. Hole is in the middle of back approximately 6 inches down from the neck.

Autopsy photograph of Kennedy's body shows a bullet hole in Kennedy's back clearly away from base of neck and matching the location of hole in shirt.]

The diagram of the jacket shows that the fabric must rise the distance of the brown dash line if the jacket hole is to match a neck base entrance. (case A )

However, if the fabric bunches up the distance of the yellow dash line, then the jacket hole matches the actual back entrance point found at the autopsy. (case B )

Case B makes logical sense; case A does not.

In the Croft crop the distance between the green lines is less than 5.3 in.(white double arrow line), whereas the the distance of the yellow double arrow line represents a bunched fabric contour distance of app. 5.3 inches.

If the bullet entrance is point A (blue trajectory), then the down folded fabric between the green lines results in two or three jacket holes.

If the bullet entrance is point B (pink trajectory), then there is one jacket hole at the actual back entrance point found at the autopsy.

Your thoghts?

Edited February 24, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Craig Lamson]

Varnell:

I read you putting the word FACT in caps in conjunction with the oft-described

but-never-revealed 2-3" jacket bunch.

Show us your mannequin experiments, Craig.

If they supported your case you would have posted them long ago.

Lamson:

Where are your calculations for 3/4 of an inch Cliff?

I did not photograph them Cliff. There was no need. Anyone with a brain and a jacket can test it themself.

Let's address the second point first.

The reason you did not photograph them is because you can't get all that

fabric to bunch up in the asymmetrical shape you outlined so famously.

Your experiment has to match Betzner #3 and show the shirt collar at the

back of the neck and a convex shape above the right shoulder-line.

You have found this impossible.

Wow, now its Varnell the Great, mindreader...that goes perfect with the Varnell Magic Jacket theory.

I had no problem at all Cliff, I just saw no need to supply photography and the reason is simple. I've done it many times before only to be told I faked it up somehow, and the results are not valid. So no, I suggest that anyone interested simply try it themself. I've posted my methods and my results. There can be no doubt that it takes 2 inches or so to cover the shirt and jacket collar. Thats a far sight better than your "some guy looked at the photo and said 3/4's of an inch.

As to the 3/4" measurement, careful readers of this exchange will recall

that I cited the expertise of a San Francisco tailor, one Mr. Shirt, who

looked at the Towner #1 photo (below, left) and instantly identified the fold

there as a garden variety 3/4" cupped fold.

So, you have some guy who says..yep 3/4 of an inch...Wow now that intellectual honesty at work! You've not measured nor calculated and you have the nerve to claim your are accurate! Amazing. Cliff your "prima facie evidence" is prima screwed. In other words you are simply full of bull crap. Nine years of pounding it all over the net and this is the best you can do? Fricking amazing.

To get a better sense of this, keep in mind that the red line is JFK's

1.25" jacket collar, the green line points to the cupped fold.

According to you, Craig, the downslope of that cupped fold as as large or

larger than JFK's jacket collar.

I leave it to the gentle reader to assess your credibility on this point.

Gentle reader, please compare the size of the cupped fold in the photo

on the left with the inside slope of the fold in the photo on the right.

The photo on the left was taken on the corner of Elm and Houston,

and clearly shows that the jacket had dropped from the moment of

the photo on the right, taken earlier in the motorcade.

Yes, please compare. Cliff asks you to believe in his Magic Jacket Theory where bunched up fabric simply slides from sight. The problem is he can't tell you how this fabric fell, when the fabric is pinned by the back of JFK and the seatback. He wants you to believe in magic. He points to Towner and says...look only 3/4 of an inch of fabric..the jacket fell and see the shirt collar...more proof! . The problem is we can't really see much in Towner, the angle hides the back of the jacket. We cant tell what is happeing in that image. But when we move to Croft things get a bit clearer. Much to Cliffs chagrin, the full extent of the bunch can be seen. And we also see a nice clear shot of the shirt collar. Amazing, both in the same image at the same time! So much for Cliffs "the collar is visable therefore the jacket fell. Poof...

Now Cliff, still pimping his Magic Jacket Theory wants you to believe the jacket fell ONCE AGAIN from Croft to Bentzer. Why you ask? Because we can see the collar! I guess Cliff missed the fact that you can see both in Croft. He thinks that the bulge is gone. He wants to explain it away as a shadow. That dang Magic Jacket, its amazing what it can do. Why look, it has created a shadow at the right rear of JFK's head IN THIN AIR! Contrary to all physical law, the Magic Jacket Theory pulls another rabbit out of its hat...er...collar! David Copperfield would be proud.

The only problem for Cliff and the Magic Jacket Theory is that what we see is not a magic shadow, its the fabric bunch we see in Croft. The jacket has not fallen and the bunch is higher that the jacket and shirt collars. Cliff wonders why we can see both the bunch and the part of the collars not obscured by the bunch. The answer is simple and most photography 101 students can figure this one out. Its the camera to subject angle and the fact that the bulge is set back from the actual jacket collar. Poof again....

Finally Cliff, his bag of tricks all but empty reaches in and grabs Willis 5. Look he says the Magic Jacket Theory shows that the jacket has fallen once again! Wow, this jacket is simply full of suprises! First it's up and then its down and then its up again and then its down again...Whew I'm getting dizzy!

Cliff says look, the bulge is gone from the the right side of JFK's head! Now remember in Cliffs Magic Jacket Theory, this bulge was not a bulge at all but rather a shadow cast upon thin air going against all physical laws...but who is cares..right...its a Magic jacket after all! Cliff says the bulge is gone therefore the jacket has dropped (he still can't explain how that works...must be magic). Once again Cliff fails photography 101. The bulge appears to still be there, even though its hard to tell given the poor quality and the printing screen. How can it be there you ask? Simple, its now centered at the back of the neck instead of slightly over the right side of the neck because the camera to subject angle has changed and we are viewing JFK more directly from the rear.

Poof. The slight of hand of the Magic Jacket Theory has been exposed.

Anyone can measure this. Try it.

But nobody is going to get the drastic, grossly asymmetrical shape

your fantasy requires.

Nope I guess no one else is going to get it......

Nope I guess no one else is going to get it......

Look at the photo on the right above -- the fold is symmetrical all

the way around.

Nice try, Craig. Thanks for playing. Better luck...

Yes it has been fun playing Cliff. You have been reduced to a steaming pile. Priceless.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Of course I can say for a fact. My business is the production of digital images.

Your "find" is a classic 8 pixel by 8 pixel jpg compression artifact over a smooth

toned area. Do some research. It can be confirmed by the very nice Altens

enlargement posted by Duncan. Try again next time.

(Cue Vin Scully)

And with one pitch...there goes the shut-out...and there goes

the no-hitter...

[Cliff Varnell]

The reason we can't see much in the way of bunch in Towner is because there

obviously isn't much bunch to be seen.

He points to Towner and says...look only 3/4 of an inch of fabric..the jacket fell and

see the shirt collar...more proof! . The problem is we can't really see much in Towner,

the angle hides the back of the jacket. We cant tell what is happeing in that image.

Can't see much in Towner? Me neither. I used the 1.25" jacket collar to

roughly measure the small cupped fold, and compared the little Elm St.-corner

fold to the much larger Lattimer fold.

You put Towner into evidence -- you put the small fold into

evidence and declared it "not much."

Maybe you aren't so cognitively impaired after all!

Edited February 24, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Yes, please compare. Cliff asks you to believe in his Magic Jacket Theory

where bunched up fabric simply slides from sight.

They hadn't passed the law of gravity in Dallas that year?

And I wouldn't call going from a 3/4" fold to a 1/8" -- a "slide."

I have a pet name for it --I call it -- The Crypto-LN Creep.

[Cliff Varnell]

But when we move to Croft things get a bit clearer. Much to Cliffs chagrin, the full

extent of the bunch can be seen. And we also see a nice clear shot of the shirt collar.

You have no idea what you're doing.

You appear unaware that Croft #3 is a glorious color photograph. Really stunning.

Shows far more detail of the back of the jacket.

Tell ya what, Craigy, why don't you go out and get a good quality version of

Croft #3 and point out the Betzner Bunch -- and quit pimping this b&w pig.

Hint:

T r a s k

Edited February 24, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

The reason we can't see much in the way of bunch in Towner is because there

obviously isn't much bunch to be seen.

He points to Towner and says...look only 3/4 of an inch of fabric..the jacket fell and

see the shirt collar...more proof! . The problem is we can't really see much in Towner,

the angle hides the back of the jacket. We cant tell what is happeing in that image.

Can't see much in Towner? Me neither. I used the 1.25" jacket collar to

roughly measure the small cupped fold, and compared the little Elm St.-corner

fold to the much larger Lattimer fold.

You put Towner into evidence -- you put the small fold into

evidence and declared it "not much."

Maybe you aren't so cognitively impaired after all!

Yes Cliff, PLEASE DO TELL US what is happening on the back of JFK that you can't see because of the camera angle...please do. You make your silly claim that the lacket dorpped , but where did the fabric go Cliff? Oh yes...ITS THE VARNELL MAGIC JACKET! Notice how this MAGIC JACKET created more fabric OUT OF THIN AIR in Croft! Poof CLiff, you are gone!