New thread for the bunched jacket debate...

[Cliff Varnell]

Thats quite the narrative Cliff, quite wrong but interesting all the same. Historical fact? Not really. Historical revision is more like it.

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

Craig, see:

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

...Craig?

Gentle reader, it's apparent that Craig "moved on" before he could make

a case in rebuttal of "JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza".

Now he's lecturing Z-alterationists about "intellectual honesty."

The unintended irony is rich.

[Craig Lamson]

Thats quite the narrative Cliff, quite wrong but interesting all the same. Historical fact? Not really. Historical revision is more like it.

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

Craig, see:

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

...Craig?

Gentle reader, it's apparent that Craig "moved on" before he could make

a case in rebuttal of "JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza".

Now he's lecturing Z-alterationists about "intellectual honesty."

The unintended irony is rich.

The rebuttal is that you simply don't know what it is you are seeing in the images, to put it bluntlyu you zare a p_ss poor at photo analysis. Arguing wiht you is like arguing with a brick wall, other than the fact that the brick wall has more intellectual honesty.

What is rich is that you see a narm and wrist AT THE BACK of JFK's head!

Once a crackpot, always a crackpot.

[Cliff Varnell]

Thats quite the narrative Cliff, quite wrong but interesting all the same. Historical fact? Not really. Historical revision is more like it.

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

Craig, see:

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

...Craig?

Gentle reader, it's apparent that Craig "moved on" before he could make

a case in rebuttal of "JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza".

Now he's lecturing Z-alterationists about "intellectual honesty."

The unintended irony is rich.

The rebuttal is that you simply don't know what it is you are seeing in the images, to put it bluntlyu you zare a p_ss poor at photo analysis.

Yeah, you keep saying that but you haven't addressed my post on the

"Present State of the Critical Community" nor have you addressed

"JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza."

Like John Hunt -- you expect us to take your word for it, Craig?

Arguing wiht you is like arguing with a brick wall, other than the fact that the brick wall has more intellectual honesty.

What is rich is that you see a narm and wrist AT THE BACK of JFK's head!

You arbitrarily drew a line at the back of JFK's head and upper torso that

doesn't match the shadow pattern on the back of JFK's clothing!

Here's the unadorned close-up:

The bulge above his shoulder at the right base of his neck is

hand/arm and obviously not at the back of his head.

Unless, of course, you honestly think JFK's head extended a couple

of inches to the right of his right ear...

Edited April 26, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Thats quite the narrative Cliff, quite wrong but interesting all the same. Historical fact? Not really. Historical revision is more like it.

Is that your case? Your best shot at photo evidence? If not submit it, because I only want to debunk you once more. If this is your best case just say so and I will complete my rebuttal and post it.

Craig, see:

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

...Craig?

Gentle reader, it's apparent that Craig "moved on" before he could make

a case in rebuttal of "JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza".

Now he's lecturing Z-alterationists about "intellectual honesty."

The unintended irony is rich.

The rebuttal is that you simply don't know what it is you are seeing in the images, to put it bluntlyu you zare a p_ss poor at photo analysis.

Yeah, you keep saying that but you haven't addressed my post on the

"Present State of the Critical Community" nor have you addressed

"JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza."

Like John Hunt -- you expect us to take your word for it, Craig?

Arguing wiht you is like arguing with a brick wall, other than the fact that the brick wall has more intellectual honesty.

What is rich is that you see a narm and wrist AT THE BACK of JFK's head!

You arbitrarily drew a line at the back of JFK's head and upper torso that

doesn't match the shadow pattern on the back of JFK's clothing!

Here's the unadorned close-up:

The bulge above his shoulder at the right base of his neck is

hand/arm and obviously not at the back of his head.

Unless, of course, you honestly think JFK's head extended a couple

of inches to the right of his right ear...

Bye Bye Cliff, enjoy your impossible "neck hand"

[Cliff Varnell]

Bye Bye Cliff, enjoy your impossible "neck hand"

What I'm enjoying is another in a series of "bye byes"...

Lemme get this straight...You're claiming that it is "impossible"

for the red line below to outline JFK's hand/arm?

(Not "neck/hand," which is your fantasy.)

Zap 186 shows the hand in just that location.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg

And do you have any idea how badly you've contradicted yourself

on the other thread??

Edited April 26, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Bye Bye Cliff, enjoy your impossible "neck hand"

What I'm enjoying is another in a series of "bye byes"...

Lemme get this straight...You're claiming that it is "impossible"

for the red line below to outline JFK's hand/arm?

(Not "neck/hand," which is your fantasy.)

Zap 186 shows the hand in just that location.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg

And do you have any idea how badly you've contradicted yourself

on the other thread??

RNFLMAO! Keep it up Cliffy, Heres a bit of advice for you, when you are in a hole the best course of action is to STOP DIGGING! But of course you can't help yourself, why I'll bet you see bunnies in clouds too...

[Cliff Varnell]

Bye Bye Cliff, enjoy your impossible "neck hand"

What I'm enjoying is another in a series of "bye byes"...

Lemme get this straight...You're claiming that it is "impossible"

for the red line below to outline JFK's hand/arm?

(Not "neck/hand," which is your fantasy.)

Zap 186 shows the hand in just that location.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg

And do you have any idea how badly you've contradicted yourself

on the other thread??

RNFLMAO! Keep it up Cliffy, Heres a bit of advice for you, when you are in a hole the best course of action is to STOP DIGGING! But of course you can't help yourself, why I'll bet you see bunnies in clouds too...

So it's not "bye bye"?

I didn't think so.

[Craig Lamson]

Bye Bye Cliff, enjoy your impossible "neck hand"

What I'm enjoying is another in a series of "bye byes"...

Lemme get this straight...You're claiming that it is "impossible"

for the red line below to outline JFK's hand/arm?

(Not "neck/hand," which is your fantasy.)

Zap 186 shows the hand in just that location.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg

And do you have any idea how badly you've contradicted yourself

on the other thread??

RNFLMAO! Keep it up Cliffy, Heres a bit of advice for you, when you are in a hole the best course of action is to STOP DIGGING! But of course you can't help yourself, why I'll bet you see bunnies in clouds too...

So it's not "bye bye"?

I didn't think so.

Let’s show your massive ignorance and end this stupidity for good.

You claim to see JKF's hand in Betzer and you offer your best "photo analysis" via some crudely drawn lines. Sadly, for you, the position of the hand as you claim, is simply not possible if as you claim, that 186 is the compliment. Why? Because the LOS will not work. Oh the angle might work if you were say one of the MC cops behind the limo, but that’s not the angle Bentzer had. He was way up the street, and from his angle the hand in is photo MUST be seen outside and to the RIGHT of JFK's head. Bentzer is pretty poor but it sure looks like that is exactly where it is, not where you place it. Also if we are to believe that fantasy Cliff posits about the shape he has drawn on the Bentzer print as being...how did he put it...JFK's hand/arm, then it was JFK, and not B.J. Clinton who was our first "black" president! I do have to hand (pun intended) to you Cliff, you have some mighty powerful fantasies!

And to add to your misery, your "neck hand" still can't account for the lump at the back of JFK's neck. Oh yea, Cliff wants to call it a shadow but there are quite a few example of similar necks, in similar positions in the same lighting that don't show this "shadow" It's yet another example of cliffy seeing bunnies in the clouds.

Of course no one in their right mind will expect Cliff to be intellectually honest and admit his gross error. He can't, he is fully vested in his fantasy.

So Cliff, show us how the LOS from Bentzer to JFK puts his hand where you drew your goofy lines...Inquiring minds want to know. Or better yet just do the honest thing and admit your error, that is if you have the nads to do so.

That was your last leg. And my last post. DO your best to rebut it, as I know you will but you will fail. The world can decide.....

Edited April 27, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Don Jeffries]

Let's skip the predictable debates over who is seeing what in a particular photo or film; as the endless threads on film alteration have shown, photo analysis can be very subjective.

Answer the simple question- how do you explain why Boswell's marked location on his original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's location on the certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's location in their FBI report all matched precisely with the location where we find the holes in both JFK's coat and shirt? Were they all "bunched up" too?

The evidence is so clear here that there is nothing to debate.

[Cliff Varnell]

Let’s show your massive ignorance and end this stupidity for good.

You claim to see JKF's hand in Betzer and you offer your best "photo analysis"

via some crudely drawn lines.

As opposed to your crudely drawn lines?

Let's revisit your Betzner fantasy:

Let's start from left to right. Your "crudely drawn line" pretends to trace the

shape of this bunny rabbit clothing bunch, but your line ignores the

shadow and fold patterns on the left side of the back, and even cuts the

corner off of the visible shirt collar!

Sadly, for you, the position of the hand as you claim, is simply not possible if

as you claim, that 186 is the compliment. Why? Because the LOS will not work.

Oh the angle might work if you were say one of the MC cops behind the limo,

but that’s not the angle Bentzer had. He was way up the street, and from his

angle the hand in is photo MUST be seen outside and to the RIGHT of JFK's head.

Bingo!

It is outside and to the right of JFK's head. Have you gone blind?

Bentzer is pretty poor but it sure looks like that is exactly where it is, not where you place it. Also if we are to believe that fantasy Cliff posits about the shape he has drawn on the Bentzer print as being...how did he put it...JFK's hand/arm, then it was JFK, and not B.J. Clinton who was our first "black" president!

It's a black and white photo, if you haven't noticed.

And I guess you haven't noticed the shadow patterns on the man in the foreground.

Here's the whole Betzner #3:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...&fullsize=1

The right side of the man's head in the left foreground was in shadow. Ditto JFK.

I do have to hand (pun intended) to you Cliff, you have some mighty powerful fantasies!

And to add to your misery, your "neck hand" still can't account for the lump at the back of JFK's neck. Oh yea, Cliff wants to call it a shadow but there are quite a few example of similar necks, in similar positions in the same lighting that don't show this "shadow"

It's yet another example of cliffy seeing bunnies in the clouds.

I see the same things you do. But you only admit this intermittently when

you let your guard down.

3 examples of Craig Lamson's unwitting corroboration of my analyses:

A year ago Craig placed into evidence Towner #1, a photo I had shown to two

clothing experts in 1997, one of whom immediately and emphatically declared

that the fold in the jacket was 3/4" of fabric.

Towner #1 is "Image 8" in the following:

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Craig concurred with this analysis by saying (I paraphrase) -- "There's not

much to see" in Towner #1.

Indeed, a 3/4" fold is not much to see at all.

In my photo essay "JFK's Jacket Dropped in Dealey Plaza" I wrote:

JFK in Fort Worth that morning -- Visible shirt collar and small folds in his jacket,

similar to image 12 which was taken right before the shooting.

Today Craig Lamson wrote (emphasis his):

What is possible however, is that the jacket is bunched BELOW the collar

of the coat and that the shirt collar CAN STILL BE SHOWING.

This is an identical analysis.

There had to be visible "bunch" in the jacket due to the respective locations

of the bullet defects in the shirt and jacket.

The bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8" -- consistent with what we see in Betzner.

Now on this thread Craig has presented the Betzner LOS succinctly:

He was way up the street, and from his angle the hand in is photo MUST be

seen outside and to the RIGHT of JFK's head

Of course no one in their right mind will expect Cliff to be intellectually honest

and admit his gross error. He can't, he is fully vested in his fantasy.

So Cliff, show us how the LOS from Bentzer to JFK puts his hand where you

drew your goofy lines...Inquiring minds want to know.

I call to the stand Craig Lamson:

He was way up the street, and from his angle the hand in is photo MUST be

seen outside and to the RIGHT of JFK's head

And that's exactly what we see:

Or better yet just do the honest thing and admit your error, that is if you

have the nads to do so.

Do you crib your insults from David Healy? No knock on David, I'm just say'n...

That was your last leg. And my last post. DO your best to rebut it, as I know

you will but you will fail. The world can decide.....

Another "last post"?

All that digging must be exhausting.

[Cliff Varnell]

Let's skip the predictable debates over who is seeing what in a particular photo or film; as the endless threads on film alteration have shown, photo analysis can be very subjective.

Don, luckily Craig and I are on the same page in regards to the

essential photo analysis of the Dealey Plaza photos.

Here's the neat summation with which I concluded my essay,

"JFK's jacket fell in Dealey Plaza":

JFK in Fort Worth that morning -- Visible shirt collar and small folds in his

jacket, similar to image 12 which was taken right before the shooting.

Craig corroborated this analysis -- visible shirt collar, small visible folds -- when

he wrote:

What is possible however, is that the jacket is bunched BELOW the collar

of the coat and that the shirt collar CAN STILL BE SHOWING.

That JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza is a readily observed fact

which defies any subjective interpretation to the contrary.

Answer the simple question- how do you explain why Boswell's marked location on his original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's location on the certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's location in their FBI report all matched precisely with the location where we find the holes in both JFK's coat and shirt? Were they all "bunched up" too?

The evidence is so clear here that there is nothing to debate.

Going forward, I intend to make a fairly thorough inventory of the

witness statements and documentation of the T3 back wound.

Indeed, there is nothing to debate.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Cliff Varnell