New thread for the bunched jacket debate...

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

If the shoe fits...

[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.

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.

My methods are simple. I've viewed the images and then took a shirt and jacket and placed it on a Mannequin. I then placed a piece of scotch tape under the collar and down the back. I marked the tape at the bottom of the jacket collar. Next I tried a nuber of fold/bunch positions that covered both the jacket and shirt collar and marked the tape at the top of the fold. 2 inches is a slam dunk, as is 3.

How more honest do you want it? Better yet anyone can do it, they dont have to take my word for it.

[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.

My methods are simple. I've viewed the images and then took a shirt and jacket and placed it on a Mannequin. I then placed a piece of scotch tape under the collar and down the back. I marked the tape at the bottom of the jacket collar. Next I tried a nuber of fold/bunch positions that covered both the jacket and shirt collar and marked the tape at the top of the fold. 2 inches is a slam dunk, as is 3.

Post photos, please, or this exercise is meaningless.

Better yet anyone can do it, they dont have to take my word for it.

Word for what? Your claim that JFK's jacket was bunched up in Betzner

is debunked by Willis.

[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.

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.

My methods are simple. I've viewed the images and then took a shirt and jacket and placed it on a Mannequin. I then placed a piece of scotch tape under the collar and down the back. I marked the tape at the bottom of the jacket collar. Next I tried a nuber of fold/bunch positions that covered both the jacket and shirt collar and marked the tape at the top of the fold. 2 inches is a slam dunk, as is 3.

Post photos, please, or this exercise is meaningless.

Better yet anyone can do it, they dont have to take my word for it.

Word for what? Your claim that JFK's jacket was bunched up in Betzner

is debunked by Willis.

Photos? Anyone can do it for themself.

Dbunked? Please do tell .... you find more bystanders?

[Cliff Varnell]

CV: Post photos, please, or this exercise is meaningless.

CL: Photos? Anyone can do it for themself.

No, you make the claim, you provide the evidence.

Let's see how this 3 inch fold of yours compares to the photos.

CV: Your claim that JFK's jacket was bunched up in Betzner is debunked by Willis.

CL: Dbunked? Please do tell .... you find more bystanders?

So you don't know the difference between a concave and convex curve?

Where's the convex curve in Willis #5 -- another test of intellectual honesty.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't suffer fools gladly.

How do you live with yourself?

[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.

I believe that Altgens 5 shows a bulge that is consistant will the rest of the images. Its my opinion since the lighting angle makes it impossible to tell with complete certainty.

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.

Your opinions about this image share the same fate. You can't show the bottom of the jacket collar.

That is his opinion. Good for him.

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.

A conclusion is the best either of us can offer in regards to Altgens 5. You continue to repete your conclusion ad nauseam as if its fact...its not.

They are not. Nice try though. Might I suggest new glasses.

"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.

Thats not the way it appears in the image you posted. In addition the resolution and jpg artifacts make it impossible to see the details of the right shoulder line. All you can do is guess here Cliff. Strike this one for you as well.

"I cannot say for certain that the bulge is there."

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

Well yes they do. Just like your position there are images that at best can only be used as opinion. The sad fact for you is that ALL of the images you rely on can ONLY be used as a basis for opinion, none can establish fact. On the other hand, are a number of images both before and after the backshot that establish AS FACT that the jacket had a fold and a bulge.

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

conclusion there was no bulge at all.

There IS NO FACT that there is no bulge, thats only your opinion. You need to remember that FACT

"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".

You can't prove that with Altgens 5. I can't prove that with Altgens 5. The best that can be offered about this image is opinion. Will you ever get this simple fact into your head?

"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?

Sadly for you the photographic record shows that not to be true in this case. Perhaps it would be best for you to reconsider this opinion in fact. And yes I know the difference. Ive measured fabric folds in a suit jacket.

"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.

What a crock Cliff. The photographic record shows a number of them.

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

whore to the bone, baby.

You talking about yourself again? All you have is OPINION. You don't have a single piece of evidence left to support your Magic Jacket Theory.

[Craig Lamson]

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?

Pat, you guys can fight over the SBT all you want. I don't care nor am I willing to spend time to research it. I simply see a bulge of fabric at the rear of JFk's jacket.

I guess we disagree about the that. I see it folding up at the base of the neck, and thats what the photography shows.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

CV: Post photos, please, or this exercise is meaningless.

CL: Photos? Anyone can do it for themself.

No, you make the claim, you provide the evidence.

Let's see how this 3 inch fold of yours compares to the photos.

The methods have been posted. If you want to check it yourself be my guest. BTW you have made a claim about a 3/4 inch fold. You measured it how?

CV: Your claim that JFK's jacket was bunched up in Betzner is debunked by Willis.

CL: Dbunked? Please do tell .... you find more bystanders?

So you don't know the difference between a concave and convex curve?

Where's the convex curve in Willis #5 -- another test of intellectual honesty.

The intellectually honest answer is there is no convex curve in Willis 5. Eagle Eye Varnell found a bystander.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

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

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.

Sorry but thats simply not true.

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.

Done above.

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.

Which means what?

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.

What part of the jacket? The collar? Not the bulge.

The jacket dropped. Period.

Pure opinion unsupported by fact.

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?

They don't.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

My comments in burgandy.

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."

I believe that Altgens 5 shows a bulge that is consistant will the rest of the images.

Post a high quality close-up of JFK in that photo and point out the artifacts consistent

with your claim.

Its my opinion since the lighting angle makes it impossible to tell with complete certainty.

Point out anything in Altgens consistent with your claim.

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.

Your opinions about this image share the same fate. You can't show the bottom of the jacket collar.

That is his opinion. Good for him.

You've stated as a FACT that JFK's clothing was elevated 2-3" above the

inshoot at the base of his neck.

Please point out anything in Altgens #5 consistent with this conclusion.

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.

A conclusion is the best either of us can offer in regards to Altgens 5.

Wrong. A good close up might show us more...

You continue to repete your conclusion ad nauseam as if its fact...its not.

They are not. Nice try though. Might I suggest new glasses.

"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.

Thats not the way it appears in the image you posted. In addition the resolution

and jpg artifacts make it impossible to see the details of the right shoulder line.

Wrong. The right shoulder-line is NOT broken by bunched jacket.

All you can do is guess here Cliff. Strike this one for you as well.

"I cannot say for certain that the bulge is there."

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

Well yes they do.

The intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

[Craig Lamson]

My comments in burgandy.

Craigs reply in blue

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."

I believe that Altgens 5 shows a bulge that is consistant will the rest of the images.

Post a high quality close-up of JFK in that photo and point out the artifacts consistent

with your claim.

Thats the problem the Algens 5 we are using is too small to enlage without seeing the jpg artifacts..which render it useless for close inspection. If you have a better copy please post it.

Its my opinion since the lighting angle makes it impossible to tell with complete certainty.

Point out anything in Altgens consistent with your claim.

Notice what appears in my opinion to be a bulge at the base of JFK's neck. Jpg compression artifacts make it impossible to render anything but opinion.

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.

Your opinions about this image share the same fate. You can't show the bottom of the jacket collar.

That is his opinion. Good for him.

You've stated as a FACT that JFK's clothing was elevated 2-3" above the

inshoot at the base of his neck.

Please point out anything in Altgens #5 consistent with this conclusion.

See above

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.

A conclusion is the best either of us can offer in regards to Altgens 5.

Wrong. A good close up might show us more...

We don't have a good closeup. If you have one please post it.

You continue to repete your conclusion ad nauseam as if its fact...its not.

They are not. Nice try though. Might I suggest new glasses.

"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.

Thats not the way it appears in the image you posted. In addition the resolution

and jpg artifacts make it impossible to see the details of the right shoulder line.

Wrong. The right shoulder-line is NOT broken by bunched jacket.

The image is has far too many jpg artifacts to make that claim. Please try again next time.

All you can do is guess here Cliff. Strike this one for you as well.

"I cannot say for certain that the bulge is there."

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

Well yes they do.

The intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

Yes it is, sadly its you. Willis is worthless for close, detailed inspection. Are you blind? Can you see the total image destruction caused by the printing rosettes and JPG artifacts? I was ashamed to have to use it to try and show the bystander. It's worthless.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

I tracked this down.

This shows a dimple in the jacket, some small horizontal folds, the bottom

of the jacket collar is visible on the right.

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

fold/artifact in Betzner:

Yes it is, sadly its you. Willis is worthless for close, detailed inspection. Are you blind?

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?

The power of denial is amazing.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Let's bring it on home.

Here's JFK at Fort Worth with his arm up casually and minor horizontal folds

in the midline of the back of his jacket.

Here's JFK on Houston St. with the same minor horizontal folds at

the midline of his jacket. Note there is no visible shirt collar.

Here's JFK at Z186 -- his jacket had dropped to reveal the normal amount

(1/2") of exposed shirt collar.

Similar horizontal fold.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Bernice Moore]

Perhaps these would be of help.......

One very large Altgens, one smaller lightened, and two Towners, taken at the corner of Elm..

one lightened.....

FWTAW....

B.....

Edited February 22, 2008 by Bernice Moore