Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted
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...

Translated from Cliffspeak: I'm clueless about all of this technical photography talk so I'll just make up some silly BS in the hopes no one will notice. Did I mention some guy told me how much fabric was bunched?

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Let's talk specifics, not theoreticals. A little basic math shows how much the jacket is raised in Croft.

A=B+C, with X the distance the fabric is raised. Now apply that to the jacket and shirt photos showing

the bullet holes.

Jack

Posted (edited)
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.

Look folks, even MORE slight of hand from Cliff! His Magic Jacket Theory now says this material pinned by the body and the seat "slides" away into nothingness. Folks, CLiff is out of control, his slight of hand exposed for the world to see. Stroking the same dead story for nine years and this is what is thas come too.

His "prima facia" clothing evidence has been reduce to rubble. The correct name for his work is "highly subjective guesswork" I think we might want to put Cliff on a close watch...who knows what he might do....please keep your blood soluble bullets under lock and key!

Edited by Craig Lamson
Posted
Let's talk specifics, not theoreticals. A little basic math shows how much the jacket is raised in Croft.

A=B+C, with X the distance the fabric is raised. Now apply that to the jacket and shirt photos showing

the bullet holes.

Jack

Yes Jack, lets DO talk specfics. You cute little diagram fails to address the problem. The problem is what is the length of fabric invloved in the bunch, not how much you think that is might be "raised". Your formula simply can't solve the problem. Try again next time...if you can even admit you are wrong.

Posted (edited)
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.

Cliff

Croft in Color...Craig is correct.

croft-1.jpg

croft2-1.jpg

Duncan

Thanks for posting this!

However, Duncan, I have insisted all along that there were, indeed, folds in

JFK's jacket.

That there could possibly be folds less than 2 inches doesn't seem to register

as a possiblility with you, Duncan.

Why is that?

Duncan, do you know the difference between a 3/4" jacket fold and a 3" jacket fold?

Craig says that's a 3" jacket fold, but when pressed for his methodology for

determining this, he offers none.

How about you?

What is your evidence that the small, normal, fraction of an inch "bunch"

in this photo involves 3" of fabric as opposed to 3/4" of fabric?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Posted (edited)
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.

Look folks, even MORE slight of hand from Cliff! His Magic Jacket Theory now says

this material pinned by the body and the seat "slides" away into nothingness.

This is amazing! You say it was no problem for JFK's tucked-in custom-made

shirt to ride up three inches, but for the jacket to fall 5/8" inch you'd think

it took a miracle.

How does a 3/4" fold dropping 5/8" into a 1/8" constitute a slide away

into nothingness?

The folds in your clothes ease in fractions of an inch everytime you casually

move.

Same with JFK.

Did they fail to pass the law of gravity in your hometown, Craig?

As far as the jacket being pinned to the seat -- how many times do I

have to go over this?

Here's JFK leaning forward to talk to Nellie on Houston St.

And a split second later, here's JFK leaning back from his chat with

Nellie which caused his jacket to drop thus exposing the shirt collar.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Posted (edited)
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.

Look folks, even MORE slight of hand from Cliff! His Magic Jacket Theory now says

this material pinned by the body and the seat "slides" away into nothingness.

This is amazing! You say it was no problem for JFK's tucked-in custom-made

shirt to ride up three inches, but for the jacket to fall 5/8" inch you'd think

it took a miracle.

How does a 3/4" fold dropping 5/8" into a 1/8" constitute a slide away

into nothingness?

The folds in your clothes ease in fractions of an inch everytime you casually

move.

Same with JFK.

Did they fail to pass the law of gravity in your hometown, Craig?

As far as the jacket being pinned to the seat -- how many times do I

have to go over this?

Here's JFK leaning forward to talk to Nellie on Houston St.

And a split second later, here's JFK leaning back from his chat with

Nellie which caused his jacket to drop thus exposing the shirt collar.

Your blovations are all well and good there Cliff but you fail in one simple point. You have not established either the 3/4 inch not 1/8 inch position. Your attempt to link it because "some guy said" fails.

You claim the jacket falls because JKF leaned forward but that fails as well. Did he yank the jacket down? Of course not, the excess fabric remained.

Your attempt to link it via the shirt collar fails. Why because there is ample photographic evidence of the bulge and shirt collar being visable at the same time.

What exactly do you have left? Oh yes, the shirt was tucked in and could not move. That fails as well. Unless you had your head rammed firmly up JFK''s butt you have no idea of the condition of his shirt not the extent of the fit.

You claim "prima facia evidence" That has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false.

Man you are simply toast Cliff. You wanna cry uncle yet? Maybe you should.

How to make 4 inches into two inches in one easy lession......

2inches.jpg

Edited by Craig Lamson
Posted

My new comments in burgandy.

Previously, Varnell coolly observed:

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.

Lamson self-debunks:

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.

Varnell zings:

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!

Craig scrambles to recover:

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.

Craig, if you "can't see" anything in Towner, why did you put it into evidence?

You put it into evidence because you can see the cupped fold at the nape

of his neck.

You describe the "bunch" accurately thus:

The problem is we can't really see much in Towner

Your problem is that you eagerly put into evidence the photo that

has been the root of my research since 1997. I showed that photo

to a San Francisco shirt-maker with 30 years experience who had handled

untold hundreds of thousands of such common fabric folds. He pronounced

it a 3/4" fold. I showed Towner to a 2-time winner of the LA Drama Critics

Circle Award for Costume Design, who pointed out the jacket collar as a

way to measure the fold.

I've been waiting for you to put this into evidence, Craig.

Thank you.

I didn't want to put it into evidence myself because I knew you'd pull that

nonsense about there being no information in the photo.

If there were no information in the photo, you wouldn't have put it into evidence.

But you did, indicating you are cognizant of the presence in that photo of

a small fabric fold, the size of which you have accurately characterized

as "can't really see much."

You "can't really see much" because there ain't much there to see.

Using the 1.25" jacket collar as an improvised ruler, we can tell that the

fold involves a fraction of an inch of fabric.

Which is why you "can't really see much."

Craig drops da bomb!

You make your silly claim that the lacket dorpped , but where did the fabric go Cliff?

It settled down from a 3/4" fold to a 1/8" fold.

The red arrow points to it:

Craig breaks into hysterics:

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!

I'll leave it to the gentle reader to conclude whether or not it takes

"magic" for a jacket to settle down 5/8".

Posted (edited)
My new comments in burgandy.

Previously, Varnell coolly observed:

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.

Lamson self-debunks:

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.

Varnell zings:

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!

Wow Cliff, you are really in bad shape if you need to alter the quotes to try and make them fit your failed position. Thats really quite dishonest of you Cliff, not that I expected anything less.

Here is the FULL quote and the astute reader can Cliff's dishonest quotation attempt. Cliff is in trouble..

"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... "

BTW there is a typo in this passage. I type can instead of can't and I've bolded it to show the location.

Now Cliff please show us were I have made the claim that the bunch was 3/4 of an inch, that the jacket fell or that the small fold is "not much"

If you can't I demand your formal retraction.

Craig scrambles to recover:

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.

Craig, if you "can't see" anything in Towner, why did you put it into evidence?

You put it into evidence because you can see the cupped fold at the nape

of his neck.

You describe the "bunch" accurately thus:

The problem is we can't really see much in Towner

Your problem is that you eagerly put into evidence the photo that

has been the root of my research since 1997. I showed that photo

to a San Francisco shirt-maker with 30 years experience who had handled

untold hundreds of thousands of such common fabric folds. He pronounced

it a 3/4" fold. I showed Towner to a 2-time winner of the LA Drama Critics

Circle Award for Costume Design, who pointed out the jacket collar as a

way to measure the fold.

I've been waiting for you to put this into evidence, Craig.

Thank you.

Again altering quotes really shows just how screwed you really are Cliff.

We can't see much in Towner, because of the camera angle. Why did I put it into evidence? Because I KNEW it was the centerpiece of your case and it was the perfect way to expose the extent of your fabrication. You attempt to link your "measurements" some guys who might be experts in their fields, they have no documented experience in the study of photography. That you think this amounts to "prima facia evidence" shows your total lack of intellectual honesty. Thank you Cliff for showing that to the world. Now lets continue and destroy the centerpiece of your nine years of stroking.....

I didn't want to put it into evidence myself because I knew you'd pull that

nonsense about there being no information in the photo.

If there were no information in the photo, you wouldn't have put it into evidence.

But you did, indicating you are cognizant of the presence in that photo of

a small fabric fold, the size of which you have accurately characterized

as "can't really see much."

You "can't really see much" because there ain't much there to see.

Using the 1.25" jacket collar as an improvised ruler, we can tell that the

fold involves a fraction of an inch of fabric.

Which is why you "can't really see much."

No we can't see much because the back of JKF is hidden. But lets consider your claim that "Using the 1.25" jacket collar as an improvised ruler, we can tell that the fold involves a fraction of an inch of fabric."

What is that fraction Cliff? 3/4 of an inch? Thats your claim, correct? Now how far down into the fold did you measurement entend? Where is the bottom? Unless you know the bottom position how can you correctly measure the fold? Is there a chance your fold is actually 1.125 or 1.25 of an inch rather than .75? Please give the readers your full accounting of the method you used to find the bottom of the fold.

All of this of course brings us back to the main reason for including this photo. When we compare this image to Croft we can see that the jacket never dropped and that in fact there was more fabric bunching hidden by the camera angle. Lets all chuck Cliffs centerpiece theory into the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Craig drops da bomb!

You make your silly claim that the lacket dorpped , but where did the fabric go Cliff?

It settled down from a 3/4" fold to a 1/8" fold.

The red arrow points to it:

[

color=#0000FF]

Really, is this the same image that shows the bunch at the right rear of JFK's head...you know where you created a shadow in thin air against all physical laws? So you claim you see a 1/8 inch fold. Would this be coming for the same Cliff Varnell who found JPG artifacts and claimed them to be small folds when the photo shows otherwise? Given you proven inability to understand what you see in a photgraph, plesae tell the readers why they should believe you have found an 1/8 fold in Bentzer and why it should even matter given the bunch visable at the right rear of JFK's head, which btw is totally consistant with what we see in Croft.[/color]

Craig breaks into hysterics:

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!

I'll leave it to the gentle reader to conclude whether or not it takes

"magic" for a jacket to settle down 5/8".

Yes lets do leave it to the reader to decide. Clearly you can't prove your position any longer.

Ready to cry uncle yet Cliff?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Posted (edited)

Go for the green.

Previously, Varnell coolly observed:

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.

Lamson self-debunks:

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.

Varnell zings:

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!

Craig, holding 3 fingers in the air as he sinks into rip tide:

Wow Cliff, you are really in bad shape if you need to alter the

quotes to try and make them fit your failed position.

Wow Craig, you are in really bad shape if you think the phrase "not much" isn't

an acceptable paraphrase of your line -- "The problem is we can't really see much

in Towner."

Do I need to parse this?

Let's try again converting your "can't" to "can not" with the appropriate emphasis

added:

You observed:

The problem is we can not really see much in Towner

The problem is yours alone.

The fact is we can see the cupped fold which we can compare

to the 1.25" jacket collar and also we can compare it to the Lattimer

fold and we can exercise a little common sense.

At least some of us can...

Thats really quite dishonest of you Cliff,

Craig, you have repeatedly attributed to me an argument I've never made:

that there were no folds in the jacket.

My argument all along very clearly is: of course there were folds in the jacket!

This little bitch fit of yours is more than a tad disingenuous.

After all, you put quotation marks around the word "slide" and attributed that to

me. I didn't use that word but I didn't skwawk because it all means the

same thing -- "can't really see much" and "not much" are the same thing.

You haven't addressed the methodology I've presented. Instead, you have

little tidies twisters over semantics. Go figure...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Posted (edited)
Go for the green.

Lets use Purple to show Cliffs bankrupt position

Previously, Varnell coolly observed:

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.

Lamson self-debunks:

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.

Varnell zings:

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!

Craig, holding 3 fingers in the air as he sinks into rip tide:

Wow Cliff, you are really in bad shape if you need to alter the

quotes to try and make them fit your failed position.

Wow Craig, you are in really bad shape if you think the phrase "not much" isn't

an acceptable paraphrase of your line -- "The problem is we can't really see much

in Towner."

Do I need to parse this?

No, you just need to learn to read so you can UNDERSTAND why Towner is a poor image for inspection of the bulge. The reason it is poor is because the camera angle hides the back of JFK's jacket. You can tell how bankrupt your argument is when you cherrypick the evidence to show as little as possible. Of course those with functioning eyes and a working brain can see that Croft shows us what was hidden, even if its beyond your ken.

Let's try again converting your "can't" to "can not" with the appropriate emphasis

added:

You observed:

The problem is we can not really see much in Towner

The problem is yours alone.

No the problem is your Cliff. The full statement:

"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."

And why is it much clearer? We can see the additional bunched fabric on JKF's back that was hidden by the camera angle in Towner. Cliff would like the world to forget this

exists.

BTW Cliff, what did your "guys" tell you when you showed them Croft? You did show that image right after you showed them your centerpiece Towner...right?

The fact is we can see the cupped fold which we can compare

to the 1.25" jacket collar and also we can compare it to the Lattimer

fold and we can exercise a little common sense.

At least some of us can...

Wow, the questions must have been too hard for you to answer or you simply wished it away but I still remember...

"What is that fraction Cliff? 3/4 of an inch? Thats your claim, correct? Now how far down into the fold did you measurement entend? Where is the bottom? Unless you know the bottom position how can you correctly measure the fold? Is there a chance your fold is actually 1.125 or 1.25 of an inch rather than .75? Please give the readers your full accounting of the method you used to find the bottom of the fold. "

You see Cliff you need to know where the fold starts and where the bulge ends to know how much fabric is involved. You claim to have used the Jacket collar as a comparison but compared to what? Were is the bottom of the fold and where does the bulge end? In your vaunted Towner you can not see where the fold starts, that point is hidden in deep shadow. And you can not see the end of the bulge created by the fold because that is hiddenout of view due the the camera to subject angle. The long and short of it Cliff is that you do not know the extent of the fold or bulge in your vaunted Towner. Common sense should have told you that Towner is a poor choice to fully observe the extent of the bulge in JFK's jacket. That you used Towner rather than the far superior Croft as the "root" of your work shows the depth of your intellectual honesty.

Thats really quite dishonest of you Cliff,

Craig, you have repeatedly attributed to me an argument I've never made:

that there were no folds in the jacket.

Great, Show us.

My argument all along very clearly is: of course there were folds in the jacket!

This little bitch fit of yours is more than a tad disingenuous.

After all, you put quotation marks around the word "slide" and attributed that to

me. I didn't use that word but I didn't skwawk because it all means the

same thing -- "can't really see much" and "not much" are the same thing.

As I've shown above Cillf one of two things happend.

1. You simply can't read.

2. You have used selective edits ina failed attempt spin my quotes out of contest.

Having read you for some time now, its clear to me you are #2. I'll let the readers decide if you pass the smell test.

You haven't addressed the methodology I've presented. Instead, you have

little tidies twisters over semantics. Go figure...

Well actually I did, and you failed to deal with the questions your methods raise. So I've asked again in this post. Why not answer this time?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Posted (edited)
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...

Translated from Cliffspeak: I'm clueless about all of this technical photography talk so I'll just make up some silly BS in the hopes no one will notice.

"

I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong. What's the big deal?

Did I mention some guy told me how much fabric was bunched?

Your intellectual dishonesty is matched only by your intellectual snobbery.

Mr Shirt spent 30 years seeing untold hundreds of thousands of these

3/4" inch folds.

The 2-time winner of the LA Drama Critics Award for Costume Design is

one of the world's leading textile conservators, having been the only

textile conservator to have ever curated their own exhibit at the Los Angeles

County Museum of Art. Master degree in Design from NYU -- long stints

of work and study at the De Young Museum in San Francisco and Hampton

Court in London.

Alan Flusser, the author of the book I cited earlier, Clothes and the Man:

The Principles of Fine Men's Dress, was for decades the leading men's

fashion designer and historian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Flusser

You referred to Alan Flusser's expertise as (I paraphrase) -- "just words."

Just words? Some guy? Quotation marks around the word "expert" when

it comes to clothing expertise?

You think because you handle a camera you're "more of an expert" (your

attitude, if not your words) than top people in the clothing biz?

Pathetic.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Posted
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...

Translated from Cliffspeak: I'm clueless about all of this technical photography talk so I'll just make up some silly BS in the hopes no one will notice.

"

I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong. What's the big deal?

Did I mention some guy told me how much fabric was bunched?

Your intellectual dishonesty is matched only by your intellectual snobbery.

Mr Shirt spent 30 years seeing untold hundreds of thousands of these

3/4" inch folds.

The 2-time winner of the LA Drama Critics Award for Costume Design is

one of the world's leading textile conservators, having been the only

textile conservator to have ever curated their own exhibit at the Los Angeles

County Museum of Art. Master degree in Design from NYU -- long stints

of work and study at the De Young Museum in San Francisco and Hampton

Court in London.

Alan Flusser, the author of the book I cited earlier, Clothes and the Man:

The Principles of Fine Men's Dress, was for decades the leading men's

fashion designer and historian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Flusser

You referred to Alan Flusser's expertise as (I paraphrase) -- "just words."

Just words? Some guy? Quotation marks around the word "expert" when

it comes to clothing expertise?

You think because you handle a camera you're "more of an expert" (your

attitude, if not your words) than top people in the clothing biz?

Pathetic.

So CLlff, did your guys look at Croft?

Here's your problem Cliff, you have been pimping 3/4's of an inch for YEARS without having a CLUE if it was true or not.

And yes, its "your guys". Sure they are experts in clothing but again what is there expertise in the examination of photography?

Why is that important? Because thats the medium we have to deal with. Its not quite the same as viewing something in hand like a person wearing a jacket, now is it Cliff? This question is still unanswered Cliff...Did you show them Croft after you showed them Towner? If you did show them how can you place ANY value in their opinion if they were not given all of the evidence available to from an opinion?

As for my attitude, why yes, I think I'm more of an expert in the study of photographic images than your clothing experts. I'm privy to all the photographic evidence , were they?

If you want to talk about attitude consider yours. For years you have claimed shamelessly that you had prima facia evidence of two shooters..the clothing evidence. Careful inspection of your prima facia evidence shows it nothing of the sort. Its not even good speculation. Its just poorly formed opinion. The long and short of it is that your work is pure BS, and not grounded in evidence.

You have nothing left Cliff, the Varnell Magic Jacket Theory has been unmasked.

I'm sure you will never reconsider your position. You can't. Your far to invested. And that Cliff makes you (as you so like to say) intellectually dishonest.

Nine years pimping nothing...amazing.

Posted
Nine years pimping nothing...amazing.

Craig, Cliff, Duncan, et al.:

It appears that JFK's coat was not bunched as in the crop below.

But assuming it was, then even so the front throat puncture cannot be an exit for the back entrance puncture.

The ear is 8 cm or about 3 in. (purple line)

So, bunching here puts the fabric coinciding with the back puncture via a 22 degree trajectory angle at about the black/yellow target on the red line.

You see it differently?

croft2-1ear11.jpg

Posted
Nine years pimping nothing...amazing.

Craig, Cliff, Duncan, et al.:

It appears that JFK's coat was not bunched as in the crop below.

But assuming it was, then even so the front throat puncture cannot be an exit for the back entrance puncture.

The ear is 8 cm or about 3 in. (purple line)

So, bunching here puts the fabric coinciding with the back puncture via a 22 degree trajectory angle at about the black/yellow target on the red line.

You see it differently?

croft2-1ear11.jpg

Not bunched where Miles?

You guys can squable about the SBT, not my worry.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...