New thread for the bunched jacket debate...

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

Direct from the National Archives, a whole lot of years ago!

[Cliff Varnell]

Unless you know the bottom position how can you correctly measure the fold?

By the size of the cup in the fold. In Towner the "trough" of the fold

is visible and very small. In the Lattimer pic the trough is very large.

Using the 1.25" jacket collar the sentient among us will instantly see

that the Towner fold is small, which is why you can't really see much

bunch.

We see the same stubby 3/4" fold in Willis #4, and in Croft that fold

is bowed out slightly.

The red line is 1.25" jacket collar, the green line points to the cup of

the very normal 3/4" jacket fold -- the same fold we see in Towner

and Willis #4 -- and the yellow lines point to JFK's visible shirt collar.

Willis #4:

Edited February 25, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Not bunched where Miles?

The same non sequitur pimped endlessly:

Any fold in fabric = "bunch"

"bunch" = 2-3" of fabric

Any fold in fabric = 2-3" of fabric.

[Cliff Varnell]

As for my attitude, why yes, I think I'm more of an expert in the study of photographic images than your clothing experts.

You posit JFK's clothing behaving in a manner contrary to the nature

of reality, which is why you cannot replicate Betzner Bunch.

The burden of proof is on you, but all you do devise rationales

for why you can't carry that burden.

I'm privy to all the photographic evidence , were they?

Yes, and according to your brilliant photographic analysis, 2-3" of JFK's jacket

and 2-3" of JFK's shirt bunched up to wrap around JFK's neck in the Altgens

photo in a manner of a collar.

Just one of your utterly inane claims.

And tell us about this artifact in the black box in Altgens:

That is the gap between the leg of the man in the background and JFK's

jacket collar.

According to you its part of 4-6" of bunched up fabric that no one else

can see, but we know its there because photo expert Craig Lamson says

it has to be there.

Your circular logic is a constant source of amusement.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

btw, Craig, will you explain to us how the normal fold at the nape

of JFK's neck in Croft (Z161) migrated several inches over to JFK's

right shoulder-line in less than a second and a half, as you claim to

see in Betzner(Z186)?

Don't shake your head, Craig -- it might fall off.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig, Cliff, Duncan, et al.:

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

You see it differently?

Miles

I find it incredible that you can't see a bunch Miles Maybe you too are suffering from Varnellitis

Duncan

I see a normal 3/4" "bunch" in Croft, Duncan.

What do you see?

Edited February 25, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

As for my attitude, why yes, I think I'm more of an expert in the study of photographic images than your clothing experts.

You posit JFK's clothing behaving in a manner contrary to the nature

of reality, which is why you cannot replicate Betzner Bunch.

The burden of proof is on you, but all you do devise rationales

for why you can't carry that burden.

I'm privy to all the photographic evidence , were they?

Yes, and according to your brilliant photographic analysis, 2-3" of JFK's jacket

and 2-3" of JFK's shirt bunched up to wrap around JFK's neck in the Altgens

photo in a manner of a collar.

Just one of your utterly inane claims.

And tell us about this artifact in the black box in Altgens:

That is the gap between the leg of the man in the background and JFK's

jacket collar.

According to you its part of 4-6" of bunched up fabric that no one else

can see, but we know its there because photo expert Craig Lamson says

it has to be there.

Your circular logic is a constant source of amusement.

Save your losing rehash Cliff you are beat. Now you want the argument all over again! Talk about circular! Amazing.

So I'll ask again, did you show "your guys" Croft? Did you show "your guys" Croft" Did you show " your guys" Croft?

Simple question CLiff. How about the simple answer.

You base your worthless argument on a fold you estimate to be 3/4 of an in based on a best guess estimate from clothing experts not privy to all of the evidecne. You ask us to compare a color to a fold but we cant see the bottom of the fold. Its impossible to know where the fold starts and so we cant measure.

You pimp this 3/4 inch claim endlessly as if it were fact when the full truth is you dont havea clue as to the real size of the fold and the amount of fabric raised behind the fold.

Your continued use of this 3/4 inch term and your contnued and feeble attempts to shif the discussion away from the fact that you only showed yoor experts a very small part of the photographic evidence shows you to be total without intellectual honestly and your argument is bankrupt.

So in truth your claimed 3/4 inch fold could just as easily be 1 1/16 or 1 1/8. Just so you understand your 3/4 inch fold consumes at least 1 1/2 of fabric. Remember the quick lesson on how to make 4 inches into 2?

I would tell you to deal yourself another hand but untll you bring some more chips to the table Cliff, you have nothing to play with.

I'm always ready to play Cliff, because its fun to see people make fools of themself.

[Cliff Varnell]

Its impossible to know where the fold starts and so we cant measure.

If its impossible to know, then why do you claim as a FACT that 2-3"

of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of his jacket were bunched up entirely above

the base of his neck (without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base

of the neck -- <snicker>).

I'm always ready to play Cliff, because its fun to see people make fools of themself.

As you so ably demonstrate.

[Cliff Varnell]

And tell us about this artifact in the black box in Altgens:

That is the gap between the leg of the man in the background and JFK's

jacket collar.

According to you its part of 4-6" of bunched up fabric that no one else

can see, but we know its there because photo expert Craig Lamson says

it has to be there.

Your circular logic is a constant source of amusement.

Save your losing rehash Cliff you are beat. Now you want the argument all over

again! Talk about circular! Amazing.

Okay. Please explain how the artifact in the black box above is a jpeg

compression artifact.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Its impossible to know where the fold starts and so we cant measure.

If its impossible to know, then why do you claim as a FACT that 2-3"

of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of his jacket were bunched up entirely above

the base of his neck (without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base

of the neck -- <snicker>).

I'm always ready to play Cliff, because its fun to see people make fools of themself.

As you so ably demonstrate.

Cliff, did you show "your guys" Croft?

Cliff, Did you show your guys Croft?

once more just in case you missed it again...

Cliff, did you show your guys Croft?

Tha fact you refuse to answer this simple questions speaks VOLUMES!

[Craig Lamson]

And tell us about this artifact in the black box in Altgens:

That is the gap between the leg of the man in the background and JFK's

jacket collar.

According to you its part of 4-6" of bunched up fabric that no one else

can see, but we know its there because photo expert Craig Lamson says

it has to be there.

Your circular logic is a constant source of amusement.

Save your losing rehash Cliff you are beat. Now you want the argument all over

again! Talk about circular! Amazing.

Okay. Please explain how the artifact in the black box above is a jpeg

compression artifact.

Cliff I can'rt believe it but I'm actually feeling sorry for you. To see you stoop so low to begin fabricating statements from thin air. I've never claimed anything about the section of the the image you show other than in the low res version that the image had jpg artifacts and low resolution to really tell what was going on. Thats been my position on the small Altgens version...including the enlarged version that I posted on the thread. I've never made the claim that the section you have shown was ANYTHING much less that it was part of the bunched up fabric. You have nothing left but the hollow shell of your character now Cliff. It's amazing to see you sink so low.

[Cliff Varnell]

And tell us about this artifact in the black box in Altgens:

That is the gap between the leg of the man in the background and JFK's

jacket collar.

According to you its part of 4-6" of bunched up fabric that no one else

can see, but we know its there because photo expert Craig Lamson says

it has to be there.

Your circular logic is a constant source of amusement.

Save your losing rehash Cliff you are beat. Now you want the argument all over

again! Talk about circular! Amazing.

Okay. Please explain how the artifact in the black box above is a jpeg

compression artifact.

Cliff I can'rt believe it but I'm actually feeling sorry for you. To see you stoop so

low to begin fabricating statements from thin air.

I didn't fabricate any statement. I asked for an explanation.

In our previous discussion of Altgens, you referred to jpeg compression artifacts.

In response to my very reasonable question as to the artifact in the black box,

you started slobbering about some "losing rehash" of yours. And so, since our

prior discussion concerned jpeg compression artifacts, I assumed that was what

you were referring to.

I've never claimed anything about the section of the the image you show other

than in the low res version that the image had jpg artifacts and low resolution to

eally tell what was going on.

You have repeatedly claimed there was a convex-shaped hump of clothing

at the right-shoulder one in every photo in Dealey Plaza.

That artifact is in the exact location you claim a gross clothing bunch.

But there is no gross clothing bunch. That artifact is not part of JFK.

It's part of the background.

I find it interesting that you claim to see all these amazing things in the

motorcade photos but when it gets to proving them you keep running

into low res, bad camera angles that don't allow you to really see very much,

different photographer perspectives that hide your Betzner Bunch, etc, etc

belly-ache, whine, moan, sniffle, rationalize etc...

You say the Betzner Bunch is in every photo, but you keep putting

photos into evidence that destroy your inane little theory.

Let's put your Betzner and the color Croft up together, hm?

So tell us, Craig, how did that fold at the nape of JFK's neck in Croft (z161)

migrate several inches over to right to land on JFK's right shoulder, as you

claim to see in Betzner (Z186)?

25 Z frames is less than a second and a half.

What occurred in that limo in less than a second and a half that

would have caused this gross movement of JFK's clothing?

C'mon, Craig -- you make the claim, where's the argument?

Thats been my position on the small Altgens version...including

the enlarged version that I posted on the thread.

It's been your position that every DP photographic image shows Betzner Bunch.

But Altgens clearly shows a smooth right-shoulder-line and what certainly appears to

be a background gap between the man's leg and JFK's jacket collar.

Make up your mind, Craig -- does every DP photo show Betzner

Bunch, or not?

I've never made the claim that the section you have shown was ANYTHING

much less that it was part of the bunched up fabric. You have nothing left

but the hollow shell of your character now Cliff. It's amazing to see you

sink so low.

Hilarious! You've been putting words in my mouth about "Varnell Magic

Jacket Theory" when all I was referring to was gravity.

How is gravity a Magic anything, Craig? You don't believe in gravity?

Seems like you're having a tough time here, Craig. Are you okay?

[Cliff Varnell]

Its impossible to know where the fold starts and so we cant measure.

If its impossible to know, then why do you claim as a FACT that 2-3"

of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of his jacket were bunched up entirely above

the base of his neck (without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base

of the neck -- <snicker>).

I'm always ready to play Cliff, because its fun to see people make fools of themself.

As you so ably demonstrate.

Cliff, did you show "your guys" Croft?

Cliff, Did you show your guys Croft?

once more just in case you missed it again...

Cliff, did you show your guys Croft?

Tha fact you refuse to answer this simple questions speaks VOLUMES!

It does? What did I write?

[Craig Lamson]

Its impossible to know where the fold starts and so we cant measure.

If its impossible to know, then why do you claim as a FACT that 2-3"

of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of his jacket were bunched up entirely above

the base of his neck (without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base

of the neck -- <snicker>).

I'm always ready to play Cliff, because its fun to see people make fools of themself.

As you so ably demonstrate.

Cliff, did you show "your guys" Croft?

Cliff, Did you show your guys Croft?

once more just in case you missed it again...

Cliff, did you show your guys Croft?

Tha fact you refuse to answer this simple questions speaks VOLUMES!

It does? What did I write?

You have written NOTHING in reply to the direct question:

Did you show "your guys" Croft?

So you have been asked the direct question once again...you can answer it...right"?

[Cliff Varnell]

Its impossible to know where the fold starts and so we cant measure.

If its impossible to know, then why do you claim as a FACT that 2-3"

of JFK's shirt and 2-3" of his jacket were bunched up entirely above

the base of his neck (without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base

of the neck -- <snicker>).

I'm always ready to play Cliff, because its fun to see people make fools of themself.

As you so ably demonstrate.

Cliff, did you show "your guys" Croft?

Cliff, Did you show your guys Croft?

once more just in case you missed it again...

Cliff, did you show your guys Croft?

Tha fact you refuse to answer this simple questions speaks VOLUMES!

It does? What did I write?

You have written NOTHING in reply to the direct question:

No reply needed. I showed one photo, the same photo, to the both of them.

Have you already forgotten what that one photo was?

Go back over the posts again and find out what photo I showed Mr. Shirt.

You're obviously asking a rhetorical question.

Now, what do you have to say about the mass migration of JFK's

clothing in less than 1.5 seconds between Croft and Betzner?

I've asked you plenty of other direct questions you've dodged; but

I think its amusing when people show they have no argument.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Cliff Varnell