New thread for the bunched jacket debate...

[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:

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.

Cliff writes about the evidence he showed 'his guys" when asking for their opinion about the fold and bulge in JFK's jacket:

"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."

Cliff has been asked many times over if he showed Croft to "his guys". He refuses to answer the question directly. WHy.

Could it be this?

Craig writes:

"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? "

Cliff answers in part:

"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.

So Cliff first tells us he shows one image to his "guys"

The when asked if he showed Croft, he fails to answer the direct question. We know why, because he did not. By his own admission he has only offered a single photograph.

So Cliff gives us a non-truthful answer. He tells us the experts have had access to all of the evidence (which would include Croft) by his only admission and then he admits he has only shown one photograph.

Cliff is simply not honest. His claim of expert opinion is now trashed. CLiff has played fast and loose and in the process detroyed both his character and his "prima facia"evidence.

You sir are dispicable.

The post in question is post 101 in this thread and Iwill reproduce it here since I no longer find Cliff to be a trustworthy person.

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.

[Craig Lamson]

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?

That you even need to ask this question shows your abject ignorance. Its called parallax Clif. The camera to subject angle changes.

Test it yourself and fill that void between your ears.

There is plenty of information on the net you can use to educate yourself.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff writes about the evidence he showed 'his guys" when asking for their

opinion about the fold and bulge in JFK's jacket:

"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."

Cliff has been asked many times over if he showed Croft to "his guys". He refuses

to answer the question directly. WHy.

Could it be this?

Because it's a nonsense question. I showed the Towner photo to them.

But you are too busy playing semantic "gotcha" to mount an actual

argument.

Craig writes:

"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?

If Craig had done a modicum of research he'd know that the color version of Croft had

not been published in 1997.

But when you lack any argument -- make an issue up out of thin air, right, Craig?

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? "

Cliff answers in part:

"Yes,

Yes, I agree you are more of an expert in the study of photographic images.

I was agreeing with your description of your experience, that's it. That's

why the whole phrase was:

"Yes, and according to your brilliant photographic analysis,

I was refering to your stated expertise, Craig -- but you have to pull

that "Yes" out of context like a drowning man pulling a piece of wood

off a sinking ship.

Since I had already made it clear I showed the Towner photo only,

I find this clumsy "gotcha" game most revealing.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Miles Scull]

I find this clumsy "gotcha" game most revealing.

Cliff, Craig, Duncan, et al.:

I'm having trouble seeing what the fuss is all about.

What is the punch in the bunch? The bullet is going the same way, bunch or no bunch, & it will never exit via the throat.

Please explain.

The yellow trajectory is 21 degrees & the blue is 18 degrees.

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm having trouble seeing what the fuss is all about.

It's Posner's line in the sand. He established last February that the SBT

requires JFK's clothing to be in the position they were in in the Jefferies

film.

But the jacket dropped.

40+ years ago Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi handed the JFK

research community the smoking gun in the Kennedy assassination,

the bullet holes in JFK's clothes.

The JFK research community as a whole ignores this smoking gun.

My two favorite writers here are Charles Drago and Robert Charles-Dunne.

They are in a class by themselves.

However, in their response to Gary Mack recently neither one cited the

smoking gun Salandria and Fonzi gave us.

The JFK research community has been lead seriously astray.

Am I throwing rocks, as Tosh calls it?

You bet.

[Miles Scull]

I find this clumsy "gotcha" game most revealing.

Cliff, Craig, Duncan, et al.:

I'm having trouble seeing what the fuss is all about.

What is the punch in the bunch? The bullet is going the same way, bunch or no bunch, & it will never exit via the throat.

Please explain.

The yellow trajectory is 21 degrees & the blue is 18 degrees.

Cliff, Craig,

The bullet trajectory is the red line (22 degrees); the white ruler is JFK's back. The purple circle is the entrance point.

The black wire is the coat fabric bullet hole at 5.3 inches from the collar (red line).

What is in dispute?

[Craig Lamson]

Cliff writes about the evidence he showed 'his guys" when asking for their

opinion about the fold and bulge in JFK's jacket:

"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."

Cliff has been asked many times over if he showed Croft to "his guys". He refuses

to answer the question directly. WHy.

Could it be this?

Because it's a nonsense question. I showed the Towner photo to them.

You said they were privy to all of the evidence. Towner is far for all the evidence. Have you asked your experts to revisit their opinion and shown them the entire body of photographic evidence?

It was a perfect good question that required only a simple yes or no from you.

But you are too busy playing semantic "gotcha" to mount an actual

argument.

Craig writes:

"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?

If Craig had done a modicum of research he'd know that the color version of Croft had

not been published in 1997.

Why thank you Cliff I welcome new information. Now back to the question at hand. Were there ANY versions of Croft available in 1997 Cliff?

But when you lack any argument -- make an issue up out of thin air, right, Craig?

I have a perfect argument Cliff. Croft shows almost 4 inches of fabric in the fold bunch. Why don't you measure it and see for yourself.

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? "

Cliff answers in part:

"Yes,

Yes, I agree you are more of an expert in the study of photographic images.

I was agreeing with your description of your experience, that's it. That's

why the whole phrase was:

"Yes, and according to your brilliant photographic analysis,

I was refering to your stated expertise, Craig -- but you have to pull

that "Yes" out of context like a drowning man pulling a piece of wood

off a sinking ship.

Since I had already made it clear I showed the Towner photo only,

I find this clumsy "gotcha" game most revealing.

There you go telling untruths again CLiff.

Here is what you posted Cliff. You did a selective quote of my reply and then answered. Maybe you should try telling the truth since you claim to be "seekiing" the truth. You get yourself in deeper every time you try to bullsnit the readers.

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.

[i asked a simple question. And then you failed to tell the truth. Yes it is quite telling. I guess thats what happens to someone like you who has lost nine years of time doing really poor research[/color].

There is almost 4 inches of fabric in this fold and bunch in Croft. Tell us Cliff, you think "your guys"would call this a garden variety 3/4 inch casual fold?

Edited February 26, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Miles Scull]

Another look at the collar.

See red lines.

[Craig Lamson]

I find this clumsy "gotcha" game most revealing.

Cliff, Craig, Duncan, et al.:

I'm having trouble seeing what the fuss is all about.

What is the punch in the bunch? The bullet is going the same way, bunch or no bunch, & it will never exit via the throat.

Please explain.

The yellow trajectory is 21 degrees & the blue is 18 degrees.

Cliff, Craig,

The bullet trajectory is the red line (22 degrees); the white ruler is JFK's back. The purple circle is the entrance point.

The black wire is the coat fabric bullet hole at 5.3 inches from the collar (red line).

What is in dispute?

Miles, the question at hand is Cliffs silly statement that the jacket dropped. His problem, despite 9 years of pimping his failed theory is that he can't show the jacket dropped. Why? Because all of the clear photography shows the jacket folded and bunched. Willis, Croft, Bentzer and Zapruder all show the fold and the bunch. Cliffs only hope is Willis 5, but he haqs a problem. Willis 5 sucks and parallax puts the bulge rihgt ant the rear of JFK's neck. Its a bust for him. So he tires in vain to use Bentzer to say "look we can see the collar, therefore the jacket dropped". There is a problem with that as well. The bunch still shows at the right rear of JFK's neck. Not to mention that other images show both the bunch and the collar.

There is a reason people ignore Cliff and his so called "evidence". He is however a really fun to toy with. And so easy to show as a fool. And now we can also add dishonest. Its been a fruitful exchange to be sure.

[Craig Lamson]

Another look at the collar.

See red lines.

If its the collar Miles, where is the shadow line marking the bottom of the collar. There is plenty of detai available to show it.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff writes about the evidence he showed 'his guys" when asking for their

opinion about the fold and bulge in JFK's jacket:

"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."

Cliff has been asked many times over if he showed Croft to "his guys". He refuses

to answer the question directly. WHy.

Could it be this?

Because it's a nonsense question. I showed the Towner photo to them.

You said they were privy to all of the evidence.

No, I didn't. The "yes" was to your brilliant analytical ability. As indicated

in the structure of the sentence, and in my repeated reiterations.

When all ya got is puerile "gotcha"...make lemonade.

Towner is far for all the evidence. Have you asked your experts to revisit

their opinion and shown them the entire body of photographic evidence?

And what part of the sentence -- "I showed them the Towner photo" -- don't

you grasp.

I hear the death rasp in your desperation here, Craig.

It was a perfect good question that required only a simple yes

or no from you.

I've asked many good questions that you don't answer.

For instance, since you said it was impossible to measure the fold,

how can you state as a fact that the fold involved 2-3"?

I don't have to get hysterical to press for an answer to a question.

Craig writes:

"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?

If Craig had done a modicum of research he'd know that the color version of Croft had

not been published in 1997.

Why thank you Cliff I welcome new information. Now back to the

question at hand. Were there ANY versions of Croft available in 1997 Cliff?

Very poor, like the Hunt b&w.

This was the deal: in discussing the evidence with friendly LN types like Ron Judge

and JudyM (two people for whom I will always have a warm spot in my heart) we

agreed that Towner was the piece of evidence because it showed the inside

of the cupped fold right next to the identifiable 1.25" jacket collar.

The Croft photo was deemed insufficient.

Now, John Hunt based a lot of his case on that b&w Croft. Then one day

he found the color version. At first he crowed about its discovery. Then

he fell silent on the issue, and wouldn't come out to defend his academic

fraud to save his life.

You see, Craig, the higher the resolution of the Croft photo the smaller

"the bunch" appears.

I suspect Hunt took it to his own tailors and was told it was a garden

variety symmetric 3/4" jacket fold.

Now, the problem for you is that you went to Hunt's site and pulled

his Croft and made the same analysis as he did.

You both analyzed Betzner the same way.

But you did not have access to all the evidence, Craig. I saw you

walk right into the color Croft face first -- when I told you you had no

idea what you were doing.

You have made your analyses without seriously studying the photos, Craig.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Miles Scull]

Another look at the collar.

See red lines.

If its the collar Miles, where is the shadow line marking the bottom of the collar. There is plenty of detai available to show it.

The collar is above the purple line; the bulge is below it.

No?

The purple trajectory is 21 degrees:

[Cliff Varnell]

Another look at the collar.

See red lines.

If its the collar Miles, where is the shadow line marking the bottom of the collar. There is plenty of detai available to show it.

Isn't it amazing that the jacket couldn't have been elevated the 3 millimeters

required to occlude the bottom of the jacket collar -- BUT it is a FACT that the

shirt and jacket wrapped themselves around the base of his neck in a manner

consistent with a jacket collar.

Wow. This gets better and better all the time!

Replicate this event with a tucked in custom-made dress shirt.

You never will, Craig. What you see there is his jacket collar.

Obviously.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Another look at the collar.

See red lines.

If its the collar Miles, where is the shadow line marking the bottom of the collar. There is plenty of detai available to show it.

The collar is above the purple line; the bulge is below it.

No?

The purple trajectory is 21 degrees:

I'm asking you. Can you see the shadowline of the bottom of the collar? There is enough information to see it if it was there.

[Cliff Varnell]

Another look at the collar.

See red lines.

This methodology is phonier than a 3-dollar bill.

Sorry Craig, but there are higher resolution versions of this image.

Get the Trask book.

Besides, I could draw a line on any two-dimensional photo and get any

measurement I want. What counts is the line in the photo -- and that

line is the jacket collar. For that, Towner still is the king.

Let's make a photo comparo:

It's clear that the red arrow in Betzner points to the same fold we

see at the midline in Croft.

Betzner and Croft both show the fraction of an inch fold.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Cliff Varnell