New thread for the bunched jacket debate...

[Miles Scull]

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.

I see a faint line of demarcation, very faint, between the bulge & the collar behind the bulge: the upper purple line marks that.

[FBI Exhibit 59, JFK's suit coat, measures the bullet hole in the jacket to be 5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar, and appears to be directly in the middle of the back.

FBI Exhibit 60, JFK's shirt, measures the bullet hole in the shirt is 5 3/4 from top of collar and about 3/4 inch from center.

Autopsy drawings of President Kennedy conducted by Dr. Humes, shows a bullet hole in JFK's back that would match the location of the hole in his clothing. Hole is in the middle of back approximately 6 inches down from the neck.

Autopsy photograph of Kennedy's body shows a bullet hole in Kennedy's back clearly away from base of neck and matching the location of hole in shirt.]

So, the shirt & coat holes were not perfectly aligned.

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Not if the jacket were elevated a couple of millimeters to occlude the bottom

of the collar.

It must be a strange universe where clothing can make a gross migration

in a couple of seconds but it can't make normal movements at all.

Craig, you are so far out of your depth in this discussion.

[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.

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.

Well no, Cliff thats not what you posted. Its available for everyone to see. Spin until you auger into the ground, your words are posted and they don't add up to the spin.

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.

I grasp it Cliff, however its really cherrypicking on your part. If you had the intellectual honesty you think you have you would have revisited the question and presented all of the evidence, not just what you wanted to show. I'm not desperate Cliff, I've won. The death rasp you hear is yours Cliff, you can no longer defend your failed theory.

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"?

Again I'll ask you to clarify. I have measured actual jacket folds and I have measured the fold in Croft. Can you tell us Cliff, what exactly have you measured, or is all you have the questimate of Mr. Shirt?

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

No hysteria involved, just pointing out your dishonesty. That in itself was worth the price of admission.

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.

How wonderful. Cherrypicking evidence. Towner is rotten for measuring, since you can't see the bottom of the fold nor the back of the jacket. Thats why Croft brings it all into focus.

The Croft photo was deemed insufficient.

Towner is insufficent.

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.

I used Hunt because it was easy, simple as that. I never attempted to measure the BW Croff, it fit without measuring. It compares quite nicely to my actual tests.

You both analyzed Betzner the same way.

I did? Bentzer fits the profile and fits the laws of photography. You know those laws about which you are oh so ignorant. 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.

Actually the measuring of the color Croft is what finally blew your theory right of of the water. Did not really need it but its one more data point. Thanks to Duncan for posting it. It was the icing on the cake and the measurements confirmed my actual jacket measurements. So tell us CLiff what have you actual measured, and have you asked Mr. Shirt to review the new eviidence?

How will you ever recover from this one Cliff? I see you and the Varnell Magic Jacket Theory circling the drain.

Try again next time. Your notion of "prima facia evidence" is really good for some yucks.

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

Really? Nice attempt at spin.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Not if the jacket were elevated a couple of millimeters to occlude the bottom

of the collar.

It must be a strange universe where clothing can make a gross migration

in a couple of seconds but it can't make normal movements at all.

Craig, you are so far out of your depth in this discussion.

Really, so now you claim that the jacket collar is pushed up over the shirt collar and the back of the jacket is folded below the collar bottom upwards so that it covers the bottom of the collar? Wow! Amazing!

I'm out of my depth? Who was the guy who could not figure out how parallax worked. Or how to spot a jpg artifact? Seems you formed your opinion without theproper study of the subject. Cliff you are beyond useless iin this discussion.

I see we need to add a few more the ups and downs to the Varnell Magic Jacket Theory. Man that fantasy is growing by leaps and bounds.

So why not show us how this claim of your works.?

Edited February 26, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Not if the jacket were elevated a couple of millimeters to occlude the bottom

of the collar.

It must be a strange universe where clothing can make a gross migration

in a couple of seconds but it can't make normal movements at all.

Craig, you are so far out of your depth in this discussion.

Really, so now you claim that the jacket collar is pushed up over the shirt collar and the back of the jacket is folded below the collar bottom upwards so that it covers the bottom of the collar? Wow! Amazing!

No. For a guy who gets bent out of shape when his arguments are accurately

paraphrased, you have a distinct habit of putting words in other people mouths.

If the back of the jacket rode up 1.125" and the jacket collar rode up 1" then

the extra 1/8" would occlude the bottom of the jacket collar.

This isn't too hard, is it?

Varnell Magic Jacket Theory.

So why not show us how this claim of your works.?

What I call gravity you call the Varnell Magic Jacket Theory.

You make all kinds of ad hominem attacks when you don't think

I'm correctly characterizing your position, but you readily attribute

to me arguments I never made.

Would it be too mcuh to ask that you exercise a little more consistency

to your rhetoric?

[Cliff Varnell]

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?

I know Towner is far from all the evidence. I was not answering your

question with regard to that, as you know well by now.

And no, sadly, I cannot revisit the issue with them.

I made one follow-up call to Mr. Shirt and he politely answered some

follow-up questions, emphatically declaring (I paraphrase), "There's

not enough fabric -- it cannot be." However, he said to me that his son

warned him not to discuss the JFK assassination, and that was that.

My other expert was a casual LNer when I brought this evidence to

their attention. I was advised at first to speak with tailors, which I

did, then I went back to discuss it with my other expert. The jacket

collar was pointed out as an effective way to measure the fraction

of an inch fold. My expert said there was no way 2-3" of shirt and

jacket fabric could ride up without pushing up on the jacket collar.

Chad Zimmerman's x-ray experiments have verified this.

At the end of the analysis, my expert was a very reluctant CT and wanted

to make sure that their name was never associated with this analysis. I

haven't discussed it with this individual since, nor will I.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

btw, Craig, I've barely scratched the surface of my argument.

I've been waiting for you to make my case for me.

Thanks!

[Cliff Varnell]

AI have measured actual jacket folds and I have measured the fold in Croft.

You haven't measured the folds in Croft, all you did was draw a line

on a two dimensional photo and pretend that it represents a three

dimensional object.

You can draw lines on a photo anyway you want, but you haven't even seen the

high quality prints of the photo.

You haven't done your homework.

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

I see a faint line of demarcation, very faint, between the bulge & the collar behind the bulge: the upper purple line marks that.

[FBI Exhibit 59, JFK's suit coat, measures the bullet hole in the jacket to be 5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar, and appears to be directly in the middle of the back.

FBI Exhibit 60, JFK's shirt, measures the bullet hole in the shirt is 5 3/4 from top of collar and about 3/4 inch from center. Autopsy drawings of President Kennedy conducted by Dr. Humes, shows a bullet hole in JFK's back that would match the location of the hole in his clothing. Hole is in the middle of back approximately 6 inches down from the neck.

Autopsy photograph of Kennedy's body shows a bullet hole in Kennedy's back clearly away from base of neck and matching the location of hole in shirt.]

So, the shirt & coat holes were not perfectly aligned.

Miles, you're getting ahead of me! The corroborating evidence is overwhelming!

The death certificate filled out by Buckley put the wound about the level of T3

(and marked "verified"); the autopsy face sheet diagram in the vicinity of T3

(and marked "verified"); the FBI autopsy report in the vicinity of T3; wound

diagrams and other sworn testimony by 6 federal agents put the wound at T3;

more than a half-dozen medical witnesses stated to the wound location at T3.

It's overwhelming.

But like I say, we get ahead of ourselves.

(Don't agree on the autopsy photo, but I'll get to that.)

Edited February 26, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

This is an experiment Chad Zimmerman conducted. I challenged him

to include a tucked-in custom-made dress in his experiment but he

dismissed the need to do that since, in his opinion, custom-made dress

shirts and off-the-rack dress shirts fit the same. When I assured him that

it did indeed make a difference, he'd go into spasms of scoffing, and dismissed

tailors as guys who were just soaking the well off.

He hewed to that view throughout my discussion with him. He also scoffed

at the notion that JFK was a fashion icon.

But he did run a jacket experiment several times. This is the first one.

Note that the top of the jacket collar rides over the top of the shirt collar.

JFK's shirt collar was visible on Elm St. -- a fact Craig seems to grasp in

those moments of lucidity, but not thoroughly process.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Not if the jacket were elevated a couple of millimeters to occlude the bottom

of the collar.

It must be a strange universe where clothing can make a gross migration

in a couple of seconds but it can't make normal movements at all.

Craig, you are so far out of your depth in this discussion.

Really, so now you claim that the jacket collar is pushed up over the shirt collar and the back of the jacket is folded below the collar bottom upwards so that it covers the bottom of the collar? Wow! Amazing!

No. For a guy who gets bent out of shape when his arguments are accurately

paraphrased, you have a distinct habit of putting words in other people mouths.

If the back of the jacket rode up 1.125" and the jacket collar rode up 1" then

the extra 1/8" would occlude the bottom of the jacket collar.

This isn't too hard, is it?

Varnell Magic Jacket Theory.

So why not show us how this claim of your works.?

What I call gravity you call the Varnell Magic Jacket Theory.

You make all kinds of ad hominem attacks when you don't think

I'm correctly characterizing your position, but you readily attribute

to me arguments I never made.

Would it be too mcuh to ask that you exercise a little more consistency

to your rhetoric?

This is what you get Cliff, take it or leave it. At least I tell the truth, you on the other hand....

Altgens puts us right back to where we started with that image, Inconclusive. We are using it why?

[Craig Lamson]

AI have measured actual jacket folds and I have measured the fold in Croft.

You haven't measured the folds in Croft, all you did was draw a line

on a two dimensional photo and pretend that it represents a three

dimensional object.

You can draw lines on a photo anyway you want, but you haven't even seen the

high quality prints of the photo.

You haven't done your homework.

Well sorry Cliff but thats exactly what you ask the reader to do...inspect a line in the photos to the fold. You say look at the collar and compare it to the fold. Please tell us how your suggestion accounts for the conversion from a 3-d image to a 2d photo? And that differs how from my Croft?

Edited February 26, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

This is an experiment Chad Zimmerman conducted. I challenged him

to include a tucked-in custom-made dress in his experiment but he

dismissed the need to do that since, in his opinion, custom-made dress

shirts and off-the-rack dress shirts fit the same. When I assured him that

it did indeed make a difference, he'd go into spasms of scoffing, and dismissed

tailors as guys who were just soaking the well off.

He hewed to that view throughout my discussion with him. He also scoffed

at the notion that JFK was a fashion icon.

But he did run a jacket experiment several times. This is the first one.

Note that the top of the jacket collar rides over the top of the shirt collar.

JFK's shirt collar was visible on Elm St. -- a fact Craig seems to grasp in

those moments of lucidity, but not thoroughly process.

Great, can we expect to see your experiments as well Cliff? Or will all we be left with is Mr. Shirt?

[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.

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.

Cliff, when are you coing to establish that the shirt was tightly fitted and was properly tucked in?

Oh yes...thats right, you can't.

[Cliff Varnell]

Would it be too mcuh to ask that you exercise a little more consistency

to your rhetoric?

This is what you get Cliff, take it or leave it. At least I tell the truth, you on the other hand....

It was rhetorical question. I know you're not interested in consistency.

And anyone who describes a symmetrical fold as grossly asymmetrical is very

far from telling the truth.

All the folds in the DP photos were symmetrical -- you claim the opposite.

And since you continually refer to gravity as a "magic theory," let me point

out the obvious drop of JFK's jacket on Houston St. -- one more time!

Altgens puts us right back to where we started with that image, Inconclusive. We are

using it why?

No. Your claim that JFK's shirt and jacket could ride up tightly around his neck

in the manner of a jacket collar is another one of your howlers.

JFK's jacket was elevated about an inch in Altgens. The jacket collar is visible,

the smooth shoulder-lines are visible, precluding this Betzner Delusion of yours.