Cliff Varnell Posted May 9, 2009 Author Share Posted May 9, 2009 The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186... The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186... The photos are quite clear and the evidence for a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck is unimpeachable. JFK's jacket still had a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck. Here's the deal, Craig: you're supposed to click the heels of your ruby pumps after each recitation of your mantra, and you're only supposed to repeat it three times, not four plus! This won't get you back to Kansas, but it will take you to Bunchkin Land! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 (edited) The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186... The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186... The photos are quite clear and the evidence for a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck is unimpeachable. JFK's jacket still had a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck. Here's the deal, Craig: you're supposed to click the heels of your ruby pumps after each recitation of your mantra, and you're only supposed to repeat it three times, not four plus! This won't get you back to Kansas, but it will take you to Bunchkin Land! LOL. This seems to be a good example of someone cherrypicking information and then trying to turn their opinion into 'fact' -- a tactic used repeatedly by the good-old WCR. Edited May 9, 2009 by Pamela McElwain-Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186... The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186... The photos are quite clear and the evidence for a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck is unimpeachable. JFK's jacket still had a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck. Here's the deal, Craig: you're supposed to click the heels of your ruby pumps after each recitation of your mantra, and you're only supposed to repeat it three times, not four plus! This won't get you back to Kansas, but it will take you to Bunchkin Land! LOL. This seems to be a good example of someone cherrypicking information and then trying to turn their opinion into 'fact' -- a tactic used repeatedly by the good-old WCR. So there Pam, exactly what has your research told you? You figured out where that shadow went, and now understand that the evidence for a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck is unimpeachable. Oh wait, you DID not do the research did you. You don't the facts from your behind do you? Of course not. Your slavish devotion to your worldview just won't allow for real fact to invade. I guess we can write you off as an intellectually honest "researcher". Pretty much par for the course for "ct" researchers. Now be a good little girl take your blue pill and enjoy the blissful ignorance of illusion for the rest of your life in the ct matrix. You deserve it. Say hi to Varnell, he's been there for a VERY long time. Truth is really beyond your ken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186... The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186... The photos are quite clear and the evidence for a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck is unimpeachable. JFK's jacket still had a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck. Here's the deal, Craig: you're supposed to click the heels of your ruby pumps after each recitation of your mantra, and you're only supposed to repeat it three times, not four plus! This won't get you back to Kansas, but it will take you to Bunchkin Land! LOL. This seems to be a good example of someone cherrypicking information and then trying to turn their opinion into 'fact' -- a tactic used repeatedly by the good-old WCR. So there Pam, exactly what has your research told you? You figured out where that shadow went, and now understand that the evidence for a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck is unimpeachable. Oh wait, you DID not do the research did you. You don't the facts from your behind do you? Of course not. Your slavish devotion to your worldview just won't allow for real fact to invade. I guess we can write you off as an intellectually honest "researcher". Pretty much par for the course for "ct" researchers. Now be a good little girl take your blue pill and enjoy the blissful ignorance of illusion for the rest of your life in the ct matrix. You deserve it. Say hi to Varnell, he's been there for a VERY long time. Truth is really beyond your ken. Uh-oh...is Craig running to sit in the corner with his blanket? What part of 'nothing you have said about the 'jacket bunch' being an issue is in the least persuasive' do you not yet understand? Just because you choose to go around in circles on this does not automatically make it worth anyone else's time -- that is, unless your case is good enough to persuade someone else. But rather than presenting a coherent case, you make little swipes at name-calling and tread close to other fallacies. That indicates that even you have questions about what you claim to believe, doesn't it? Perhaps you should set aside your slavish devotion to the WCR for a moment and think this through for yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 (edited) The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186... The extant photography shows a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck, in the last clear photo available at or around z186... The photos are quite clear and the evidence for a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck is unimpeachable. JFK's jacket still had a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar a the base of JFK's neck. Here's the deal, Craig: you're supposed to click the heels of your ruby pumps after each recitation of your mantra, and you're only supposed to repeat it three times, not four plus! This won't get you back to Kansas, but it will take you to Bunchkin Land! LOL. This seems to be a good example of someone cherrypicking information and then trying to turn their opinion into 'fact' -- a tactic used repeatedly by the good-old WCR. So there Pam, exactly what has your research told you? You figured out where that shadow went, and now understand that the evidence for a fabric fold in JFK's jacket, below the collar, large enough to obscure the jacket collar/shirt collar at the base of JFK's neck is unimpeachable. Oh wait, you DID not do the research did you. You don't the facts from your behind do you? Of course not. Your slavish devotion to your worldview just won't allow for real fact to invade. I guess we can write you off as an intellectually honest "researcher". Pretty much par for the course for "ct" researchers. Now be a good little girl take your blue pill and enjoy the blissful ignorance of illusion for the rest of your life in the ct matrix. You deserve it. Say hi to Varnell, he's been there for a VERY long time. Truth is really beyond your ken. Uh-oh...is Craig running to sit in the corner with his blanket? What part of 'nothing you have said about the 'jacket bunch' being an issue is in the least persuasive' do you not yet understand? Just because you choose to go around in circles on this does not automatically make it worth anyone else's time -- that is, unless your case is good enough to persuade someone else. But rather than presenting a coherent case, you make little swipes at name-calling and tread close to other fallacies. That indicates that even you have questions about what you claim to believe, doesn't it? Perhaps you should set aside your slavish devotion to the WCR for a moment and think this through for yourself? I guess you reading ability is as weak as your so called research ability. I have no devotion to either side of this silly parlor game Pam. Hell I don't even think JFK was a decent person nor president. I don't care who killed him or how. I'm just having fun making ct's and ln’s..no matter which… look ever so silly by showing just how stupid some of their claims really are. I choose to do it with the photography. In this case I'm giving people the likes YOU a chance to actually show some intellectual honesty before bursting your bubble. I've told you were to look and if you were the truth seeker you claim you would have done the work, or at least asked the right questions. But you didn’t which is really quite telling and gives us some wonderful insight to your character or lack thereof. Thanks for being so illuminating. The question really boils down to this. Is JFK's jacket still bunched in Bentzer? Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty and who has looked at the Elm street photos knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a substantial fabric bunch in ALL of the images of JFK on Elm. Oh Varnell might make some noise about shirt collars and 1/8 inch folds, but his skill set at photo analysis is about third grade level. Hell he can't even figure out what White human skin looks like in shadow, and confuses fabric folds for hands and arms. To say the guy is a useless putz is an insult to putz's everywhere. Varnell has no intellectual honesty. He can’t. His investment in his silly “the jacket fell” claim is too great. Honest people know Varnell is worthless in this regard. But I digress. Luckily for everyone the shadows tell the story. You see light behaves in a very predictable and well documented manner. The study of this predictable behavior and the interplay of light and solid objects tells us EXACTLY the condition of JFK's jacket as seen in Bentzer. Thru is no need for opinion, because this interplay of light is factual. The clues it gives us are absolute. And unless someone wants to claim Bentzer and Croft are altered (I'm sure that will be the next CT step since the information in Bentzer is so damning to the ct cause) The findings are impeachable. I'm very, very good at what I do Pam, and I'm seldom wrong. In this case there is no doubt about my findings. I'm going nowhere, hell I'm just getting started. I've let that foolish Varnell keep digging his grave for days now and its just about time for a lethal injection of cold hard truth to put Varnell away. I'm guessing here are quite a few folks out there who are going to relish this moment, sadly Cliff will not be one of them. You have one last chance, if you choose to take it. Do the research, and report your findings. Show us you actually have at least a tiny amount of intellectual honesty. Answer the question, "where is the shadow" and you will be released from the bonds of ct slavery. Or not, it’s your choice. Edited May 10, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 10, 2009 Author Share Posted May 10, 2009 Over the clicks of shuffled ball bearings, Captain Craig cracks: In this case I'm giving people the likes YOU a chance to actually show some intellectual honesty before bursting your bubble. I've told you were to look and if you were the truth seeker you claim you would have done the work, or at least asked the right questions. But you didn’t which is really quite telling and gives us some wonderful insight to your character or lack thereof. Thanks for being so illuminating. Watch out, Pamela -- it's only a matter of time before Craig accuses you of stealing the strawberries... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qzz7K_E1w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Over the clicks of shuffled ball bearings, Captain Craig cracks:In this case I'm giving people the likes YOU a chance to actually show some intellectual honesty before bursting your bubble. I've told you were to look and if you were the truth seeker you claim you would have done the work, or at least asked the right questions. But you didn’t which is really quite telling and gives us some wonderful insight to your character or lack thereof. Thanks for being so illuminating. Watch out, Pamela -- it's only a matter of time before Craig accuses you of stealing the strawberries... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qzz7K_E1w I'll probably have plenty of time to do that while I wait for him to try to construct a cogent argument. :-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) Over the clicks of shuffled ball bearings, Captain Craig cracks:In this case I'm giving people the likes YOU a chance to actually show some intellectual honesty before bursting your bubble. I've told you were to look and if you were the truth seeker you claim you would have done the work, or at least asked the right questions. But you didn’t which is really quite telling and gives us some wonderful insight to your character or lack thereof. Thanks for being so illuminating. Watch out, Pamela -- it's only a matter of time before Craig accuses you of stealing the strawberries... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qzz7K_E1w I'll probably have plenty of time to do that while I wait for him to try to construct a cogent argument. :-0 I'm not making an argument, and you would know that if you had done the research. I'm simply stating cold, hard fact. You have done the research...correct? And if not, why are you making comments about things you know nothing about? So Pam, where IS that shadow? Maybe Varnell can help you. Oh wait, Varnell doesn't have a clue where the shadow is either. Added on edit. Well, well Varnell is TRYING to make an arguement I see, but as I stated earlier he does not have a clue where the shadow is, as his very funny diagram shows. Varnell is a perfect example of a CT hack trying to do photo analysis. His silly diagram shows he has a complete lack of understanding of the interplay of light and solid objects. To put it bluntly Varnell is totally ignorant in this regard. Obviously. So where is the shadow Pam. Varnell, as I pointed out was no help. Edited May 11, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted May 11, 2009 Author Share Posted May 11, 2009 Over the clicks of shuffled ball bearings, Captain Craig cracks:In this case I'm giving people the likes YOU a chance to actually show some intellectual honesty before bursting your bubble. I've told you were to look and if you were the truth seeker you claim you would have done the work, or at least asked the right questions. But you didn’t which is really quite telling and gives us some wonderful insight to your character or lack thereof. Thanks for being so illuminating. Watch out, Pamela -- it's only a matter of time before Craig accuses you of stealing the strawberries... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qzz7K_E1w I'll probably have plenty of time to do that while I wait for him to try to construct a cogent argument. :-0 I'm not making an argument, and you would know that if you had done the research. I'm simply stating cold, hard fact. You have done the research...correct? And if not, why are you making comments about things you know nothing about? So Pam, where IS that shadow? Maybe Varnell can help you. Oh wait, Varnell doesn't have a clue where the shadow is either. Fact: amount of shirt collar exposed at the back of JFK's neck -- 1/2" The top shadow is a fabric indentation similar to the fabric indentation seen two minutes earlier on Main St. Same posture -- head turned to the right, right arm waving -- but on Main St. the jacket rode into the hairline and on Elm St. the fold was well below the bottom of the collar. The jacket dropped. Obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now