A Few Thoughts on the Zapruder Film

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff wants the world top believe his left side up/right side down fabric bunch can produce the shadowline as seen in Betzner.

So you are denying that the shadow in Betzner is left-side up?

Get that pre-school class to show you how many diagonals exist in the real world.

There are two, and two only.

There are left side up diagonals like the back slash... \

There are right side up diagonals like the forward slash... /

That's it.

If you are claiming that the fold/shadow in Betzner is right side up,

I think people can see you are wrong.

Lets not forget this shadow line obscures the jacket collar.

Absurd. The jacket collar can't be distinguished from the back of the jacket.

Cliff whats the world to believe that fabric arraingement like this can obscure the jacket collar.

It's always amusing to see someone make something up out of

hot air and then attribute it to others

No, Craig, no one twisted JFK's jacket in the manner you depict.

Reaching into your bag of non sequiturs again, I see.

Is this all you, have, Craig?

Edited January 9, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Cliff, I opened your post expecting to see your experimental, empirical evidence that proves your point, but once again all we get is bloavation.

You have provided the empirical evidence, Craig.

You have put two photos into evidence, and you/ have

made statements of empirical fact regarding those photos.

In the case of the Towner you noted that there's "not much" in the

way of bunching.

In Betzner you have observed a diagonal fold that was "bottom, left"

which could only be bunched down and to the left.

You seem to be struggling with your own observations.

I've submiited the unimpeachable empirical evidence of how the fabric on JFK's jacket must be arrainged to create the shadowline as seen in Betzner.

No, JFK's jacket was NOT arranged by "PULLING directly up" on the fabric.

No one pulled on JFK's jacket, Craig.

And yes it is now about two photos, Betzner and my proof of concept image.

As you say, it is about me. My proof of concept evidence stands unimpeached.

Thanks for agreeing that you got it wrong.

No, I am agreeing with you on two of the 3 points.

1) Towner photo shows "not much" bunch. Check.

2) Betzner photo shows a "bottom, left" diagonal. Check.

3) In your model you PULLED up on the fabric, Craig. Why you think

this pertains to JFK is a mystery.

A five year old could demonstrate how to bunch a left-side up bottom left

diagonal fold to a 3 yeard old, and in turn that 3 year old could show it to a two

year old who then shares their new information with a twin.

All on their blankey.

Why are you having trouble with this, Craig?

Trouble? None on my part Cliff. As I have shown there is no "a left-side up bottom left diagonal fold" in Betzner. Why? Two reasons. First that fold cannot produce the shadowline shown in Betzner, given the angle of incidence and JFK's body position.

Second, the shadowline YOU mistake as a " a left-side up bottom left diagonal fold" is a shadow created BY THE LEFT EDGE of the horizontal fold seen in Betzner. Nothing else can make this shadowline

The trouble is your decided ignorance in the properties of light and shadow. And your seeming inability to learn.

BTW, Cliff, you said pulling or pushing will providet he same end result, so whats your problem now, considering we are talking proof of concept. Is all of this simply beyond you?

Simply unimpeachable, that there is a large fold on the back of JFK's jacket that obscures the jacket collar.

Your continued and ignorant handwaving has done noting to change that.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Cliff wants the world top believe his left side up/right side down fabric bunch can produce the shadowline as seen in Betzner.

So you are denying that the shadow in Betzner is left-side up?

Not at all, I've no problem with the diagonal portion of the shadow, in fact its the expected result being cast from the left edge of the large HORIZONTAL fold on JFK's back. The fact of the matter is that is the only way TO PRODUCE the diagonal shadow.

Get that pre-school class to show you how many diagonals exist in the real world.

Perhaps it's you who should consult those pre-schoolers, given yor utter failure to understand simple properties of light and shadow.

There are two, and two only.

There are left side up diagonals like the back slash... \

There are right side up diagonals like the forward slash... /

That's it.

If you are claiming that the fold/shadow in Betzner is right side up,

I think people can see you are wrong.

There you go, making stuff up again.

Lets not forget this shadow line obscures the jacket collar.

Absurd. The jacket collar can't be distinguished from the back of the jacket.

Not absurd at all. IF the fold did not obscure the jacket collar, you would see the shadow from JFK's neck pass over the jacket collar. The laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow demand it. I see we are back to where we were months ago, your ignorance of the subject matter shining through.

Cliff whats the world to believe that fabric arraingement like this can obscure the jacket collar.

It's always amusing to see someone make something up out of

hot air and then attribute it to others

Really, you said this about the alleged fold:

"bottom, left" diagonal fold we see in Betzner."

Is that not a "bottom left, diagonal fold"?

So now you are saying there was NOT a 'bottom left, diagonal fold" in Betzner? Congratulations! you finally got it right. There was a large HORIZONTAL fold in Betzner! A "bottom left, diagonal fold" cannot create the shadowline see in Betzner!

No, Craig, no one twisted JFK's jacket in the manner you depict.

Really, you said this about the alleged fold:

"bottom, left" diagonal fold we see in Betzner."

Is that not a "bottom left, diagonal fold"?

So now you are saying there was NOT a 'bottom left, diagonal fold" in Betzner? Congratulations! you finally got it right. There was a large HORIZONTAL fold in Betzner!

Reaching into your bag of non sequiturs again, I see.

Then you can't see.

Is this all you, have, Craig?

That's all I need. You still can't impeach it. Perhaps your pre-schoolers and teach you a thing or two.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, I opened your post expecting to see your experimental, empirical evidence that proves your point, but once again all we get is bloavation.

You have provided the empirical evidence, Craig.

You have put two photos into evidence, and you/ have

made statements of empirical fact regarding those photos.

In the case of the Towner you noted that there's "not much" in the

way of bunching.

In Betzner you have observed a diagonal fold that was "bottom, left"

which could only be bunched down and to the left.

You seem to be struggling with your own observations.

I've submiited the unimpeachable empirical evidence of how the fabric on JFK's jacket must be arrainged to create the shadowline as seen in Betzner.

No, JFK's jacket was NOT arranged by "PULLING directly up" on the fabric.

No one pulled on JFK's jacket, Craig.

And yes it is now about two photos, Betzner and my proof of concept image.

As you say, it is about me. My proof of concept evidence stands unimpeached.

Thanks for agreeing that you got it wrong.

No, I am agreeing with you on two of the 3 points.

1) Towner photo shows "not much" bunch. Check.

2) Betzner photo shows a "bottom, left" diagonal. Check.

3) In your model you PULLED up on the fabric, Craig. Why you think

this pertains to JFK is a mystery.

A five year old could demonstrate how to bunch a left-side up bottom left

diagonal fold to a 3 yeard old, and in turn that 3 year old could show it to a two

year old who then shares their new information with a twin.

All on their blankey.

Why are you having trouble with this, Craig?

Trouble? None on my part Cliff. As I have shown there is no "a left-side up bottom left diagonal fold" in Betzner.

Sure there is. Blue line below.

That you cannot admit the obvious is telling.

Why? Two reasons. First that fold cannot produce the shadowline shown in Betzner, given the angle of incidence and JFK's body position.

It's the indentation of fabric that creates this shadow.

Gentle reader, glance over at your right shoulder-line and slowly

raise your right arm. The fabric along the top of your shoulder-line

will ease into a series of folds with trough-shadows that result from

the slight indentation of the fabric.

Second, the shadowline YOU mistake as a " a left-side up bottom left diagonal fold" is a shadow created BY THE LEFT EDGE of the horizontal fold seen in Betzner. Nothing else can make this shadowline

There is no horizontal fold above the shadow. The fold is below the shadow.

Anyone can see this...

The trouble is your decided ignorance in the properties of light and shadow. And your seeming inability to learn.

The trouble is you refuse to observe the vertical/diagonal fold in Betzner, which

is in the exact place you say it's horizontal.

BTW, Cliff, you said pulling or pushing will providet he same end result, so whats your problem now, considering we are talking proof of concept. Is all of this simply beyond you?

No, pushing and pulling produce opposite results.

When you "pull directly up" you create vertical/diagonal folds.

When you "bunch directly up" you create horizontal/diagonal folds.

Why do the simplest dichotomies elude you?

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff wants the world top believe his left side up/right side down fabric bunch can produce the shadowline as seen in Betzner.

So you are denying that the shadow in Betzner is left-side up?

Not at all, I've no problem with the diagonal portion of the shadow, in fact its the expected result being cast from the left edge of the large HORIZONTAL fold on JFK's back. The fact of the matter is that is the only way TO PRODUCE the diagonal shadow.

Factually incorrect. When fabric eases into a trough along a diagonal

a diagonal shadow forms. The fabric is indented in Betzner, not bulged.

If there were a massive bulge in Betzner, the top of the fold -- 3 times larger than

the visible shirt collar! -- would have caught sunshine. There is no such artifact

in the photo, so you need to make it up.

Perhaps it's you who should consult those pre-schoolers, given yor utter failure to understand simple properties of light and shadow.

Indented fabric creates shadows.

Indentation is the opposite of bulge, another simple dichotomy that eludes you.

Lets not forget this shadow line obscures the jacket collar.

Absurd. The jacket collar can't be distinguished from the back of the jacket.

Not absurd at all. IF the fold did not obscure the jacket collar, you would see the shadow from JFK's neck pass over the jacket collar. The laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow demand it. I see we are back to where we were months ago, your ignorance of the subject matter shining through.

The shadow passes over the shirt collar. The jacket is below that. The jacket collar

cannot be distinguished from the jacket.

Cliff whats the world to believe that fabric arraingement like this can obscure the jacket collar.

Nothing in this photo replicates JFK's jacket, which was not twisted or

stretched, as you have done here.

You argue "Bunch Theory" but you show no signs of understanding

what "bunched fabric" entails!

You need to wrap your mind around these simple dichotomies, Craig:

Indentation is the opposite of bulge. Concave vs. Convex.

Vertical is the opposite of horizontal. Consult some children on that one.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

fold[/b]" in Betzner.

Sure there is. Blue line below.

That you cannot admit the obvious is telling.

Really? Sorry but laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow prove your wrong again. But hey, give it a whirl. Take a few proof of concept photos to prove your point. If you can't you have nothing but meaningless speculation.

Why? Two reasons. First that fold cannot produce the shadowline shown in Betzner, given the angle of incidence and JFK's body position.

It's the indentation of fabric that creates this shadow.

Gentle reader, glance over at your right shoulder-line and slowly

raise your right arm. The fabric along the top of your shoulder-line

will ease into a series of folds with trough-shadows that result from

the slight indentation of the fabric.

Nope, wrong again. Against the laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow given the angle of incidence and the position of JFK's body. But hey, give it a whirl. Take a few proof of concept photos to prove your point. Male sure you create lighitng that has the same angle of incidence to JFK's body as in Betzner, then get back to us. If you can't you have nothing but meaningless speculation.

Second, the shadowline YOU mistake as a " a left-side up bottom left diagonal fold" is a shadow created BY THE LEFT EDGE of the horizontal fold seen in Betzner. Nothing else can make this shadowline

There is no horizontal fold above the shadow. The fold is below the shadow.

Anyone can see this...

Nope wrong again. The only way to create the diagonal shadowline given the laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow is for it to be cast by the left edge of the horizontal fold. This is unimpeachable. But then again you can try , by creating some experimental, emprical evidence as proof of concept. Right now all you offer is ignorant handwaving. The argument has moved WAY beyond you Cliff and if you want to stay in the game you need to learn to keep up.

The trouble is your decided ignorance in the properties of light and shadow. And your seeming inability to learn.

The trouble is you refuse to observe the vertical/diagonal fold in Betzner, which

is in the exact place you say it's horizontal.

There is no diagonal fold, only a diagonal shadow castb y the left end of the horizontal fold. It's the only way to create this shadow shape as proven with experimental. empirical proof of concept photos. And its the only possible solution giventhe laws of nature and rhe properties of light and shadow.

If you want continue your failed attempt to prove otherwise you will need to move beyond your handwaving and speculation and provide actual proof, via experimental, emprical proof of concept photos. Get to it Cliff or concede, its all you have left.

BTW, Cliff, you said pulling or pushing will providet he same end result, so whats your problem now, considering we are talking proof of concept. Is all of this simply beyond you?

No, pushing and pulling produce opposite results.

When you "pull directly up" you create vertical/diagonal folds.

When you "bunch directly up" you create horizontal/diagonal folds.

Why do the simplest dichotomies elude you?

I guess your own words elude YOU Cliff..

"there are four (4) ways you can put a left-end up diagonal fold ( \)

in clothing fabric.

That's a fold that goes like this: \

That's the fold you noticed in Betzner.

1) Pulling/stretching the fabric UP,

2) Pulling/stretching the fabric DOWN,

3) Bunching/easing the fabric UP and to the RIGHT.

4) Bunching/easing the fabric DOWN and to the LEFT."

Of course its really all meaningless in the context of proff of concept experiments. But you know htat, despite ytour continued handwaving. BTW, you have yet to provide experimental, empirical proof that your concept of how fabic responds is even true. WHy shuoo danyone belive you?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I cannot believe that anyone in this day and age is still promoting the "bunched up" theory of JFK's clothing. The man wore custom-tailed suits and shirts, which do not tend to "bunch up". Moreover, bunching up would not explain why the hole in the back on Boswell's diagram, Sibert's FBI report, or the death certification by Admiral Burkely would confirm the same location as the shirt and jacket, all of which converge at about 5 1/2 inches below the collar just to the right of the spinal column. Moreover, official reenactment photographs by the Warren Commission staff show the wound to the back at the same location. And one of them -- in which Arlene Specter is showing the path that the "magic bullet" would have had to take if that hypothesis were correct -- also shows the circular patch on the stand-in several inches below his hand, which means that a photograph that was intended to illustrate the "magic bullet" theory actually refutes it. In addition, we know that Gerald Ford, (R-MI), a junior member of the Warren Commission, had had the description of the back wound changed from "his uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of his neck" to make the "magic bullet" hypothesis more plausible. And David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has taken a patient with similar chest and neck dimensions to JFK and plotted the purported trajectory that the "magic bullet" would have had to have taken, if that hypothesis were true, which turns out to be anatomically impossible. So the theory has been thoroughly refuted, as I explained in a presentation at Cambridge University, which was published in a peer-reviewed international journal and is accessible via google under the title, "Reasoning about Assassinations". It is archived on my blog for 22 November 2009 at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com and on my public issues web site at http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reason...assinations.pdf. That horse is long gone.

Cliff wants the world top believe his left side up/right side down fabric bunch can produce the shadowline as seen in Betzner.

So you are denying that the shadow in Betzner is left-side up?

Not at all, I've no problem with the diagonal portion of the shadow, in fact its the expected result being cast from the left edge of the large HORIZONTAL fold on JFK's back. The fact of the matter is that is the only way TO PRODUCE the diagonal shadow.

Factually incorrect. When fabric eases into a trough along a diagonal

a diagonal shadow forms. The fabric is indented in Betzner, not bulged.

If there were a massive bulge in Betzner, the top of the fold -- 3 times larger than

the visible shirt collar! -- would have caught sunshine. There is no such artifact

in the photo, so you need to make it up.

Perhaps it's you who should consult those pre-schoolers, given yor utter failure to understand simple properties of light and shadow.

Indented fabric creates shadows.

Indentation is the opposite of bulge, another simple dichotomy that eludes you.

Lets not forget this shadow line obscures the jacket collar.

Absurd. The jacket collar can't be distinguished from the back of the jacket.

Not absurd at all. IF the fold did not obscure the jacket collar, you would see the shadow from JFK's neck pass over the jacket collar. The laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow demand it. I see we are back to where we were months ago, your ignorance of the subject matter shining through.

The shadow passes over the shirt collar. The jacket is below that. The jacket collar

cannot be distinguished from the jacket.

Cliff whats the world to believe that fabric arraingement like this can obscure the jacket collar.

Nothing in this photo replicates JFK's jacket, which was not twisted or

stretched, as you have done here.

You argue "Bunch Theory" but you show no signs of understanding

what "bunched fabric" entails!

You need to wrap your mind around these simple dichotomies, Craig:

Indentation is the opposite of bulge. Concave vs. Convex.

Vertical is the opposite of horizontal. Consult some children on that one.

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Cliff wants the world top believe his left side up/right side down fabric bunch can produce the shadowline as seen in Betzner.

So you are denying that the shadow in Betzner is left-side up?

Not at all, I've no problem with the diagonal portion of the shadow, in fact its the expected result being cast from the left edge of the large HORIZONTAL fold on JFK's back. The fact of the matter is that is the only way TO PRODUCE the diagonal shadow.

Factually incorrect. When fabric eases into a trough along a diagonal

a diagonal shadow forms. The fabric is indented in Betzner, not bulged.

If there were a massive bulge in Betzner, the top of the fold -- 3 times larger than

the visible shirt collar! -- would have caught sunshine. There is no such artifact

in the photo, so you need to make it up.

Wrong again Cliff. The orientation you suggest for your "fantasy indentation" would NOT create a shaodw given the angle of incidence of the sun and JFK's body position. Your claim is completely at odds with laws of nature and the properties of lihgt and shadow. You just continue to show your massive ignornace of he subject matter. Thanks.

The top of the horizontal fold has a very nice highlihgt running along the top edge that is perfectly consistant with the angle of incidence and JFK's body position.

Your point remains debunked.

Perhaps it's you who should consult those pre-schoolers, given yor utter failure to understand simple properties of light and shadow.

Indented fabric creates shadows.

Indentation is the opposite of bulge, another simple dichotomy that eludes you.

Only if the angle of incidence in relation to the orientation of the indentation is correct, willit produce a shadow. It can just as easily look completely flat given the right lighting conditions. Even a preschooler can see this by just looking.

In this case th e orientation of your "indentation" is such that it WOULD NOT cast the shadow you claim it would. This is lighting 101 and you just failed.

Again we are back to the same pale we were months ago. You are a lost without the first clue as to why you have it completely wrong and you can't offer the first bit of experimental, empriical evidence to support your baseless speculation. Any grade school child can test this simple idea, just not Cliff.

Lets not forget this shadow line obscures the jacket collar.

Absurd. The jacket collar can't be distinguished from the back of the jacket.

Not absurd at all. IF the fold did not obscure the jacket collar, you would see the shadow from JFK's neck pass over the jacket collar. The laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow demand it. I see we are back to where we were months ago, your ignorance of the subject matter shining through.

The shadow passes over the shirt collar. The jacket is below that. The jacket collar

cannot be distinguished from the jacket.

THis point still eludes you. Given the angle of incidence of the sun and the position of JFK's body, the law of nature and the properties of light and shaodw DEDMAND that if hte jacket collar is not obscured, the shadow line of JFK's neck WILL continue down over the jacket collar and down over e the jacket back. This is MISSING in Betzner. The shadow stops at the bottom of the shirt collar. Cliff, once again simply has no clue how light and shadow works nor can he offer even a simple proof of concept photo to back his claim. He's wrong once again and he is clueless as to why.

Cliff whats the world to believe that fabric arraingement like this can obscure the jacket collar.

Nothing in this photo replicates JFK's jacket, which was not twisted or

stretched, as you have done here.

You argue "Bunch Theory" but you show no signs of understanding

what "bunched fabric" entails!

So you say, But you offer no experimental, empirical proof of concept to back your claim. Time for you to put up or shut up Cliff. Eihter show us your experimental, empirical proof of concept phots ob concede defeat. Yoiu had aptly demonstrated you have no clue how lihgt and shaodw works, which is hte entiure basis of the arguement now before us. Either your claimed fabric orientation can produce the same shadow shapes as seen in Betzner or they can't. It's as simple as that. The ball is in your court, just like it was many months ago.

So produce your experimetnal, empirical proof of concept photos to support your wild claims or are you afraid to show the results?

As it stands your current handfwaving is just a waste of bandwidth.

Get back to us when you have some solid, experimetnal and empirical data.

[Craig Lamson]

I cannot believe that anyone in this day and age is still promoting the "bunched up" theory of JFK's clothing. The man wore custom-tailed suits and shirts, which do not tend to "bunch up". Moreover, bunching up would not explain why the hole in the back on Boswell's diagram, Sibert's FBI report, or the death certification by Admiral Burkely would confirm the same location as the shirt and jacket, all of which converge at about 5 1/2 inches below the collar just to the right of the spinal column. Moreover, official reenactment photographs by the Warren Commission staff show the wound to the back at the same location. And one of them -- in which Arlene Specter is showing the path that the "magic bullet" would have had to take if that hypothesis were correct -- also shows the circular patch on the stand-in several inches below his hand, which means that a photograph that was intended to illustrate the "magic bullet" theory actually refutes it. In addition, we know that Gerald Ford, (R-MI), a junior member of the Warren Commission, had had the description of the back wound changed from "his uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of his neck" to make the "magic bullet" hypothesis more plausible. And David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has taken a patient with similar chest and neck dimensions to JFK and plotted the purported trajectory that the "magic bullet" would have had to have taken, if that hypothesis were true, which turns out to be anatomically impossible. So the theory has been thoroughly refuted, as I explained in a presentation at Cambridge University, which was published in a peer-reviewed international journal and is accessible via google under the title, "Reasoning about Assassinations". It is archived on my blog for 22 November 2009 at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com and on my public issues web site at http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reason...assinations.pdf. That horse is long gone.

Well Fetzer, if you can offer a solid reason, other than a large horizontal fold obscuring it, for the missing shaodw that MUST fall over JFK's jacket collar in Betzer, then show it to us.

It appears you are clearly NOT up to speed.

[Cliff Varnell]

I cannot believe that anyone in this day and age is still promoting the "bunched up" theory of JFK's clothing.

The funny thing is, Craig has shown that he doesn't know what it means

to "bunch" fabric.

He keeps coming up with examples of homemade stretched and

twisted fabric -- irrelevant to the discussion since JFK's jacket

wasn't stretched or twisted. Sad to see such cluelessness, but the

concept of "fabric ease" simply eludes Craig Lamson.

The man wore custom-tailed suits and shirts, which do not tend to "bunch up".

A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of available slack.

JFK preferred a suit style called Updated American Silhouette, which features

a "suppressed waist-line." This means that the shirt had to fit close to the torso

so it wouldn't ruin the lines of the jacket.

Craig, like all LNers, needs to pretend that this doesn't matter.

Moreover, bunching up would not explain why the hole in the back on Boswell's diagram, Sibert's FBI report, or the death certification by Admiral Burkely would confirm the same location as the shirt and jacket, all of which converge at about 5 1/2 inches below the collar just to the right of the spinal column.

There are two kinds of medical evidence in the JFK assassination: that which

was properly prepared, collected, and produced; and that which was

improperly prepared, collected, and produced.

The autopsy face sheet diagram, Burkley's death certificate, and the FBI autopsy report

were all properly prepared.

The autopsy photos, the final autopsy report, and the head- x-rays were improperly

produced and carry no evidentiary weight.

Moreover, official reenactment photographs by the Warren Commission staff show the wound to the back at the same location. And one of them -- in which Arlene Specter is showing the path that the "magic bullet" would have had to take if that hypothesis were correct -- also shows the circular patch on the stand-in several inches below his hand, which means that a photograph that was intended to illustrate the "magic bullet" theory actually refutes it.

That was J Edgar Hoover sticking his finger in Specter's eye. Hoover didn't

buy the Single Bullet Theory and resented Specter, so he set him up to look

ridiculous and succeeded famously.

In addition, we know that Gerald Ford, (R-MI), a junior member of the Warren Commission, had had the description of the back wound changed from "his uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of his neck" to make the "magic bullet" hypothesis more plausible.

And David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has taken a patient with similar chest and neck dimensions to JFK and plotted the purported trajectory that the "magic bullet" would have had to have taken, if that hypothesis were true, which turns out to be anatomically impossible. So the theory has been thoroughly refuted, as I explained in a presentation at Cambridge University, which was published in a peer-reviewed international journal and is accessible via google under the title, "Reasoning about Assassinations". It is archived on my blog for 22 November 2009 at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com and on my public issues web site at http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reason...assinations.pdf. That horse is long gone.

Lamson is the last dead-ender. All the other Nutters are too embarrassed

to "bunch."

[Cliff Varnell]

Varnell:

That you cannot admit the obvious is telling.

Lamson:

Really?

Varnell:

Yes, really. The fraction of an inch diagonal fold is visible, your massive

impossible-to-replicate 3+" horizontal fold is invisible, a creation of your

own imagination.

Sorry but laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow prove your wrong again. But hey, give it a whirl. Take a few proof of concept photos to prove your point. If you can't you have nothing but meaningless speculation. [/color]

And your admission that Towner, taken 10 seconds earlier, shows "not much" bunching.

What caused 3 inches of JFK's shirt and jacket to leap up his back in 10

seconds, Craig?

Where did almost 3 inches of non-existent shirt fabric come from, Craig?

Where's the 1.5" upside of your imaginary horizontal fold, which somehow

stayed hidden in the shadows even though it's 3 times larger than the shirt

collar!

This is more pure comedy gold, gentle reader.

Why? Two reasons. First that fold cannot produce the shadowline shown in Betzner, given the angle of incidence and JFK's body position.

It's the indentation of fabric that creates this shadow.

Gentle reader, glance over at your right shoulder-line and slowly

raise your right arm. The fabric along the top of your shoulder-line

will ease into a series of folds with trough-shadows that result from

the slight indentation of the fabric.

Nope, wrong again.[

Wrong about what?

Are you denying that the fabric in your shirt indents along the top of your

shoulder when you raise your arm?

Of course it does. Anyone can observe that you're wrong, Craig.

Against the laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow given the angle of incidence and the position of JFK's body. But hey, give it a whirl. Take a few proof of concept photos to prove your point. Male sure you create lighitng that has the same angle of incidence to JFK's body as in Betzner, then get back to us. If you can't you have nothing but meaningless speculation.

I have the illustration you prepared several years ago that contradicts what you

claiming now.

Remember?

The burden of proof is on you, Craig. You claim that more than 3 inches of

JFK's jacket (and 3 inches of his shirt) bunched up entirely above the base

of his neck in 10 seconds or less, all without pushing up at the jacket collar

at the base of his neck.

You've tried to replicate this, but you've failed. That's because it is

impossible and absurd on its face.

So instead of a meaningful replication you make examples that don't

involve fabric ease, at all, and then you pretend that it does.

That fabric indents when it eases is readily observable. That shadows

fill the troughs of those indentations is also readily observable.

That Craig Lamson doesn't understand clothing movement is an understatement.

But then again you can try , by creating some experimental, emprical evidence as proof of concept. Right now all you offer is ignorant handwaving. The argument has moved WAY beyond you Cliff and if you want to stay in the game you need to learn to keep up.

The burden of proof is on you, Craig.

You claim that 3 inches of shirt and jacket can bunch up above the

base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar.

You have attempted this and failed.

Your failure to back up your claims with demonstrations of actual

bunched fabric speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

The trouble is your decided ignorance in the properties of light and shadow. And your seeming inability to learn.

The trouble is you refuse to observe the vertical/diagonal fold in Betzner, which

is in the exact place you say it's horizontal.

There is no diagonal fold, only a diagonal shadow castb y the left end of the horizontal fold.

This horizontal fold clearly exists only in your imagination.

It's the only way to create this shadow shape as proven with experimental. empirical proof of concept photos. And its the only possible solution giventhe laws of nature and rhe properties of light and shadow.

If you want continue your failed attempt to prove otherwise you will need to move beyond your handwaving and speculation and provide actual proof, via experimental, emprical proof of concept photos. Get to it Cliff or concede, its all you have left.

The burden of proof is on you. Show us a shirt and jacket with 3 inches of fabric

bunched up entirely above that knobby vertebra at the base of your neck, without

pushing up on the jacket collar.

You have found it impossible replicate your event because it is impossible and

absurd on its face.

BTW, Cliff, you said pulling or pushing will providet he same end result, so whats your problem now, considering we are talking proof of concept. Is all of this simply beyond you?

No, pushing and pulling produce opposite results.

When you "pull directly up" you create vertical/diagonal folds.

When you "bunch directly up" you create horizontal/diagonal folds.

Why do the simplest dichotomies elude you?

I guess your own words elude YOU Cliff..

"there are four (4) ways you can put a left-end up diagonal fold ( \)

in clothing fabric.

That's a fold that goes like this: \

That's the fold you noticed in Betzner.

1) Pulling/stretching the fabric UP,

2) Pulling/stretching the fabric DOWN,

3) Bunching/easing the fabric UP and to the RIGHT.

4) Bunching/easing the fabric DOWN and to the LEFT."

Yes, Craig, up is the opposite of down, right is the opposite of

left, and stretching is the opposite of easing.

What is there you don't understand?

[Craig Lamson]

I cannot believe that anyone in this day and age is still promoting the "bunched up" theory of JFK's clothing.

The funny thing is, Craig has shown that he doesn't know what it means

to "bunch" fabric.

He keeps coming up with examples of homemade stretched and

twisted fabric -- irrelevant to the discussion since JFK's jacket

wasn't stretched or twisted. Sad to see such cluelessness, but the

concept of "fabric ease" simply eludes Craig Lamson.

No, I know what a FOLD is, and a 3+ inch one at that. What eludes you is simple light and shadow. Its really sorry to see a grwon man like you so clueless of such a simple thing.

The man wore custom-tailed suits and shirts, which do not tend to "bunch up".

A tucked-in custom-made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch of available slack.

JFK preferred a suit style called Updated American Silhouette, which features

a "suppressed waist-line." This means that the shirt had to fit close to the torso

so it wouldn't ruin the lines of the jacket.

Craig, like all LNers, needs to pretend that this doesn't matter.

Craig is smart enought to know that handwaving like the kind Varnell has just used is worthless.

Moreover, bunching up would not explain why the hole in the back on Boswell's diagram, Sibert's FBI report, or the death certification by Admiral Burkely would confirm the same location as the shirt and jacket, all of which converge at about 5 1/2 inches below the collar just to the right of the spinal column.

There are two kinds of medical evidence in the JFK assassination: that which

was properly prepared, collected, and produced; and that which was

improperly prepared, collected, and produced.

The autopsy face sheet diagram, Burkley's death certificate, and the FBI autopsy report

were all properly prepared.

The autopsy photos, the final autopsy report, and the head- x-rays were improperly

produced and carry no evidentiary weight.

Meaningless in the confines of Betzner.

Moreover, official reenactment photographs by the Warren Commission staff show the wound to the back at the same location. And one of them -- in which Arlene Specter is showing the path that the "magic bullet" would have had to take if that hypothesis were correct -- also shows the circular patch on the stand-in several inches below his hand, which means that a photograph that was intended to illustrate the "magic bullet" theory actually refutes it.

That was J Edgar Hoover sticking his finger in Specter's eye. Hoover didn't

buy the Single Bullet Theory and resented Specter, so he set him up to look

ridiculous and succeeded famously.

In addition, we know that Gerald Ford, (R-MI), a junior member of the Warren Commission, had had the description of the back wound changed from "his uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of his neck" to make the "magic bullet" hypothesis more plausible.

And David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has taken a patient with similar chest and neck dimensions to JFK and plotted the purported trajectory that the "magic bullet" would have had to have taken, if that hypothesis were true, which turns out to be anatomically impossible. So the theory has been thoroughly refuted, as I explained in a presentation at Cambridge University, which was published in a peer-reviewed international journal and is accessible via google under the title, "Reasoning about Assassinations". It is archived on my blog for 22 November 2009 at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com and on my public issues web site at http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reason...assinations.pdf. That horse is long gone.

Lamson is the last dead-ender. All the other Nutters are too embarrassed

to "bunch."

Varnell is the only man on earth it seems who can't understand the simple concept of light and shadow.

[Craig Lamson]

I cannot believe that anyone in this day and age is still promoting the "bunched up" theory of JFK's clothing. The man wore custom-tailed suits and shirts, which do not tend to "bunch up". Moreover, bunching up would not explain why the hole in the back on Boswell's diagram, Sibert's FBI report, or the death certification by Admiral Burkely would confirm the same location as the shirt and jacket, all of which converge at about 5 1/2 inches below the collar just to the right of the spinal column. Moreover, official reenactment photographs by the Warren Commission staff show the wound to the back at the same location. And one of them -- in which Arlene Specter is showing the path that the "magic bullet" would have had to take if that hypothesis were correct -- also shows the circular patch on the stand-in several inches below his hand, which means that a photograph that was intended to illustrate the "magic bullet" theory actually refutes it. In addition, we know that Gerald Ford, (R-MI), a junior member of the Warren Commission, had had the description of the back wound changed from "his uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of his neck" to make the "magic bullet" hypothesis more plausible. And David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has taken a patient with similar chest and neck dimensions to JFK and plotted the purported trajectory that the "magic bullet" would have had to have taken, if that hypothesis were true, which turns out to be anatomically impossible. So the theory has been thoroughly refuted, as I explained in a presentation at Cambridge University, which was published in a peer-reviewed international journal and is accessible via google under the title, "Reasoning about Assassinations". It is archived on my blog for 22 November 2009 at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com and on my public issues web site at http://www.assassinationscience.com/Reason...assinations.pdf. That horse is long gone.

Cliff wants the world top believe his left side up/right side down fabric bunch can produce the shadowline as seen in Betzner.

So you are denying that the shadow in Betzner is left-side up?

Not at all, I've no problem with the diagonal portion of the shadow, in fact its the expected result being cast from the left edge of the large HORIZONTAL fold on JFK's back. The fact of the matter is that is the only way TO PRODUCE the diagonal shadow.

Factually incorrect. When fabric eases into a trough along a diagonal

a diagonal shadow forms. The fabric is indented in Betzner, not bulged.

If there were a massive bulge in Betzner, the top of the fold -- 3 times larger than

the visible shirt collar! -- would have caught sunshine. There is no such artifact

in the photo, so you need to make it up.

Perhaps it's you who should consult those pre-schoolers, given yor utter failure to understand simple properties of light and shadow.

Indented fabric creates shadows.

Indentation is the opposite of bulge, another simple dichotomy that eludes you.

Lets not forget this shadow line obscures the jacket collar.

Absurd. The jacket collar can't be distinguished from the back of the jacket.

Not absurd at all. IF the fold did not obscure the jacket collar, you would see the shadow from JFK's neck pass over the jacket collar. The laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow demand it. I see we are back to where we were months ago, your ignorance of the subject matter shining through.

The shadow passes over the shirt collar. The jacket is below that. The jacket collar

cannot be distinguished from the jacket.

Cliff whats the world to believe that fabric arraingement like this can obscure the jacket collar.

Nothing in this photo replicates JFK's jacket, which was not twisted or

stretched, as you have done here.

You argue "Bunch Theory" but you show no signs of understanding

what "bunched fabric" entails!

You need to wrap your mind around these simple dichotomies, Craig:

Indentation is the opposite of bulge. Concave vs. Convex.

Vertical is the opposite of horizontal. Consult some children on that one.

There is a 3+inch gold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner, that is unimpeachable. But you can try if you like.

[Craig Lamson]

MY REPLY IN PURPLE

Varnell:

That you cannot admit the obvious is telling.

Lamson:

Really?

Varnell:

Yes, really. The fraction of an inch diagonal fold is visible, your massive

impossible-to-replicate 3+" horizontal fold is invisible, a creation of your

own imagination.

Impossible? Yes that would be your "fraction of an inch diagonal fold" since a fold as you suggest simply cannot create the shadows you say it can.

Proof of concept for a 3+ inch fold...Been there done that, and you still can't refute it.

Sorry but laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow prove your wrong again. But hey, give it a whirl. Take a few proof of concept photos to prove your point. If you can't you have nothing but meaningless speculation. [/color]

And your admission that Towner, taken 10 seconds earlier, shows "not much" bunching.

Meaningless, we are talking about BETZNER in case you forget.

What caused 3 inches of JFK's shirt and jacket to leap up his back in 10

seconds, Craig?

Don't know and don't care. You can't KNOW either.

Where did almost 3 inches of non-existent shirt fabric come from, Craig?

Non-existant? Please!

Where's the 1.5" upside of your imaginary horizontal fold, which somehow

stayed hidden in the shadows even though it's 3 times larger than the shirt

collar!

It IS the shadow. Simple things really escape you.

This is more pure comedy gold, gentle reader.

Yes it is comedy gold, Varnell showing the world his inability to understand simple light and shadow.

Why? Two reasons. First that fold cannot produce the shadowline shown in Betzner, given the angle of incidence and JFK's body position.

It's the indentation of fabric that creates this shadow.

Gentle reader, glance over at your right shoulder-line and slowly

raise your right arm. The fabric along the top of your shoulder-line

will ease into a series of folds with trough-shadows that result from

the slight indentation of the fabric.

Nope, wrong again.

Wrong about what?

Are you denying that the fabric in your shirt indents along the top of your

shoulder when you raise your arm?

Of course it does. Anyone can observe that you're wrong, Craig.

Indents yes, that it always creates shadows no, and creates the shadows you claim in Betzner...impossible. This really is beyond your ability. Maybe you should stick to "ice bullets"

Against the laws of nature and the properties of light and shadow given the angle of incidence and the position of JFK's body. But hey, give it a whirl.

Take a few proof of concept photos to prove your point. Male sure you create lighitng that has the same angle of incidence to JFK's body as in Betzner, then get back to us. If you can't you have nothing but meaningless speculation.

I have the illustration you prepared several years ago that contradicts what you

claiming now.

Remember?

Yes I do. I was incorrect, admitted my error and moved on when better evidence showed why I was wrong. Is that a problem? You should try it sometime.

The burden of proof is on you, Craig. You claim that more than 3 inches of

JFK's jacket (and 3 inches of his shirt) bunched up entirely above the base

of his neck in 10 seconds or less, all without pushing up at the jacket collar

at the base of his neck.

No, I just need to show what fabric shape is required to create the shadow area on JFK's back and how large it must be to obscure the jacket collar. I've done just that and you can't refute it. That’s the wonder of the argument and why it has thrashed your silly claims.

You've tried to replicate this, but you've failed. That's because it is

impossible and absurd on its face.

No need to "replicate”, just to show what is required to create the shadow shape and obscure the jacket collar. Thats the type of fold I've identified via experimental, empirical evidence and it is unimpeachable, as you well know.

So instead of a meaningful replication you make examples that don't

involve fabric ease, at all, and then you pretend that it does.

You make silly claims about how fabric works yet you offer not a single cite to back it up, nor empirical examples that prove your claims. Silly me I thought were dealing in facts and not Varnell handwaving. I was mistaken.

In any case my proof of concept experiments were spot on and best of all prove in an unimpeachable manner what is required to produce the image of JFK's back we see in Betzner. And wha’ts even better is seeing you bumble along trying in vain to refute it.

That fabric indents when it eases is readily observable. That shadows

fill the troughs of those indentations is also readily observable.

Really? Shadows ALWAYS fill the troughs? You want to rethink that one or do you really want the world to know just how ignorant you are about simple things like light and shadow. Might I suggest a simple proof of concept experiment, you just might actually learn something for a change.

That Craig Lamson doesn't understand clothing movement is an understatement.

No understanding needed, tha’ts just another Varnell smokescreen. What must be understood is how to create a shadow shape within a given lighting angle of incidence. Just need to find the fabric shape, no need to wonder how it got there or why. Again the real cool thing about the argument and why it frustrates you so. It totally eliminates all of your previous arguments. That must really suck.

But then again you can try , by creating some experimental, emprical evidence as proof of concept. Right now all you offer is ignorant handwaving. The argument has moved WAY beyond you Cliff and if you want to stay in the game you need to learn to keep up.

The burden of proof is on you, Craig.

And I've met it. You simply can't refute it, because you don't understand where the argument is now nor do you understand the principles of light and shadow that underpin the current argument. Remember all of your old arguments have been tossed into the trashbin of ignorance.

You claim that 3 inches of shirt and jacket can bunch up above the

base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar.

I don't care if the jacket collar gets pushed up or not. What matters is that there is NO SHADOW from JFK's neck seen passing over the jacket collar and then down over the jacket back. It must be there if what you posit is correct. It’s not, you are incorrect and that is unimpeachable.

That there is a large horizontal fabric fold that obscures the jacket collar is also unimpeachable. It is also unimpeachable that to obscure the jacket collar that fold must consume 3+ inches of fabric.

You have attempted this and failed.

No to both counts. My unimpeachable argument does not need it. Tha’ts from an old Varnell argument that has been thrown away.

Your failure to back up your claims with demonstrations of actual

bunched fabric speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of your position.

Why should I. You won't. But its just silly to think is should. I don't I've proved what is needed to produce what we see in Betzner, as it pertains to the lack of shadow on the jacket collar and how to create the shadow shape seen. End of story. If you want to play around with a silly recreation be my guest, I don't need one. This whole "bunched" thing is just more Varnell BS. Who cares how the fabric got where it did it Betzner...it got there and only one arrangement that will produce what is shown in Betzner

The trouble is your decided ignorance in the properties of light and shadow. And your seeming inability to learn.

The trouble is you refuse to observe the vertical/diagonal fold in Betzner, which

is in the exact place you say it's horizontal.

There is no diagonal fold, just a diagonal SHADOW cast by the LEFT EDGE of the horizontal fold. Get with the program Varnell. You diagonal fold simply cannot produce the shadows you say it can. Impossible given the angle of incidence and JFK's body position. You are really making a fool of yourself now. Thank you.

There is no diagonal fold, only a diagonal shadow castb y the left end of the horizontal fold.

This horizontal fold clearly exists only in your imagination.

No what is imagined is YOUR diagonal fold.

It's the only way to create this shadow shape as proven with experimental. empirical proof of concept photos. And its the only possible solution giventhe laws of nature and rhe properties of light and shadow.

If you want continue your failed attempt to prove otherwise you will need to move beyond your handwaving and speculation and provide actual proof, via experimental, emprical proof of concept photos. Get to it Cliff or concede, its all you have left.

The burden of proof is on you. Show us a shirt and jacket with 3 inches of fabric

bunched up entirely above that knobby vertebra at the base of your neck, without

pushing up on the jacket collar.

Again, no need, the argument has moved PAST you sillyness.

You have found it impossible replicate your event because it is impossible and

absurd on its face.

Again no.

BTW, Cliff, you said pulling or pushing will provide he same end result, so whats your problem now, considering we are talking proof of concept. Is all of this simply beyond you?

No, pushing and pulling produce opposite results.

When you "pull directly up" you create vertical/diagonal folds.

When you "bunch directly up" you create horizontal/diagonal folds.

Why do the simplest dichotomies elude you?

Funny, in my tests, push and pulling produce the very same fold.

I guess your own words elude YOU Cliff..

"there are four (4) ways you can put a left-end up diagonal fold ( \)

in clothing fabric.

That's a fold that goes like this: \

That's the fold you noticed in Betzner.

1) Pulling/stretching the fabric UP,

2) Pulling/stretching the fabric DOWN,

3) Bunching/easing the fabric UP and to the RIGHT.

4) Bunching/easing the fabric DOWN and to the LEFT."

Yes, Craig, up is the opposite of down, right is the opposite of

left, and stretching is the opposite of easing.

What is there you don't understand?

Oh I understand completely, pushing a piece of fabric up produces the same fold as pulling the fabric up. Please try again next time.

The games over for you Varnell. The argument has moved past your old and very tired chandwaving. I know you don’t know how to deal with this new reality, and that just too bad. Get used to it..you lost.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Peter McGuire]

In the Zapruder Film, you can clearly see that the fatal shot came from the front.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh10TzkcgeI

This film is about Nostradamus predicting the Kennedy assassination with the assassin being on the grassy knoll. A "man" is seen in the tree holding a rifle.

Years later, it was said that this was not a man, but leaves in the tree and this image was caused by a momentary change in Zapruder's panning rate.