Voodoo History - Conspiracy Theories

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson back on the attack!

Are you referring to the fold that you didn't notice until after two years of intense analysis?

Why yes I DID find new evidence and I adjusted my positon. Thats how it works, at least for the intellectually honest.

It took you two years to "discover new evidence" but you disparage as

"intellectually dishonest" all who do not see it instantly. How does that work?

After 2 years of intense expert analysis you got Betzner wrong -- why should

anyone have any confidence you got it right this time?

It just seems that you're trying to leverage your position as an "expert"

to blow smoke about a subject you obviously know little about.

And I do find it very amusing that after, wha tis it...10 yeats YOU still can't understand the fold! Stones and glass houses and all of that.

And what is there to understand about a "fold" you couldn't detect for two years?

Your original claims were blown out of the water so you invented an

impossible scenario you can't replicate or explain.

The fold where both the sunny side and the shadow side are in shadow?

Thats really a funny one Varnell. I can't wait for your to explain this one!

You explain it. On Jan 9 2010 we had the following exchange:

Me:

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!

You:

It IS the shadow. Simple things really escape you.

So the topside/sunny side of this massive bulge -- which was three

times larger than the visible shirt collar! -- IS the shadow. Please explain

how 1.5" inches of sunshine catching fabric IS the shadow...

According to Craig the red box below contains 3+ inches of JFK's

shirt and 3+ inches of JFK's jacket elevated entirely above the

SBT inshoot at the back of the neck!

Amazing!

And if this were a matter of observing "simple things" why did it take

you two years of intense study of make this "new discovery"?

Could it be you are only trying to save face after your nutter world view was

disabused?

Funny how such obvious artifacts escaped the keen eye of Craig Lamson

for two years.

How long has this fold escaped your eye? 10 years?

You studied the photo for two years and this rationalization didn't

occur to you.

Why did it take two years if it's so obvious?

Why is there clearly a vertical-diagonal fold where you claim a horizontal

fold?

Then there's the Towner photo you put into evidence yourself, Craig.

You admitted this photo shows "not much" in the way of fabric bunch.

How can you observe "not much bunch" in the Towner photo taken 10 seconds

before Betzner -- and then claim 3+ inches of JFK's shirt and jacket

leaped up his back on their own power in 10 seconds?

You can't replicate your fantasies; you can't explain how 6 inches of shirt and

jacket fabric defied Newton's First Law and the Law of Gravity.

You can't tell the difference between an indentation and a bulge, a vertical

fold and a horizontal fold, and stretching fabric as opposed to bunching fabric.

You claim JFK's tucked in custom-made shirt had 3+ inches of slack

because you pride yourself on being ignorant of clothing fit.

Have I left anything out?

There is a fold, large enough to obscures the jacket collar in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. How it got there is irrelevent. It's there and your simply can't refute it.

Get back to us when YOU adjust your failed position to reflect the new..and unimpeachable evidence.

The new rationalizations carry no more weight than Craig's demolished original

claims.

A massive impossible-to-replicate-or-explain fold is there because Craig Lamson says so.

Evidence and common sense need not apply in his universe.

[Cliff Varnell]

Maybe Mike Tribe and Andy Walker would like to chime in.

Keep in mind the amount of exposed shirt collar at the back of JFK's head -- 1/2".

The contents of the red box --according to Craig Lamson -- involves

3+ inches of JFK's jacket and 3+" of his shirt elevated entirely above

the SBT inshoot at the base of his neck.

And this occurred without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base

of the neck!

Neat trick, I know.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Maybe Mike Tribe and Andy Walker would like to chime in.

Gentlemen, I'm serious.

Wrap your minds around the following scenario: JFK's tailored jacket and

tucked-in custom-made dress shirt leaped up his back 3+" each in 10 seconds,

elevating entirely above the SBT in-shoot at the base of JFK's neck without

pushing up on the jacket collar resting at the base of JFK's neck.

Wrap your minds around the possibility of that scenario and get back to us, okay?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson back on the attack!

Are you referring to the fold that you didn't notice until after two years of intense analysis?

Why yes I DID find new evidence and I adjusted my positon. Thats how it works, at least for the intellectually honest.

It took you two years to "discover new evidence" but you disparage as

"intellectually dishonest" all who do not see it instantly. How does that work?

You had 10 years and you still get it wrong. Thats how it works.

After 2 years of intense expert analysis you got Betzner wrong -- why should

anyone have any confidence you got it right this time?

It just seems that you're trying to leverage your position as an "expert"

to blow smoke about a subject you obviously know little about.

I know the subject of light and shadow quite well. Thats how I was able to make the discovery. A discovery I might add you still can't refute.

A discovery I might add that changes the entire dynamic of the "bunch" argument. It's no longer about any other images besides Croft and Betzner. It is no longer about how fabric does or does not move, or how JFK MIGHT have moved. It's no longer about the state of his clothing. Its no longer about Cliff Varnell and his endless handwaving.

None of that matters any longer. There is a fold of fabric in Betzner large enought to obscure the jacket collar. That is now unimpeachable.

YOU don't matter any more Cliff. Your pet theory of 10 years has been blown away by a single, simple shadow. It must really SUCK to be you now.

And I do find it very amusing that after, wha tis it...10 yeats YOU still can't understand the fold! Stones and glass houses and all of that.

And what is there to understand about a "fold" you couldn't detect for two years?

Your original claims were blown out of the water so you invented an

impossible scenario you can't replicate or explain.

Iv'e produced vaild proof of concept photography and explained it quite well. It's not my problem its simply beyond your limited ntellectual ability.

The fold where both the sunny side and the shadow side are in shadow?

Thats really a funny one Varnell. I can't wait for your to explain this one!

You explain it. On Jan 9 2010 we had the following exchange:

Me:

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!

You:

It IS the shadow. Simple things really escape you.

So the topside/sunny side of this massive bulge -- which was three

times larger than the visible shirt collar! -- IS the shadow. Please explain

how 1.5" inches of sunshine catching fabric IS the shadow...

Yep, it IS the shadow, what part of that puzzles you?

According to Craig the red box below contains 3+ inches of JFK's

shirt and 3+ inches of JFK's jacket elevated entirely above the

SBT inshoot at the back of the neck!

According to Craig? Not hardly. Thats just Yarnell trying and failing to pull an ace from his sleeve. Please try again.

Amazing!

And if this were a matter of observing "simple things" why did it take

you two years of intense study of make this "new discovery"?

It just hit me one day as I observed the Croift image, and I saw it wes possible to PROVE in an unimpeachable fashion that the fold in Betzer DID exist. It IS a simple thing...the shadow from JFK's neck. Thats how discovery works. I'm not suprised actual fact puzzles you.

Could it be you are only trying to save face after your nutter world view was

disabused?

No, I just dicovered a new method to put to you and your silly claims down. Its a doosey. You can't even begin to refute it.

Funny how such obvious artifacts escaped the keen eye of Craig Lamson

for two years.

Wonderful how discovery works eh? And better yet that is so airtight you can't refute it.

How long has this fold escaped your eye? 10 years?

You studied the photo for two years and this rationalization didn't

occur to you.

Why did it take two years if it's so obvious?

I simply looked right past it.

Why is there clearly a vertical-diagonal fold where you claim a horizontal

fold?

There is only a horizontal fold.

Then there's the Towner photo you put into evidence yourself, Craig.

You admitted this photo shows "not much" in the way of fabric bunch.

How can you observe "not much bunch" in the Towner photo taken 10 seconds

before Betzner -- and then claim 3+ inches of JFK's shirt and jacket

leaped up his back on their own power in 10 seconds?

Towner is no longer relevent.

You can't replicate your fantasies; you can't explain how 6 inches of shirt and

jacket fabric defied Newton's First Law and the Law of Gravity.

I don't do "replications". Proof of concept photogrpahy fully backs the fact that there is a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar. That is unimpeachable.

You can't tell the difference between an indentation and a bulge, a vertical

fold and a horizontal fold, and stretching fabric as opposed to bunching fabric.

I'm full aware of the properties of an indentation and a fold, and how they will react to the angle of incidence of the sun and JFK's body position as presented in Betzner. Thats what provides the unimpeachable proof that trashes your very silly argument. You on the other hand have shown time and time again you don't posess the simple skillset to understand how light interacts with solid objects.

You claim JFK's tucked in custom-made shirt had 3+ inches of slack

because you pride yourself on being ignorant of clothing fit.

Please! You searching for yet another ace? I don't have a clue as to the actual state of JFK's shirt as it relates to the slack. Neither do you.

Have I left anything out?

Yes, you admission your argument has been shown false.

There is a fold, large enough to obscures the jacket collar in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. How it got there is irrelevent. It's there and your simply can't refute it.

Get back to us when YOU adjust your failed position to reflect the new..and unimpeachable evidence.

The new rationalizations carry no more weight than Craig's demolished original

claims.

The results are unimpeachable. Thats why you can't IMPEACH IT!

A massive impossible-to-replicate-or-explain fold is there because Craig Lamson says so.

No, not becase I SAY so. Proven in an unimpeachable manner by hard, experimental, empirical evidence. I don"t ask anyone to believe me. I provide the tools for them to find the answer for themself.

You are the one you uses handwaving and "Varnell says" instead of hard, expermental and empirical evidence. Thats why your silly argument is no longer worth the words you use to write it.

Evidence and common sense need not apply in his universe.

No, it has now been proven in an unimpeachable manner that common sense and evidence do not apply in the VARNELL UNIVERSE.

[Craig Lamson]

Maybe Mike Tribe and Andy Walker would like to chime in.

Gentlemen, I'm serious.

Wrap your minds around the following scenario: JFK's tailored jacket and

tucked-in custom-made dress shirt leaped up his back 3+" each in 10 seconds,

elevating entirely above the SBT in-shoot at the base of JFK's neck without

pushing up on the jacket collar resting at the base of JFK's neck.

Wrap your minds around the possibility of that scenario and get back to us, okay?

You just can't impeach the fact that there is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. The fold is there and that is u8nimpeachable. All other Varnell arguments have been tossed into the dustbin of ignorance.

[Greg Burnham]

Robert Charles,

Good God 'tis delightful to "read you" again! It's been way too long, I didn't know where you'd gone off to after Harvey & Lee. I look forward to future correspondence, my friend--

GO_SECURE

monk

Dear Lord, what is vexing Andy Walker so?

We are accustomed to his imperious pronouncements from on high, for that is the proclivity of school marms in general. And Andy usually dispenses them with an equal measure of wit and pith. But this recent volley of insults contains neither. It is grousing dressed up as argument and falls far short of what we expect of learned men. “... a jew who supports Tony Blair?” Is that what passes for reasoned argument these days, aspersions of bigotry not in evidence here? Being Tony Blair’s useful idiot is hardly a recommendation, but his religion is irrelevant except, perhaps, to those who raise it.

Andy feels he is free to proclaim the greatness of Aaronovitch’s most recent literary output, yet seems to take issue with the right of those who have a different opinion. Those who seek to determine the true causes of historical events shrouded in mystery - there is no shortage of such phenomena - are considered “losers” by this author, yet are nonetheless expected to shell out for his bon mots.

It is not as if Aaronovitch comes without preamble; his sub-literate scribbling on behalf of war-mongers is well known to those who read, and unforgivable to those who think. But never mind that, for even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn. It doesn’t, however, incline thinking people to pick up the latest tome by a blind pig, because the hit-to-miss ratio is simply so unfavorable as to dissuade us from doing so. Reading Aaronovitch on conspiracy is akin to reading a Sarah Palin book on climate change: a foregone conclusion.

As John Simkin cited from the Robin Ramsey quote in Sparky Satori’s article - for which I provided a link - Aaronovitch hasn’t bothered himself with doing the homework necessary to debunk the conspiracies he derides. It is an intellectual charlatan who cherrypicks only what he feels he can neutralize, while gingerly avoiding that for which he has no countervailing argument. It is an impotent fraud who begins by accusing others of having a mental imbalance, then seeks examples to make the case. That is Aaronovitch in a nutshell.

And, based on the blanket condemnation uttered against us all by Andy Walker - “we don't appear to have any of them here.... never have had in my opinion” - Aaronovitch is not alone in this smugly condescending self-satisfaction.

Since you are no longer a co-owner of this forum, and since you find the company here so odious, can I suggest, dear boy, that you run along now and leave us to our own devices, that we might no longer cause you such offense? Or are you one of those little under-achieving snot-nosed public school boys who parade their presumed superiority in order to feel better about their own wretched little lives?

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig, you have stipulated to two facts:

1) Your analysis of Betzner was WRONG for two years.

2) You concede that there was "not much bunch" in the Towner photo taken

10 seconds before Betzner.

Your credibility on this issue is zero.

[Cliff Varnell]

You just can't impeach the fact that there is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. The fold is there and that is u8nimpeachable. All other Varnell arguments have been tossed into the dustbin of ignorance.

This the same rhetoric Craig used during the two years he ADMITS he

was dead wrong.

Now let's see if Mike Tribe or Andy Walker can wrap their academic minds

around the notion that 6+ inches of combined shirt and jacket fabric could

magically leap up JFK's back in defiance of the law of gravity, above the bottom

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

Since Andy and Mike love to shackle conspiracists with the absurdities of the

fringe, let them own Lamson's Folly as their defense of the Single Bullet Theory.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, you have stipulated to two facts:

1) Your analysis of Betzner was WRONG for two years.

2) You concede that there was "not much bunch" in the Towner photo taken

10 seconds before Betzner.

Your credibility on this issue is zero.

Think what you want Cliff, the unimpeachable fact remains. There is a large fold of fabric in Betzner that obscures the jacket collar. That's not opinion nor does it rest on your perception of my credibility.

It's unimpeachable fact. Deal with it. You lost.

[Cliff Varnell]

"Voodoo Histories'' lucidly reveals the weaknesses of several popular conspiracy theories, including the JFK-RFK-MLK assassination trifecta, the origin of the "Da Vinci Code,''and Marilyn Monroe's death. The book endeavors to explain why "the counterintuitive, the unlikely, and the implausible . . . have a better purchase on our imagination and beliefs than the real."

And yet David Aaronovitch, in order to defend the Single Bullet Theory, must

embrace absurdities far greater than the Da Vinci Code.

The claim that JFK's clothing hiked 3+ inches up his back in 10 seconds

on its own power must have purchase on Aaronovitch's imagination,

or he must admit he is wrong about the JFK conspiracy.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

You just can't impeach the fact that there is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. The fold is there and that is unimpeachable. All other Varnell arguments have been tossed into the dustbin of ignorance.

This the same rhetoric Craig used during the two years he ADMITS he

was dead wrong.

Now let's see if Mike Tribe or Andy Walker can wrap their academic minds

around the notion that 6+ inches of combined shirt and jacket fabric could

magically leap up JFK's back in defiance of the law of gravity, above the bottom

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

Since Andy and Mike love to shackle conspiracists with the absurdities of the

fringe, let them own Lamson's Folly as their defense of the Single Bullet Theory.

I called the work unimpeachable for TWO years? Please support that with fact Varnell.

In any case I was not dead wrong. I've always said there was a large fold in Betzner. The real value of the new work was recognizing the details that would provide the unimpeachable proof of the existance of the fold. Dead wrong? Na, thats just Varnell trying to play more card tricks with the truth.

In any case let everyone wrap their heads around the unimpeachable fact, now proven, that there was a fold of fabric large enouth in Betzner, to obscure the jacket collar. Let everyone also wrap their minds around the fact that for 10 years Varnell has been totally wrong about the existance of this fold and during those ten years has chastised those who fail to support his INCORRECT claim as intellectually dishonest.

Varnell cannot impeach the unimpeachable fact that a large fold obscures the jacket collar in Betzner. He also cannot admit his error of ten years when faced with this unimpeachable evidence. Those with intellectual honesty admit their errors and modify their positions when new facts are found. That's credibility.

Don't expect to see any intellectual honesty nor credibility from Varnell. He has too much invested to ever admit he made an error.

It really is fun watching Varnell trying to defend the indefencible. His years of work, his website and his reputation now reside in the dustbin of history. All foiled by a single shadow cast by JFK's neck. What a wonderful day!

Edited March 8, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

You just can't impeach the fact that there is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. The fold is there and that is unimpeachable. All other Varnell arguments have been tossed into the dustbin of ignorance.

This the same rhetoric Craig used during the two years he ADMITS he

was dead wrong.

Now let's see if Mike Tribe or Andy Walker can wrap their academic minds

around the notion that 6+ inches of combined shirt and jacket fabric could

magically leap up JFK's back in defiance of the law of gravity, above the bottom

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

Since Andy and Mike love to shackle conspiracists with the absurdities of the

fringe, let them own Lamson's Folly as their defense of the Single Bullet Theory.

I called the work unimpeachable for TWO years? Please support that with fact Varnell.

You always state your conclusions as certainties, Craig, it's your MO.

You've been making definitive statements about "bunch" since 2007. Your rationales

and excuses change, but your rhetoric doesn't.

From the "Another thread for the bunch debate" thread, where you posted this graphic

and dubbed your imaginary right-side fabric fold as "the Betzner Bunch":

Here's what you wrote on Feb 21, 2008:

You problem is that the "Bentzer Bunch" is totally consistant WITH ALL of the Dealy Plaza images

showing the bunch both before and after the back shot. Do I need to post all of the images?

I called your bluff. ALL the Dealey Plaza images were posted (see my website).

And then you said they didn't count!

You still claim the earlier photos don't count!

And what's truly high comedy about this, Craig, is that you admitted to Pat Speer that

your New & Improved Betzner Bunch is...wait for it... "mostly on the left side".

Andy Walker and Mike Tribe will need to do a little research on the clothing

evidence to find out that the bullet hole in JFK's jacket -- also known as

hard evidence -- is 1.75" right of midline.

Craig admits that his earlier analysis was wrong and there was no significant

elevation of JFK's jacket on the right side where the bullet hole is.

In other words, Walker/Tribe/Aaronovitch are counting on Craig Lamson to

defend a theory he demolishes by his own hand.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

You just can't impeach the fact that there is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. The fold is there and that is unimpeachable. All other Varnell arguments have been tossed into the dustbin of ignorance.

This the same rhetoric Craig used during the two years he ADMITS he

was dead wrong.

Now let's see if Mike Tribe or Andy Walker can wrap their academic minds

around the notion that 6+ inches of combined shirt and jacket fabric could

magically leap up JFK's back in defiance of the law of gravity, above the bottom

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

Since Andy and Mike love to shackle conspiracists with the absurdities of the

fringe, let them own Lamson's Folly as their defense of the Single Bullet Theory.

I called the work unimpeachable for TWO years? Please support that with fact Varnell.

You always state your conclusions as certainties, Craig, it's your MO.

And I was correct. There is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. You can't refute this fact.

You've been making definitive statements about "bunch" since 2007. Your rationales

and excuses change, but your rhetoric doesn't.

And I'm still correct. And you are not. And you still can't refute the evidence.

From the "Another thread for the bunch debate" thread, where you posted this graphic

and dubbed your imaginary right-side fabric fold as "the Betzner Bunch":

Sorry but there is no "imaginary" fold. It is there and proven. It's unimpeachable. Of course that is why you are attempting and failing with your standard ploy of verbal gymnastics. You simply can't admit your gross error.

Here's what you wrote on Feb 21, 2008:

You problem is that the "Bentzer Bunch" is totally consistant WITH ALL of the Dealy Plaza images

showing the bunch both before and after the back shot. Do I need to post all of the images?

I called your bluff. ALL the Dealey Plaza images were posted (see my website).

And then you said they didn't count!

You still claim the earlier photos don't count!

Yep, They no longer count. The argument has simply moved past your tired, and conclusion ridden claims of what your THINK the jacker was doing. Thats the past Varnell and its why you have your shorts in a bunch. YOUR OLD ARGUMENT NO LONGER MATTERS.

And what's truly high comedy about this, Craig, is that you admitted to Pat Speer that

your New & Improved Betzner Bunch is...wait for it... "mostly on the left side".

Given you like to misquote, please provide the link and the entire quote.

Andy Walker and Mike Tribe will need to do a little research on the clothing

evidence to find out that the bullet hole in JFK's jacket -- also known as

hard evidence -- is 1.75" right of midline.

Since Craig admits that his earlier analysis was wrong, there was no significant

elevation of JFK's jacket on the right side where the bullet hole is.

Once again Varnell tries to rhetorically deal from the bottom of the deck in a failed attempt to salvage his failed argument. He simply makes things up from thin air. He does not tell the truth. He can't refute the unimpeachable fact there was a fold large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. He is simply grasping at straws.

In other words, Waler/Tribe/Aaronovitch are counting on Craig Lamson to

defend a theory he demolishes by his own hand.

Oh Clilff, your lack of intellecftual honesty is simply astounding. My work is available for all to see, devoid of your silly attempts at spin and untruth. It still stands unimpeached. There is no need to extend this discussion for another 20 pages.

Cliff's work on the other hand has been destroyed. He does not have the intellectual honesty to admit his error. Nor can he impeach the fact that there is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. All he has left is rhetorical masterbation. I would suggest he stop but its already too late. He has gone blind.

[Cliff Varnell]

Me:

You always state your conclusions as certainties, Craig, it's your MO.

Craig:

And I was correct.

First you admit you were wrong about the right-side fantasy bunch,

now you are claiming you were correct again!

Which is it, Craig? What does it take for you to make up your mind?

First you claimed that ALL the Dealey Plaza photos had the same right side

"Betzner bunch," then when presented with the actual evidence you furiously

back-pedaled while blowing the same old smoke.

You have not only mis-analyzed Betzner -- by your own admission -- you've

mis-analyzed every photo taken in Dealey Plaza.

There is a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner. You can't refute this fact.

But you're claiming this fold is "TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back," (YOUR

emphasis) a claim you will soon need to disavow, as usual.

The bullet holes in the clothing are right of mid-line.

Your analysis demolishes the Single Bullet Theory.

Thank you for your contribution to the case, Craig.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Me:

And what's truly high comedy about this, Craig, is that you admitted to Pat Speer that

your New & Improved Betzner Bunch is...wait for it... "mostly on the left side".

Craig:

Given you like to misquote, please provide the link and the entire quote.

You are correct, Craig. I mis-quoted you and I apologize. My paraphrase

proved accurate, however.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=171623

From the "Question for Z-film Experts" thread, post #10, emphasis Craig's:

... There is a large fold of fabric TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back...

...The large portion of the fold as seen in Croft is to the LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back as proven by the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence.

First you claim JFK's "Betzner Bunch" was on the right shoulder, and that ALL the Dealey

Plaza photos showed the same right shoulder bunch.

But you dis-avowed both those conclusions, and now place the fold TO THE LEFT of midline.

But you just make things up as you go along, Craig, don't you?

Andy, are you following this?

Edited March 9, 2010 by Cliff Varnell