Voodoo History - Conspiracy Theories

[Craig Lamson]

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.

No, I got it all correct all along Cliff. What part of this si so hard for yoo to understand? And in the end I found the unimpeachable proof that the fold was there in Betzner...the fold I might add you MISSED for 10 years.

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.

Please show the quote where I have made this claim about Betzner.

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

Your analysis demolishes the Single Bullet Theory.

I don't give a hoot about the "Single Bullet Theory" My analysis does however destroy the Varnell Theory.

Poor Cliff, honesty is really not your strength. I do understand your frustration. Ten Years, tons of internet posts claiming you are right..blown away by a simple shadow that proves in an unimpeachable fashion there was a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar in Betzner.

Thank you for your contribution to the case, Craig.

You are very welcome. It was my distinct pleasure to cut you and your silly, "the jacket fell" theory to ribbons.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Thanks for posting the quote, but again telling the TRUTH seems impossible for you. Where in that quote do you see me taking about BETZNER?

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.

Yes I did.

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

NO. I do neither.

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

No, Not at all. And we are still left with the unimpeachalbe fact there is a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar.

The jacket has not dropped as you have wrongly claimed for TEN YEARS.

Andy, are you following this?

Yes Andy are you following the fact that Varnell has been wrong for the last ten years?

[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.

No, I got it all correct all along Cliff.

Then why have you admitted you were incorrect with your initial Betzner Bunch

analysis?

You put the entire Betzner Bunch on JFK's right shoulder initially, now you're

claiming the "larger portion" of the fold was TO THE LEFT of JFK's centerline.

And all the Dealey Plaza photos show a massive fold on both JFK's right and left

shoulder? You admit that Towner shows "not much bunch," so how could you get

it "all correct all along"?

It would appear there is one constant to Craig Lamson's analyses: no matter

how much Craig contradicts himself, he is always correct.

That is, Craig is always correct until he experiences a rare moment of lucidity

and admits he was wrong.

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.

Please show the quote where I have made this claim about Betzner.

Gentle reader, Craig Lamson presents a fascinating study of "intellectual hysteria."

A couple of years ago Craig put both the Towner photo and the Croft photo into evidence

of his bunch theory. He was forced to admit -- in a fleeting moment of lucidity -- that the

amount of elevated fabric in Towner was "not much."

Now he back-pedals on his Croft analysis while blowing his trademark smoke.

The Croft photo was taken less than a second before Betzner. According to

Craig the fabric fold in Croft is (his emphasis) "TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's

back."

Right on cue Craig must back-pedal, of course, and deny that he applied

this analysis to Betzner.

Here's Craig's full quote (emphasis in CAPS is Craig's, emphasis in bold is mine):

The evidence provided in Croft is unimpeachable. There is a large fold of fabric TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back. The laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sun in relation to JFK in Croft prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. That you consider this unimpreachable evidence "arcane" speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty or rather lack thereof.

When we move past Croft and on to Betzner we find the same fold obscuring JFK's jacket collar. This too is unimpeachable due to the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Given the jacket collar is at least 1.25 inches tall, this fold of fabric including returns equals at least 3 inches of fabric. Again unimpeachable.

That's 4 (count 'em!) FOUR unimpeachable assertions that the Betzner Bunch was

the large fold of fabric TO THE LEFT of JFK's centerline.

Thank you for demolishing the Single Bullet Theory again, Craig.

All your other assertions, baseless as they may be, are simply off-topic.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

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?

I was and still am, correct on both counts. I found NEW evidence, and revised PART of my orignal work. However I was and still am correct that there is a large fold of fabric in Betzner that obscures the jacket collar. And YOU ARE STILL WRONG.

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.

No back pedal at ALL. I'm still correct and you are still wrong.

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

mis-analyzed every photo taken in Dealey Plaza.

Yes I did alter my take on Betzner upon seeing new evidecne, but I still got it all correct, and you STILL got it all wrong.

No, I got it all correct all along Cliff.

Then why have you admitted you were incorrect with your initial Betzner Bunch

analysis?

Because new evidence caused me to MODIFY my analysis. I found a way to prove in an UNIMPEAHCABLE manner that the fold WAS there in Betzner, and that Cliff Varnell and his very silly, "the jacket fell theory" had been completely wrong for 10 years. Pretty cool eh? It should be noted that Varnell STILL can't refute the evidence.

You put the entire Betzner Bunch on JFK's right shoulder initially, now you're

claiming the "larger portion" of the fold was was TO THE LEFT of JFK's centerline.

No, I claim correctly that AS SEEN IN CROFT, the larger portion of the fold was to the left of the centerline. Learn to READ Varnell, you are looking quite silly

And all the Dealey Plaza photos show a massive fold on both JFK's right and left

shoulder? You admit that Towner shows "not much bunch," so how could you get

it "all correct all along"?

That's correct, Towner, due to the subject to camera angle does not show much of the fold. That does not mean the fold is not there, you just can't see it well. Is this beyond your intellectual capacity?

It would appear there is one constant to Craig Lamson's analyses: no matter

how much Craig contradicts himself, he is always correct.

I've been correct all along and you have been WRONG all along.

That is, Craig is always correct until he experiences a rare moment of lucidity

and admits he was wrong.

Oh yes, I have modifed my posiiton but the fact remains I had it correct all along. Even better is that you were WRONG all along.

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.

No I'm not, see the answer to this same gross misquote of yours above. My claims written about Croft and Betzner stand and are still correct. And Varnell is still, AFTER TEN YEARS, wrong!

Please show the quote where I have made this claim about Betzner.

Gentle reader, Craig Lamson presents a fascinating study of "intellectual hysteria."

Dear "gentle reader", watch Varnell decend into intellectual paranoia. He has been wrong for TEN YEARS and simply can't face his gross error.

A couple of years ago Craig put both the Towner photo and the Croft photo into evidence

of his bunch theory. He was forced to admit -- in a fleeting moment of lucidity -- that the

amount of elevated fabric in Towner was "not much."

Addressed above

Now he back-pedals on his Croft analysis while blowing his trademark smoke.

The Croft photo was taken less than a second before Betzner. According to

Craig the fabric fold in Croft is (his emphasis) "TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's

back."

Yes, the fold AS SEEN in Croft...I am correct.

Right on cue Craig must back-pedal, of course, and deny that he applied

this analysis to Betzner.

Here's Craig's full quote (emphasis in CAPS is Craig's, emphasis in bold is mine):

The evidence provided in Croft is unimpeachable. There is a large fold of fabric TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back. The laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sun in relation to JFK in Croft prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. That you consider this unimpreachable evidence "arcane" speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty or rather lack thereof.

When we move past Croft and on to Betzner we find the same fold obscuring JFK's jacket collar. This too is unimpeachable due to the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Given the jacket collar is at least 1.25 inches tall, this fold of fabric including returns equals at least 3 inches of fabric. Again unimpeachable.

Yes, And I was and still am correct on both counts. Is you intellectual paranoia so strong that you can't understand this? And you' Cliff Varnell, are still WRONG, after 10 years.

That's 4 (count 'em!) FOUR unimpeachable assertions that the Betzner Bunch was

the large fold of fabric TO THE LEFT of JFK's centerline.

No, thats four instances of Varnell's intellectual paranoia and his continued rhetorical masterbation. And it should be noted that it is unimpeachable that a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket collar is present in Betzner, proving once and for all that Varnells claims of ten years that the "jacket fell" to be totally incorrect. It should also be noted that Varnell STILL cannot refute this simple fact.

Thank you for demolishing the Single Bullet Theory again, Craig.

No Varnell, what has been demolished is your 10 year old claim that the jacket fell in Dealey Plaza. Oh that and your reputation. Wonderful victories both.

All your other assertions, baseless as they may be, are simply off-topic.

Lets just leave the reader with this one, which you simply cannot refute:

When we move past Croft and on to Betzner we find the same fold obscuring JFK's jacket collar. This too is unimpeachable due to the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Given the jacket collar is at least 1.25 inches tall, this fold of fabric including returns equals at least 3 inches of fabric. Again unimpeachable[/b].

The jacket did not fall, as Varnell has claimed for the last 10 years. He was foiled by a simple shadow. His attemtps to refute this has been an utter failure and his massive ego and 10 year investment prevents him from being intellectually honest.

The long and short of it is that Varnell's argument has failed and cannot be salvaged.

He has been wrong for TEN LONG YEARS!

Anything he might have to say in the future that does not directly address the unimpeachable fact that there was a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar is just more rhetoric.

Either refute the unimpeachable fact or go away. You lost, learn to live with it.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Kathy Beckett

[Cliff Varnell]

I was and still am, correct on both counts.

You've made so many claims that you've back-pedaled from it'd

take a scorecard to keep track.

I found NEW evidence, and revised PART of my orignal work.

Part? PART? Well, that's new. You never said anything about "part" of your

original work being wrong before. Let me guess...you've come into NEW evidence

concerning your original work and you were only PART wrong?

Am I close?

How many times are you going to turn up flat wrong and still claim credibility

on this issue?

Edited March 11, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

We see the pattern repeated and repeated and repeated - a case is made against conspiracy x or the 'evidence' presented to support it and out trot the wild eyed cavalry...with their 'ad homs'

Andy, I hope you're following this because much it concerns what you've

written earlier.

I've made the case that the bullet defects in JFK's clothing are prima facie

evidence of 2+ shooters -- and out trots the wild eyed with the "ad homs."

Lamson's last post was in moderation limbo for what -- 10 hours?

Looks like it ain't just CTs who get hysterical around here.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

I was and still am, correct on both counts.

You've made so many claims that you've back-pedaled from it'd

take a scorecard to keep track.

Try this one, its the only that matters now...and its unimpeachable...

There is a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar. The jacket has NOT fallen as Varnell has claimed for the last ten years. End of story. and finally an unimpeachable END to Cliff Varnell and his magic jacket theory...

[Cliff Varnell]

There is a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar.

6+ inches of shirt + jacket fabric (3+" each) in a massive horizontal fold 6 times

larger than JFK's visible shirt collar?

Hysterical.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Bernice Moore]

CLIFF THE LINK TO YOUR SITE IS BROKEN...B

[Cliff Varnell]

CLIFF THE LINK TO YOUR SITE IS BROKEN...B

Thanks Bernice!

Yeah, I'm not sure what went on there...so I linked to my article instead,

which I should be doing anyway...

[Craig Lamson]

There is a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar.

6+ inches of shirt + jacket fabric (3+" each) in a massive horizontal fold 6 times

larger than JFK's visible shirt collar?

Hysterical.

Yes you are hysterical. Who ever said anything about 6 inches of fabric bsides Cliff Varnell?

Just keep repeating this one Cliff, its the the one that will haunt you forever, given your 10 years of getting it all wrong,...

It is unimpeachable that there is a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar.

It is unimpeachable that there is a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar.

It is unimpeachable that there is a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar.

Now click your heels together three times and you wil finallly be in the land of reality.

[Bernice Moore]

your welcome cliff, i have such a difficult time on my lap or i should say my lap has with copying and enabling links now, that i pay close attention to them , though not by choice any longer..be well....b

[Michael Hogan]

June Sochen is professor emerita of history at Northeastern Illinois University. She recently contributed this essay to the Naples Daily News.

Like Aaronovitch, she is certain Lee Oswald acted alone.

Conspiracy theories just muddy the water

They have been popular for a very long time — surely at least since the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. People create, share and believe in conspiracy theories. They assume that evildoers plan, plot and conspire with each other (a conspiracy has to have more than one person involved) to kill an important leader or to wreak havoc (9/11).

More importantly, people assign conspiracy to any and all catastrophic events. Further, they assume superior powers to conspirators than the rest of us mortals possess. Surely conspiracies exist, but the assumptions associated with them and the overarching use of the label is, I think, a grasping for simplicity, a simple answer to a complicated problem or an unthinkable act.

Because conspiracies are intricately planned and executed, many believers are intrigued at the elaborate schemes concocted and admiring of the execution. They also assume that there are often vague and unnamed organizations and countries determined to cause harm.

Killing a president surely qualifies as a horrific action. Immediately, the populace always wants to know who was responsible for this heinous crime, and if a single culprit is not apprehended quickly, then complex theories emerge with many different players blamed for the deed.

Believers in conspiracy (FDR planned Pearl Harbor; the Communists killed JFK) may be readers of mysteries and fantasies and watchers of similar programs on television. But even if they are non-readers and non-TV viewers, they assume that the bad guys are always one step ahead of the good guys.

Conspiracy theorists credit the enemies of the U.S., the enemies of Christianity and the enemies of the West as capable and ingenious. The plotters hatch intricate schemes that require razor sharp precision; they maneuver through complex webs meeting their targets and deadlines every time.

While President Jimmy Carter’s efforts to free the American hostages in Tehran in 1979 ended disastrously with helicopter wings blocked by sand, conspirators never fail. Or so the believers think.

In the latest averted disaster, the terrorist on board the Christmas Day flight to Detroit failed to ignite the bomb in his underwear. His human error intervened to thwart the plot. Isn’t this evidence that terrorist-conspirators are also fallible? Thankfully, their elaborate plans do not always succeed, while we must always remain vigilant.

The term conspiracy is used in many different contexts; for example, feminists often blame a “male conspiracy” for the lack of women in high executive positions. I think this is a good example of an inappropriate use of the word. The reason for women’s absence in executive positions is far more complex: It is a cultural problem and a values problem that is much harder to tackle and even harder to overcome. It makes conspiracy look like child’s play in comparison.

Secret cabals of plotters against governments, minorities or religions offer a vivid image easily conjured up by a video culture. But the reality may be otherwise. The trick is to be ever vigilant for authentic conspiracies but to be able to discriminate between them and non-conspiratorial acts of violence or individual and aberrant acts of mayhem.

The multiple agencies responsible for our safety have the awesome responsibility of discerning who is behind all actions that cause harm to the United States. Clearly they must coordinate more effectively. Though believers in conspiracy maintain otherwise, Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth acted alone.

In this sense the world becomes a more complicated and dangerous place; not only are there real conspirators wishing us harm, but there also are solitary sociopaths with easy access to weapons who also dream of destroying others.

A delicate balance must be maintained between guarding against potential conspirators and calling all evil actions conspiracies. Otherwise, not only are peoples’ rights jeopardized, but peoples’ ability to analyze and understand events is compromised. Perhaps most importantly, both the experts and the public must become cannier and more cautious about the use of the word conspiracy.

Whole nations or whole religions do not conspire; one gender does not conspire against the other. Rather, long ingrained habits shape behavior, and chief executives in large corporations have usually been male. Breaking that mold is very difficult. Similarly, nations and religions have their world views based on accumulated years of experience, history and myth.

Changing attitudes and values, as well as behavior, are very difficult tasks to accomplish. Labelling everything a conspiracy muddies the waters.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/mar/13...st-muddy-water/

Apologies for taking this away from the topic of fabric folds.....

[Cliff Varnell]

Apologies for taking this away from the topic of fabric folds.....

Same topic, Michael.

The JFK's clothing defects are prima facie evidence of conspiracy.

Andy Walker, Mike Tribe, David Aaronovitch and June Sochen must either embrace

Lamson's Folly or admit to committing journalistic/academic malpractice.

[Michael Hogan]

Apologies for taking this away from the topic of fabric folds.....

Same topic, Michael.

The JFK's clothing defects are prima facie evidence of conspiracy.

Andy Walker, Mike Tribe, David Aaronovitch and June Sochen must either embrace

Lamson's Folly or admit to committing journalistic/academic malpractice.

Sure Cliff. Same topic. My mistake.