Inside the ARRB, Vol. I, by Doug Horne

[David Josephs]

Wow, nice clear image you got there Craig...

the fact you are pointing to a shadow on his left shoulder should prove to everyone

that his jacket and shirt are up around his ears so a shot to the left of the spatula winds up being thru his neck.

No wonder you don't like to post your image analysis during a discussion...

Is that how you explain this?

Wow, David, ignorance becomes you.

The jacket is folded 3+ inches, and that is unimpeachable. I don't need to explain anything else. It's you who now needs to deal directly with this folded fabric. You can't explain it away. You can't prove it does not exist.

Does it make the SBT possible or impossible? I don't know and I don't care. I don't deal in speculations. I'll leave that for the wingnuts.

Forget the jacket entirely.... the photo clearly shows the wound is nowhere near the neck as depicted in Ryberg...

In fact, the photo shows the wound to be right about where the holes are in the shirt and jacket...

You can tap dance around that all you want...

Bunched up... funny...

maybe the time has come for you to stop holding on to your three and a half inches so tightly

[Cliff Varnell]

Wow, David, ignorance becomes you.

The jacket is folded 3+ inches, and that is unimpeachable.

What is unimpeachable is that right-wing ideologues are cognitively impaired.

According to Craig Lamson's own study there was a vertical/diagonal fold in the

jacket at the left base of JFK's neck.

I don't need to explain anything else.

You've got a lot of splainin' to do, Lucy.

For instance, according to Craig's 2008 analysis of the Towner photo,

taken 10 seconds before Betzner, there was "not much" in the way of

elevated fabric.

How did the shirt and jacket go from "not much" bunch to a massive

fold 6 times larger than the visible shirt collar in Betzner -- all

in ten seconds?

Craig insists he doesn't have to explain it, because he can't.

Craig can't show us what such a fold would look like because he's

found it impossible to replicate.

It's you who now needs to deal directly with this folded fabric.

So the jacket was pushed up into a massive vertical/diagonal fold?

Absurd. When fabric bunches up on a vertical plane the fold in the

fabric is horizontal, or horizontal/diagonal.

Craig could use a bright-eyed five year old to demonstrate this for him,

although I'd hate to think what the kid would get on him when Craig's

head explodes.

You can't explain it away.

Craig can't explain how it got there in ten seconds.

Craig can't point out the side of the fold because it isn't there.

Craig is trying to leverage his expertise as as photographer to

blow smoke over a crucial issue which he cares very deeply about, but

won't admit it due to his over-weening intellectual corruption.

You can't prove it does not exist.

The last refuge of the disingenuous -- prove it isn't there!

Of course, Craig can't prove it is there, he simply repeats his

assertions over and over again.

Does it make the SBT possible or impossible? I don't know and I don't care. I don't deal in speculations. I'll leave that for the wingnuts.

Craig cares a great deal. It's part of his Teabag Party world-view.

What's hilarious is that Craig claimed to Pat Speer that the fold was

"TO THE LEFT OF JFK'S MIDLINE" (Craig's emphasis), and since the bullet

holes were TO THE RIGHT OF JFK'S MIDLINE (my emphasis), Craig has unwittingly

debunked the SBT with his own BS.

Thank you, Craig. Keep it up. We haven't had much comic relief around

here since Judyth Baker went away.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

David, Craig claims he has no interest in trying to establish the actual back wound location. He claims even that he has no interest in the viability of the SBT.

Craig cares very deeply about the SBT. Originally, when he thought it only

required 2 inches of bunched fabric, Craig claimed that there were 2 inches

of bunched fabric on the right shoulder.

When Craig found out that the SBT requires 3+ inches, he claimed that it was a

3+ inch fold. Unfortunately for this deeply held true belief of his, he lost

track of his own claims when he moved the fold to the left shoulder, instead

of the right.

Craig will provide no end of amusement of the subject...

Here's the Towner photo which Craig admitted shows "not much" in the way

of bunch:

Edited June 26, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Wow, nice clear image you got there Craig...

the fact you are pointing to a shadow on his left shoulder should prove to everyone

that his jacket and shirt are up around his ears so a shot to the left of the spatula winds up being thru his neck.

No wonder you don't like to post your image analysis during a discussion...

Is that how you explain this?

Wow, David, ignorance becomes you.

The jacket is folded 3+ inches, and that is unimpeachable. I don't need to explain anything else. It's you who now needs to deal directly with this folded fabric. You can't explain it away. You can't prove it does not exist.

Does it make the SBT possible or impossible? I don't know and I don't care. I don't deal in speculations. I'll leave that for the wingnuts.

Forget the jacket entirely.... the photo clearly shows the wound is nowhere near the neck as depicted in Ryberg...

In fact, the photo shows the wound to be right about where the holes are in the shirt and jacket...

You can tap dance around that all you want...

Bunched up... funny...

maybe the time has come for you to stop holding on to your three and a half inches so tightly

Oh I'm sure you would like to forget the jacket, it screws your pooch. Sadly the fact remains and it is unimpeachable. There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFKI's back in Betzner.

Clearly you are entitled to your own opinion about things that can't be proven, however you are not entitled to your own facts.

Your intellectual honesty is now at stake.

[Craig Lamson]

Wow, David, ignorance becomes you.

The jacket is folded 3+ inches, and that is unimpeachable.

What is unimpeachable is that right-wing ideologues are cognitively impaired.

According to Craig Lamson's own study there was a vertical/diagonal fold in the

jacket at the left base of JFK's neck.

Uh no Cliff, the is no "vertical fold...only the shadow from the corner of the HORIZONTAL fold. Simple things like the working of light and shadow sure do confuse you. Thats why you are now SOOO screwed

I don't need to explain anything else.

You've got a lot of splainin' to do, Lucy.

For instance, according to Craig's 2008 analysis of the Towner photo,

taken 10 seconds before Betzner, there was "not much" in the way of

elevated fabric.

How did the shirt and jacket go from "not much" bunch to a massive

fold 6 times larger than the visible shirt collar in Betzner -- all

in ten seconds?

Craig insists he doesn't have to explain it, because he can't.

Craig can't show us what such a fold would look like because he's

found it impossible to replicate.

Nice attempt at a tap dance Cliff, sadly for your song stopped LONG ago. Heres the new tune, and you can't dance to it.

The unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence prove in an unimpeachable manner that there is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's jacket in Betzner.

You can prove me wrong. Simply show us a different arrangement of fabric, light, shadow with the proper angle of incidence that can produce what is seen in Betzner. If its not a 3+ inch fold of fabric, what is it? Why not tell us AND THEN PROVE IT.

BTW, your very lame attempt to incorrectly quote me has been noted time and time again. Being truthful is really not a Varnell trait is it?

And why is Varnell left with telling falsehoods, instead of actually trying to impeachable the unimpeachable? Because he CAN'T.

It's you who now needs to deal directly with this folded fabric.

So the jacket was pushed up into a massive vertical/diagonal fold?

Absurd. When fabric bunches up on a vertical plane the fold in the

fabric is horizontal, or horizontal/diagonal.

Craig could use a bright-eyed five year old to demonstrate this for him,

although I'd hate to think what the kid would get on him when Craig's

head explodes.

Really Cliff? Why don't you demonstrate how ANY other arrangement of fabric can produce what is seen in Betzner? Or is 5 year old logic too tough for you?

I mean lets get real folks. Cliff has been left with no defence and no way out. This is simple stuff. Just light, shadow and angle of incidence. Surely Cliff can master something this simple and produce some experimental, empirical evidence that can destroy my work. How tough can it be Cliff?

Of course don't ever expect anyting of substance on this issue from Varnell. His position is VOID of substance.

You can't explain it away.

Craig can't explain how it got there in ten seconds.

Craig can't point out the side of the fold because it isn't there.

Craig is trying to leverage his expertise as as photographer to

blow smoke over a crucial issue which he cares very deeply about, but

won't admit it due to his over-weening intellectual corruption.

How it got there is really quite meaningless.

The fact that it IS there is all that matters. And that fact is unimpeachable.

How do we know it is unimpeachable? Because if Varnell could impeach it he would.

You want to know what I care about in this instance Varnell? Not the sbt, not the fold, not even who killed JFK. I care about the entertainment value of watching you squirm as your silly decades long fantasy comes crumbling down around your ankles.

It's really amazing to see you talk about intellectual corruption when you can't even deal with your defeat in an honest manner and you are reduced to telling falsehoods. You are busted Cliff, time to man up.

You can't prove it does not exist.

The last refuge of the disingenuous -- prove it isn't there!

Of course, Craig can't prove it is there, he simply repeats his

assertions over and over again.

Sure you can prove the fold does not exist. Just show us another arrangement of fabric with the same lighting and angle of incidence that produces what we see in Betzner.

I've have in fact proved in an unimpeachable manner the fold exists. Nothing else can produce what is seen in Betzner. Unimpeachable.

Of course thats why you are left babbling like a child. The silly ten year fantasy has been destroyed. Sweet!

Does it make the SBT possible or impossible? I don't know and I don't care. I don't deal in speculations. I'll leave that for the wingnuts.

Craig cares a great deal. It's part of his Teabag Party world-view.

Stick to dealing cards Cliff, you simply don't have a clue otherwise.

What's hilarious is that Craig claimed to Pat Speer that the fold was

"TO THE LEFT OF JFK'S MIDLINE" (Craig's emphasis), and since the bullet

holes were TO THE RIGHT OF JFK'S MIDLINE (my emphasis), Craig has unwittingly

debunked the SBT with his own BS.

There you go with the L.... wait can't use that word...FALSEHOODS again. A deliberate misquote or paraphrase is a falsehood Cliff. You have been called on this one before and you know it. That makes you a L...dang, can't use that word again...teller of tales.

You are slowing sinking into the pit Cliff, and its quite entertaining.

Here's all you left that can salvage your fantasy position:

Just show us another arrangement of fabic with the same lighting and angle of incidence that produces what we see in Betzner.

Simple, to the point and it puts me away forever. It's a gift on a plate. Show us Cliff.

Thank you, Craig. Keep it up. We haven't had much comic relief around

here since Judyth Baker went away.

You are quite welcome Cliff, I always love point out the foolishness of your fantasy position. You squirm real pretty...

Edited June 26, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Uh no CLiff, the is no "vertical fold...only the shadow from the top corner of the HORIZONTAL fold.

There is no horizontal fold on the top of JFK's left shoulder.

You have a very active imagination.

[Craig Lamson]

Uh no CLiff, the is no "vertical fold...only the shadow from the top corner of the HORIZONTAL fold.

There is no horizontal fold on the top of JFK's left shoulder.

You have a very active imagination.

Of course there is a horizontal fold...you simply can't see with all that intellectual dishonestly clouding your eyes.

So Cliff, when will we be seeing your experimental, empirical work that shows something other that the large HORIZONTAL fabric fold that can create what is seen in Betzner. Better work fast, your 15 minutes has expired!

[Cliff Varnell]

Uh no CLiff, the is no "vertical fold...only the shadow from the top corner of the HORIZONTAL fold.

There is no horizontal fold on the top of JFK's left shoulder.

You have a very active imagination.

Of course there is a horizontal fold...you simply can't see with all that intellectual dishonestly clouding your eyes.

Apparently you can't tell the difference between horizontal and vertical.

So Cliff, when will we be seeing your experimental, empirical work that shows something other that the large HORIZONTAL fabric fold that can create what is seen in Betzner. Better work fast, your 15 minutes has expired!

When are you going to show us what 3+ inches of elevated shirt and jacket fabric look like?

Edited June 26, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't need to explain anything else.

You've got a lot of splainin' to do, Lucy.

For instance, according to Craig's 2008 analysis of the Towner photo,

taken 10 seconds before Betzner, there was "not much" in the way of

elevated fabric.

Please note, gentle reader, that Craig does not deny that he identified

"not much" elevation of the jacket 10 seconds prior to Betzner.

Please note that he makes no attempt to explain how 3 inches of JFK's jacket and

another 3 inches of his shirt hiked up his back in 10 seconds.

Where is the intellectual honesty in that?

[Craig Lamson]

Uh no CLiff, the is no "vertical fold...only the shadow from the top corner of the HORIZONTAL fold.

There is no horizontal fold on the top of JFK's left shoulder.

You have a very active imagination.

Of course there is a horizontal fold...you simply can't see with all that intellectual dishonestly clouding your eyes.

Apparently you can't tell the difference between horizontal and vertical.

No, I can tell, and I've shown it with a very nice proof of concept demonstration...a demonstration ANYONE can do for themself. It's really cool, it's a demonstration that has destroyed your 10 year fantasy. Everyone should play...its a riot!

So Cliff, when will we be seeing your experimental, empirical work that shows something other that the large HORIZONTAL fabric fold that can create what is seen in Betzner. Better work fast, your 15 minutes has expired!

When are you going to show us what 3+ inches of elevated shirt and jacket fabric look like?

Shirt? Who cares? Betzner shows us what 3+ inches of folded jacket looks like.

Did you miss it?

Oh yes, your mind was in fantasyland. My bad.

I have shown in an unimpeachable manner, via experimental and empirical means, that what we see in Betzner was caused by a large horizontal fabic fold. Nothing else fits. Period.

But of course thats why you are now reduced to very silly handwaving, in a vain and very failed attempt to save what is left of your intellectual honesty.

However it's been reduced to this...its ALL you have left.

Either produce some experimental, emprirical evidence that something other than a large horizontal fabric fold can produce what is seen in Betzter, or slither away.

That's the endgame Cliff. If you can't show us how something else can work with experimental, empirical proof...you lose.

[Craig Lamson]

I don't need to explain anything else.

You've got a lot of splainin' to do, Lucy.

For instance, according to Craig's 2008 analysis of the Towner photo,

taken 10 seconds before Betzner, there was "not much" in the way of

elevated fabric.

Please note, gentle reader, that Craig does not deny that he identified

"not much" elevation of the jacket 10 seconds prior to Betzner.

No, I explained you are once again misquoting me. Yet another indication of the massive lack of honestly displayed by Cliff Varnell. This is what being shown to be wrong has reduced you too...telling falsehoods.

Please note that he makes no attempt to explain how 3 inches of JFK's jacket and

another 3 inches of his shirt hiked up his back in 10 seconds.

No need to explain, this is just more of Varnell's mental masturbation.

Where is the intellectual honesty in that?

The intellectual honesty is in the fact that unimpeachable, experiment evidence proves that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK back in Betzner. Simply unimpeachable.

Heres the endgame Varnell. If you can't show us how something else can work with experimental, empirical proof...you lose.

[Cliff Varnell]

Comic relief over.

But Cliff:

There is a big difference between saying Humes lied or covered up something and then saying he helped reconstruct the back of Kennedy's head for Knudsen to take pictures of.

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with my point.

I'm here to defend the credibility of the FBI autopsy report, not defend

Lifton or Horne. Pre-autopsy surgery to the head, recorded as "apparent"

in the FBI report, cannot be dismissed simply because Humes denied it.

After that, Lifton and Horne are on their own.

Lemme put it to you this way:

Doug Horne and I started researching the JFK assassination at roughly the same

time, around 1991.

He produced five volumes.

I produced five words: properly prepared evidence trumps improper.

That's it.

If evidence is properly maintained, recorded, and gathered according to the

proper protocols -- then the evidence is credible.

If the evidence is not prepared according to the proper protocols then

it is to be dismissed.

In the case of JFK we can regard the clothing as having a chain of custody

from the Parkland staff to Greer who took it to Bethesda and then on the

White House and then to the FBI who eventually turned it over to the

National Archives. Credible evidence.

The JFK autopsy photos were not produced according to proper military

autopsy protocols, and there is no chain of possession. Not credible.

The FBI autopsy report was prepared according to proper FBI investigative

protocols. Credible evidence.

Because pre-autopsy surgery was noted in the FBI report, all the head wound

evidence is cast in doubt. The witness testimony conflicts with the head

x-rays. Therefore, the head x-rays are not credible.

The final autopsy report was not prepared according to proper military

autopsy protocol. Not credible.

The neck x-ray was taken according to proper protocol. The information

in the neck x-ray is consistent with many other evidentiary threads.

Credible evidence.

That portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, according

to proper military autopsy: credible. The portion of the autopsy face

sheet filled out in pen, a violation of proper military autopsy protocol:

not credible.

Burkley's death certificate listed the back wound by the vertebral level

about T3, according to proper military autopsy protocol: credible.

The contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors re the throat entrance

wound: credible.

Throw out the head wound evidence and the credible evidence is consistent:

throat entrance wound; the round nicked the trachea, bruised the lung tip,

left a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and a subcutaneous

air pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

No exit. No round was recovered.

The back wound about the level of T3 was shallow, did not exit, and no

round was recovered.

Those are facts in the case of the John F. Kennedy assassination.

Lifton and Horne explain this with body alteration scenarios.

I don't buy it. I cite the "general feeling" of the autopsists the

night of the autopsy.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

Let's furnish that information by all means:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

Otherwise, how do we explain two entrance wounds, no exits,

and no bullets recovered?

Edited June 26, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

He is probably also lying about when he found out about the throat wound.

Bingo! The throat wound is the key to the case. They removed the brain.

They removed the lungs. But they were ordered not to remove the neck

organs for dissection. The throat wound was off limits.

Why?

Because the round that entered the throat left an air pocket and no round?

A reasonable question, I think.

[Cliff Varnell]

But these things are different than what you are talking about. To me BE did not meet this other standard, and for reasons I stated in my review, I don't feel IARRB did either.

I don't think I've clearly indicated I'm not defending Lifton and Horne. I'm merely

asserting the view that something described as "apparent" in an otherwise spot-on,

credible report cannot be summarily dismissed, as you appear to do.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Comic relief over.

Translated from Varnellspeak: I've lost but simply don't have any intelletual honesty left to admit I have been living in a fantasy world.

Thanks for the grins Cliff.