Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 No, we can't see half of that! sure we can, It's right where I pointed it out. All you pointed out was the shirt collar-line. There MUST be a horizontal 1/8" artifact distinct from the shirt collar. But no such artifact exists. There is. I'm sorry you can't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 (edited) Cue the endgame... Either you can produce an alternative to the 3+ inch fold of fabric in Betzer and PROVE it works within the constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence..and do so by providing photographic proof of concept, experimental, empirical evidence. or you lose. Simple as that. All the rest is just ignorance on display by Cliff "fantasy" Varnell The burden of proof is on you, Craig. You must show us where this 1/8" horizontal artifact is, but you cannot. The top of the jacket fold MUST be distinct from the shirt collar, but it isn't since it never existed. Is it even possible to bunch up 3+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric? No one has ever replicated this event. It's contrary to the nature of reality, and cannot be done. Edited July 1, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 No, we can't see half of that! sure we can, It's right where I pointed it out. All you pointed out was the shirt collar-line. There MUST be a horizontal 1/8" artifact distinct from the shirt collar. But no such artifact exists. There is. I'm sorry you can't understand. Where is it? The 1/8" top of the jacket fold MUST be distinct from the shirt collar. But all you do is point out the shirt collar line. Where is the 1/8" horizontal fold that MUST be distinct from the shirt collar? Where is your replication of your claims? Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like, Craig. Why can't you do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 (edited) Cue the endgame... Either you can produce an alternative to the 3+ inch fold of fabric in Betzer and PROVE it works within the constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence..and do so by providing photographic proof of concept, experimental, empirical evidence. or you lose. Simple as that. All the rest is just ignorance on display by Cliff "fantasy" Varnell The burden of proof is on you, Craig. You must show us where this 1/8" horizontal artifact is, but you cannot. I've shown you. That you can't understand is your problem. In addition the same artifact is visable in Croft, in the same light. The top of the jacket fold MUST be distinct from the shirt collar, but it isn't since it never existed. Is IS distinct. Is it even possible to bunch up 3+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric? 3+ inches of jacket, yes. No one has ever replicated this event. It happen during the motorcade.... It's contrary to the nature of reality, and cannot be done. Tell that to JFK.... Yet another Varnell handwaving fantasy... I've proven my point in an unimpeachable manner witnessed by the fact that after all of these months Varnell stiil cannot counter. The endgame... Vanrnell MUST find a suitable alternative to the 3+ inch fabric fold and prove it works given the natural constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence. The proof must consist of experimental, empirical, proof of concept photos. Failing to do results in Varnells fantasy claim of the jacket falling in Dealey plaza being discarded forever. Its gotta suck to be Cliff Varnell these days. Edited July 1, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 (edited) Snip the Varnell Fantasy Blovation... The endgame... Vanrnell MUST find a suitable alternative to the 3+ inch fabric fold and prove it works given the natural constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence. The proof must consist of experimental, empirical, proof of concept photos. Failing to do results in Varnells fantasy claim of the jacket falling in Dealey plaza being discarded forever. Its gotta suck to be Cliff Varnell these days. Edited July 1, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 (edited) Snip the Varnell Fantasy Blovation... The endgame... Vanrnell MUST find a suitable alternative to the 3+ inch fabric fold and prove it works given the natural constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Lamson MUST show us what 3+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric look like. The fact that he cannot tells us he's bluffing. The proof must consist of experimental, empirical, proof of concept photos. Indeed. So where are your experimental, empirical proof of concept photos that show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and fabric look like? Why do you insist that the top of the jacket fold in Towner is level with the top of the collar when it clearly is level with the bottom of the collar? Where is your 1/8" top of the jacket fold which MUST be distinct from the shirt collar in Betzner? Gentle reader, is the top of the jacket fold level with the top of the collar in Towner? Of course not. Edited July 1, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Let's help Craig out here, shall we gentle reader? Any bulge of fabric in Betzner must catch sunlight. There is only one horizontal artifact in Betzner consistent with the lip of the fold as seen in Towner and Croft. Red line indicates the lip of the Towner/Croft fold, clearly distinct from the shirt collar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Snip the Varnell Fantasy Blovation... The endgame... Vanrnell MUST find a suitable alternative to the 3+ inch fabric fold and prove it works given the natural constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Lamson MUST show us what 3+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric look like. The fact that he cannot tells us he's bluffing. I have more than once... The proof must consist of experimental, empirical, proof of concept photos. Indeed. So where are your experimental, empirical proof of concept photos that show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and fabric look like? Here you go again. Experimental, empirical proof of concept images that prove in an unimpeachable fashion that only a FOLD of fabric could have obscured the jacket collar in Betzner.... Why do you insist that the top of the jacket fold in Towner is level with the top of the collar when it clearly is level with the bottom of the collar? Because the top of the fold clearly extends to the top of the jacket collar. That is unimpeachable. Why to you promote the falsehood that only reachs the bottom of the jacket collar? Where is your 1/8" top of the jacket fold which MUST be distinct from the shirt collar in Betzner? Exactly where I have indicated. Please prove otherwise. Gentle reader, is the top of the jacket fold level with the top of the collar in Towner? Of course not. Look for yourself and see the falsehood pimped by Varnell. The fold in Towner clearly extends to the TOP of the jacket collar. Why not ask Varnell to indicate on the image WHERE this fold stops at the bottom of htre jacket collar in Towner. He can't do it. The endgame... Vanrnell MUST find a suitable alternative to the 3+ inch fabric fold and prove it works given the natural constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence. The proof must consist of experimental, empirical, proof of concept photos. Failing to do results in Varnells fantasy claim of the jacket falling in Dealey plaza being discarded forever. Its gotta suck to be Cliff Varnell these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Let's help Craig out here, shall we gentle reader? Any bulge of fabric in Betzner must catch sunlight. There is only one horizontal artifact in Betzner consistent with the lip of the fold as seen in Towner and Croft. Red line indicates the lip of the Towner/Croft fold, clearly distinct from the shirt collar. Lets help Varnell out here. The 3+ inch fold of fabric DOES catch sunlight in Betzner. So much so it cast a diagonal shadow from its left corner down the back of JFK. Lets review the VARNELL FANTASY FOLD as indicated by the red line in his illustration. It clearly shows the woeful ignorance of Varnell. Here is the correct placement of his red line in the Towner, Croft and Betzner images. It is BLUE in the following illustration. Now lets review what the VARNELL FANTASY FOLD looks like in the correct application light. shadow and angle of incidence. Notice the VARNELL FANTASY FOLD cannot produce the artifact seen in Betzner. His fantasy fails. The endgame... Vanrnell MUST find a suitable alternative to the 3+ inch fabric fold and prove it works given the natural constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence. The proof must consist of experimental, empirical, proof of concept photos. Failing to do results in Varnells fantasy claim of the jacket falling in Dealey plaza being discarded forever. Its gotta suck to be Cliff Varnell these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Let's help Craig out here, shall we gentle reader? Any bulge of fabric in Betzner must catch sunlight. There is only one horizontal artifact in Betzner consistent with the lip of the fold as seen in Towner and Croft. Red line indicates the lip of the Towner/Croft fold, clearly distinct from the shirt collar. Lets help Varnell out here. The 3+ inch fold of fabric DOES catch sunlight in Betzner. Where? Where is the top of the jacket fold distinct from the shirt collar? All your arrows point to the shirt collar-line. This is unimpeachable. Show us where the jacket bulge in sunshine is distinct from the shirt collar in sunshine. You can't point this out, Craig. It isn't there. In one of your proof of concept photos you "pulled directly UP" (your description) on the fabric, which is not the same as "bunching" fabric; the other proof of concept photo shows fabric you've twisted or rolled. The reason you can't show us what 3+ inches of bunched shirt and jacket fabric look like is because this event is impossible. You and Sarah Palin think you can create an alternative reality simply by making repeated assertions. Go Teabaggers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 (edited) Let's help Craig out here, shall we gentle reader? Any bulge of fabric in Betzner must catch sunlight. There is only one horizontal artifact in Betzner consistent with the lip of the fold as seen in Towner and Croft. Red line indicates the lip of the Towner/Croft fold, clearly distinct from the shirt collar. Lets help Varnell out here. The 3+ inch fold of fabric DOES catch sunlight in Betzner. Where? Where is the top of the jacket fold distinct from the shirt collar? Where? I've pointed it out time and time again. Your failure to understand is not a rebuttal, it ignornance. All your arrows point to the shirt collar-line. This is unimpeachable. If thats true, whats BELOW the shirt collar CLiff? Show us where the jacket bulge in sunshine is distinct from the shirt collar in sunshine. I have, its the blue line in this image. What part gives your brain the BSD? You can't point this out, Craig. It isn't there. The fact that reality eludes you does not a rebuttal make. In one of your proof of concept photos you "pulled directly UP" (your description) on the fabric, which is not the same as "bunching" fabric; the other proof of concept photo shows fabric you've twisted or rolled. And as has been pointed out you can't tell us WHY that matters. Your ignorant handwaving does not a rebuttal make. The reason you can't show us what 3+ inches of bunched shirt and jacket fabric look like is because this event is impossible. But I have shown you 3+ inches of folded jacket. That you refuse to understand does not a rebuttal make. The unimpeachable fact still remains. There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. The Varnell Fantasy claim that the jacket fell in Dealey Plaza has been destroyed. You and Sarah Palin think you can create an alternative reality simply by making repeated assertions. No Cliff that would be you. I have proven my facts in an unimpeachable manner. You on the other hand offer only repeated handwaving claims. Are YOU a closetted teabagger Cliff? Go Teabaggers! Go Cliff! All of which brings us right back to where this all started and why Varnell is exploding while trying to deflect form his failings.... Varnell MUST find a suitable alternative to the 3+ inch fabric fold and prove it works given the natural constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence. The proof must consist of experimental, empirical, proof of concept photos. Failing to do results in Varnells fantasy claim of the jacket falling in Dealey plaza being discarded forever. Its gotta suck to be Cliff Varnell these days. Edited July 1, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Lets help Varnell out here. The 3+ inch fold of fabric DOES catch sunlight in Betzner. Where? Where is the top of the jacket fold distinct from the shirt collar? Where? I've pointed it out time and time again. Your failure to understand is not a rebuttal, it ignornance. All you've done is draw a blue line on shadow. Show us where the jacket bulge is distinct from the shirt collar. The jacket bulge MUST be in full sunshine and MUST be distinct from the shirt collar. You cannot show us this. This didn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Lets help Varnell out here. The 3+ inch fold of fabric DOES catch sunlight in Betzner. Where? Where is the top of the jacket fold distinct from the shirt collar? Where? I've pointed it out time and time again. Your failure to understand is not a rebuttal, it ignornance. All you've done is draw a blue line on shadow. Show us where the jacket bulge is distinct from the shirt collar. It's at the blue line Cliff. I'm really sorry but you fail again. The jacket bulge MUST be in full sunshine and MUST be distinct from the shirt collar. You cannot show us this. This didn't exist. Sure it exists. Just as it does in Croft. But I suppose THIS is beyond your very limited ability to understand the workings of light, shadow and angle of incidence. BTW, I've just been informed that your shipment of FAIL has finally arrived. Now you can stock up. All of which brings us right back to where this all started and why Varnell is exploding while trying to deflect form his failings.... Varnell MUST find a suitable alternative to the 3+ inch fabric fold and prove it works given the natural constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence. The proof must consist of experimental, empirical, proof of concept photos. Failing to do results in Varnells fantasy claim of the jacket falling in Dealey plaza being discarded forever. Its gotta suck to be Cliff Varnell these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Lets help Varnell out here. The 3+ inch fold of fabric DOES catch sunlight in Betzner. Where? Where is the top of the jacket fold distinct from the shirt collar? Where? I've pointed it out time and time again. Your failure to understand is not a rebuttal, it ignornance. All you've done is draw a blue line on shadow. Show us where the jacket bulge is distinct from the shirt collar. It's at the blue line Cliff. I'm really sorry but you fail again. What's "at the blue line"? The blue line does not indicate this 1/8" visible "return" of your fantasy fold. Use arrows to point out where the 1/2" shirt collar is, and use another set of arrows to show us where the distinct bulge is. But you can't do that because there is no such horizontal artifact in Betzner. The top of the fold in Croft is CLEARLY below the top of the jacket collar. Unimpeachable. You cannot point out the bulge in Betzner because it didn't exist. You cannot replicate your claims because they are impossible to replicate Your presence here is purely for political reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 (edited) Lets help Varnell out here. The 3+ inch fold of fabric DOES catch sunlight in Betzner. Where? Where is the top of the jacket fold distinct from the shirt collar? Where? I've pointed it out time and time again. Your failure to understand is not a rebuttal, it ignornance. All you've done is draw a blue line on shadow. Show us where the jacket bulge is distinct from the shirt collar. It's at the blue line Cliff. I'm really sorry but you fail again. What's "at the blue line"? The blue line does not indicate this 1/8" visible "return" of your fantasy fold. Use arrows to point out where the 1/2" shirt collar is, and use another set of arrows to show us where the distinct bulge is. 1/2 inch of shirt collar? Clearly you jest. It right where it should be, where the shadow of the neck falls over it. Please also note that the shadow STOPS and is not seen falling over the jacket collar and jacket back AS IT MUST given the properties of light and shadow and angle of incidence. Of course its there, just OBSCURED by the 3+ inch fold of fabric found in Betzner ( and Croft, and Towner...) Of course I've posted these studies time and time again. You are well aware of them and you can find them by using the search button at the top of the screen. But you can't do that because there is no such horizontal artifact in Betzner. Of course there is, as has been pointed out many times. Your blindless and ignorance do not a rebuttal make. The top of the fold in Croft is CLEARLY below the top of the jacket collar. Unimpeachable. Impeachable. Follow the thin blue line to the top edge of the fold in EACH photo reaching the top of the jacket collar. Your blindness and ignornance do not a rebuttal make. http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/travel.jpg You cannot point out the bulge in Betzner because it didn't exist. Done and it does. Your blindless and ignorance do not a rebuttal make. You cannot replicate your claims because they are impossible to replicate. But I have. My empirical, experimental, proof of concept clearly show exactly how the fold works in Towner, Croft and Betzner. The second clearly shows your fantasy fold WILL NOT work. Your blindless and ignorance do not a rebuttal make. Your presence here is purely for political reasons. My presence here is purely entertainment for me. I truly enjoy watching the likes of Cliff Varnell choke as there decades of fantasy is destroyed before thier very eyes. I gotta tell ya that's REAL entertainment! That it throws a wrench into some other ct fantasies is a real bonus. Which brings us back to the endgame..... Varnell MUST find a suitable alternative to the 3+ inch fabric fold and prove it works given the natural constraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence. The proof must consist of experimental, empirical, proof of concept photos. Failing to do results in Varnells fantasy claim of the jacket falling in Dealey plaza being discarded forever. Its gotta suck to be Cliff Varnell these days. BTW, it appears your shipment of FAIL still left you wanting. Here's more for the pantry..... Edited July 1, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now