Craig Lamson Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 I'll leave that for other people on here to judge Craig because you are so dishonest it boggles the mind. Dishonest? Please show where I have been dishonest. Direct quotes please. Let's get one thing straight here shall we? I couldn't give a bag of monkeys about Farid's study because it is as dishonest as you and your cronies are. I only used it to prove how crap and utterly useless it is in proving anything Then PLEASE refute the study. Your complaints about questions he never intended to answer simply don't qualify. Farid left his cheeks and ears out of the model because it had no bearing on what he wanted to try and "prove" eh Craig? Seeing as how he modeled "someone else's" ears for the damn model he may as as well have modeled the correct ones. Did you ever READ his study or did you just look at the pictures. Based on your statemnts it appears you just looked at the pictures. He was QUITE clear about his technique and clear about the questions he set out to answer. The fact that he did NOT ADDRESS YOUR questions is irrelevant nor does it diminish the answers his study found. Its really quite clear you can't refute so instead you nitpick..and very common CT tactic when they have lost an argument and have found their sacred ox gored. And if the cheeks aren't modeled correctly how can you sit there saying he's proved the jaw-line shadows elongate the chin? Cake and Eat it Craig? Cake and eat it. Why not? Prove it wrong My argument is this, regardless of angle of incidence (which I do understand although you keep throwing it out as if I don't) the shadow LOOKS painted in. I don't care about angle of incidence in this circumstance, I understand it from the point of view of the other objects in the photograph, but it doesn't come into this argument because it doesn't look like a damn shadow! It does not look like a shadow! What an amazing scientific argument! If it looked like one, I'd say "hey you know what Craig? That does look like a shadow that would be created by Oswald's cheek." BUT IT DOESN'T because the deviation of the cheek would not produce that shadow shape. Not by a country mile. Heres a little tidbit you you to chew on. If you change the shape of something it changes the way it interacts with light based on angle of incidence. Clearly this is beyond your limited ability to reason. So be it. When you get a clue get back to me. What part of that don't you get? No, the question is WHEN WILL YOU GAIN THE CAPICITY TO UNDERSTAND? Care to explain why the jaw shadow doesn't stop at the jaw line and instead overlays and encroaches onto the much darker neck shadow for everyone? What??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Just to be clear, you are now claiming the fold in Towner is of a different size and shape than the one in Betzner?? The lip of the Towner fold is clearly seen in Betzner (blue line). The claim is idiotic. Here is the fold of fabric as it travels through Dealy Plaza. Varnell's ignorance is monumental. Open your eyes, Craig. In Croft the top of the fold clearly does not occlude the jacket collar. Croft was taken less than two seconds before Betzner. You claim that the fold rose to the top of the jacket collar in Betzner, but the fold is well below the top of the jacket collar in both Croft and Towner. Sure they do, All of the folds will clearly obscure the jacket collar when viewed from the same angle as Betzner. They "will"? You'll have to demonstrate this for us, Craig. You don't expect us to take your word for it, do you? You made the claim, here's your chance to demonstrate it. Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric looks like from the lateral and posterior views. Oh...that's right...you've found it impossible to bunch 3+ inches of shirt + jacket fabric, which is why you blow thin smoke. You simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand. That much is very clear. You simply can't read the location of the top of the folds in the photos. The top of the folds are clearly below the top the jacket collar. That you can't admit the obvious evidence is telling. Clearly the Varnell Fantasy Shadow does not produce the artifact seen in Towner, Croft nor Betzner This is not a photo of bunched fabric. It has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with the Teabag Party that goes on between Craig Lamson's ears. It's not "bunched" fabric? WHY? "Bunch" occurs when the fabric pushes together. Not pulled, not rolled, not twisted. It's typical of you to make claims about clothing movement when you are utterly uninformed about what it means to "bunch" fabric. It fully expresses the arrangementof fabric you claimed upthread. Factually incorrect. It expresses nothing of what I've pointed out in the photos. You can't produce a photo of 3+ inches of bunched shirt + jacket fabric. Why not? You make the claim, you produce the proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 (edited) What's wonderful is that people like Mr. Lamson will continue to infuriate anyone who thinks and posts rationally. He's pulled his face and mind so close to the chlorophyll in the leaves of the trees that he's totally forgotten to look at the forest at all. His imperical evidence is that since there is a hole in the shirt and jacket 4.5 inches down from the collar and he can prove what amounts to be EXACTLY a 3+" rise in the shirt and jacket based on shadows made out in detail from a poor image to begin with then the shot MUST have hit JFK 1.5 inches down from the collar. Never mind what everybody saw, what the autopsy doctors saw, how far Humes stuck his finger in, how Humes described a 45-60 degree downward angle and that he could feel the end of the wound, how it was represented on the autopsy sheets, where the bullet holes were in the jacket and shirt... JUST NEVER MIND all that.... Like Howard Brennan, Mr. Lamson can magically tell dimensions based on this visual representation. Building a soapbox on one poorly represented piece of supposed evidence shows how insincere you are about the realities of this case. How convenient it is for you to dismiss all the other evidence that destroys your suppositions and simply respond with accusations and insults. Besides... from the way you put it... there should be at least 3 bullet holes in the jacket... 1 and 2 in and out of the horizontal fold and a third at the point it pierces the jacket where it it laying on his shirt.... or did it hit too low to go thru the folds as it shows in Croft and Towner or too high to have been part of the hiked up jacket and shirt...??? Edited June 28, 2010 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Besides... from the way you put it... there should be at least 3 bullet holes in the jacket... 1 and 2 in and out of the horizontal fold and a third at the point it pierces the jacket where it it laying on his shirt.... or did it hit too low to go thru the folds as it shows in Croft and Towner or too high to have been part of the hiked up jacket and shirt...??? Good point, David. The fabric had to be elevated entirely above the bullet inshoot at the back of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck. This scenario is contrary to the nature of reality, which is why Craig can only muster empty claims and insults. His inability to replicate this scenario speaks to its impossibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 (edited) They "will"? You'll have to demonstrate this for us, Craig. You don't expect us to take your word for it, do you? No need to take my word for it at all. Simply view the images and do the math. Since the top of the horizontal fold on JFK's back...in each photograph... extend to the height of the top of the jacket collar, when viewed from the rear as oin Betzner the collar MUST be obscured. Why, because there is a fold of fabric positioned between the jacket collar and the viewer/camera. This is not rocket science. In addition we also know the jacket collar in Betzner is obscured because the3 shadow of JFK's neck, as it passes over the jacket collar is missing. The unbending laws of light. shadow and angle of incidence demands it. While its not rocket science it is well and truly beyond that wacky "Varnell Science". Of course if you disagree, please provide an illustration that indicates the top of the horizontal fold in each image. I'm up for a good laugh. You made the claim, here's your chance to demonstrate it. Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric looks like from the lateral and posterior views. Sure, no problem. Oh...that's right...you've found it impossible to bunch 3+ inches of shirt + jacket fabric, which is why you blow thin smoke. Not at all. but first lets be clear. I've made no claim about the position the shirt, and quite frankly your claims are baseless as well. We can't tell what the shirt is doing under the jacket. All we KNOW AS AN ABSOLUTE is the positon of the shirt and jacket at the moment the bullet pierced then. With that said, this series of photos meets your request. You simply can't read the location of the top of the folds in the photos. The top of the folds are clearly below the top the jacket collar. That you can't admit the obvious evidence is telling. I can't admit the obvious? Look in the mirror Varnell. I've already posted the images that indicates the top of the fold in relation to the jacket collar. If you disagree, please provide an illustration that indicates the top of the horizontal fold in each image. I'm up for a good laugh. This is not a photo of bunched fabric. It has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with the Teabag Party that goes on between Craig Lamson's ears. "Bunch" occurs when the fabric pushes together. Not pulled, not rolled, not twisted. It's typical of you to make claims about clothing movement when you are utterly uninformed about what it means to "bunch" fabric. You have made the claim that there is somehow a material different from a photo of "bunched" fabric as compared to the proof of concept photo. In fact you just made the claim that "bunched' fabric produces a fold that is markedly different than a fold produced by any other means. As it stands your claims rest on nothing more that ignorant handwaving and your objection fails miserably as a result. If you can't produce experimental, empirical, proof of concept evidence that shows a DECIDED difference between a "bunched" fold and a fold that is "pulled, rolled or twisted, you lose. Factually incorrect. It expresses nothing of what I've pointed out in the photos. Yes it does. Your exact words: "The lip of the Towner fold is clearly seen in Betzner (blue line)." Your image and the claimed location of the fold: http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd44/infocusinc/betzgroden10.jpg The proof of concept image posted meets the requirement YOU set out in the quoted passage...The fold is located in a posaition similar to you "blue line". The lighting is correct. The actual fold is of the same type as the fold seen in Towner. So how is this not factualy correct again? And don't even bother with your nonsense about "bunched" unless you have completed the requirements set forth up up post. You can't produce a photo of 3+ inches of bunched shirt + jacket fabric. Why not? But I have, more than once as has been discussed many time. You however simply don't have the intellectual honesty to deal with the unimpeachable fact that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. You make the claim, you produce the proof. No problem, this fits the bill. Edited June 29, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 They "will"? You'll have to demonstrate this for us, Craig. You don't expect us to take your word for it, do you? No need to take my word for it at all. Simply view the images and do the math. Since the top of the horizontal fold on JFK's back...in each photograph... extend to the height of the top of the jacket collar, when viewed from the rear as oin Betzner the collar MUST be obscured. But the tops of the fold do not extend to the top of the collar in either Towner or Croft. This is obvious. Your circular logic counts for nothing. And your two proof of concept photos show NO bunched fabric whatsoever, much less 3+ inches of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric. Like all followers of Sarah Palin, Craig Lamson is under the impression he can create reality by repeating his illogic over and over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 What's wonderful is that people like Mr. Lamson will continue to infuriate anyone who thinks and posts rationally. Not if you don't let them. David, I see you have been a Forum member for six years, but it seems you have been much more active posting in the last year or so. You're well-versed, well-spoken, and a very good critical thinker. The good points you often make speak to that. Although it sounds like I am singling you out, I am really directing these remarks to some of the members that "that think and post rationally," as referenced you above. Why would anyone that knows and still cares about President Kennedy's murder 47 long years after it occurred, and still has the fires of curiosity and understanding burning, want to spend their time debating someone who brags about knowing little (and by their own admission, could care less) about the assassination of an American president? Some members design their posts to infuriate others. To become infuriated is playing the game on their terms. (I'm just coining a phrase; I realize that studying President Kennedy's assassination is not a game, but in the vacuum of this Forum it sometimes seems that way.) Switching gears David, what do you know about Maggie Field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 What's wonderful is that people like Mr. Lamson will continue to infuriate anyone who thinks and posts rationally. No, what wonderful is that people like David Josephs, simply can't deal honestly with a cold, hard fact that might upset his wordview. He's pulled his face and mind so close to the chlorophyll in the leaves of the trees that he's totally forgotten to look at the forest at all. David has been so absorbed in protecting his worldview he can't see anything that might disrupt it. His imperical evidence is that since there is a hole in the shirt and jacket 4.5 inches down from the collar and he can prove what amounts to be EXACTLY a 3+" rise in the shirt and jacket based on shadows made out in detail from a poor image to begin with then the shot MUST have hit JFK 1.5 inches down from the collar. First lets get this corect, what is exact is the answer to this question " Is Varnell's claim that JFK's jacket has fallen in the Betzner photo correct? The EXACT answer is NO. An unimpeachable NO. Is Croft a poor image? Towner? Clearly you have a reading and research problem. My claim is quite simple. There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. Bullet holes? Nope. Where the bullets hit? Nope. Just the simple unimpeachable fact that the 3+ inch fold exists in Betzner. Never mind what everybody saw, what the autopsy doctors saw, how far Humes stuck his finger in, how Humes described a 45-60 degree downward angle and that he could feel the end of the wound, how it was represented on the autopsy sheets, where the bullet holes were in the jacket and shirt... All open to massive speculation and ongoing dispute, clearly a game I'm not interested in playing. One thing that can't be impeached is the fact that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner JUST NEVER MIND all that.... Like Howard Brennan, Mr. Lamson can magically tell dimensions based on this visual representation. Clearly you have failed to do your research, which does not paint you in a favorable light. There is no magic, just simple math, which is described in detail in threads on this subject on this forum. You could have easly found them. Instead we get to witness you wallow in ignorance on the subject. The math is quite simple, I'm sure even YOU can follow it. The jacket collar is obscured. Varnell states the jacket collar is 1.25 inches. A fold has TWO sides. 1.25 plus 1.25 equals 2.5". Folds also have curved returns at two points. The minimum fold return I have measures is .25" .25 plus .25 equals .50" 2.5 plus .5 equals 3 inches. This assumes that the fold starts EXACTLY at the bottom of the jacket collar. If not it adds addition amounts of fabric, which gives us the +. You would have known this had you looked. Instead you look a bit foolish. Building a soapbox on one poorly represented piece of supposed evidence shows how insincere you are about the realities of this case. Building a rebuttal based on ignorance as you have just done makes you look really silly. Had you looked you would have known the work extends far beyond one photo. And since you have failed to do even the most basic of research before placing your foot deep into your mouth, it shows you don't have the first clue what you are talking abobut. Of course if you had any real guts you would try and impeach the work. Instead you bluster on in ignorance. How convenient it is for you to dismiss all the other evidence that destroys your suppositions and simply respond with accusations and insults. First there is no "suppositions, only unimpeachable fact. Second please point me to the evidence that impeaches the fact that there is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. Since you and others have not produced a single piece of evidence to impeach the work, you are once again blowing bullcrap. Besides... from the way you put it... there should be at least 3 bullet holes in the jacket... 1 and 2 in and out of the horizontal fold and a third at the point it pierces the jacket where it it laying on his shirt.... or did it hit too low to go thru the folds as it shows in Croft and Towner or too high to have been part of the hiked up jacket and shirt...??? I have not put it anyway in relation to the bullet holes. You really should quite making things up from thin air, it only makes you you silly.... I have simply stated and proven in an unimpeachable manner that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. YOU can feel free to continue your speculations until the end of time. You can choose to ignore or accept the cold truth about JFK's jacket in Betzner. You have every right to your opinion. You don't have the right to your own facts...including the unimpeachalbe fact that there was 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Michael, You make very good points, as always. Mr. Lamson's purpose here is highly political. He cares very deeply about Oswald as a lone nut. I get a kick out of watching the guy claim that 2 inches of JFK's clothing bunched up...until he finds out that the SBT requires 3+ inches to bunch up, then it was 3+ inches that bunched up. Watching a kid get caught with his hand in the cookie jar is amusing, especially when the kid is a rabid Kennedy-hating right winger like Craig Lamson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 (edited) Folds also have curved returns at two points. The minimum fold return I have measures is .25" .25 plus .25 equals .50" This half-inch return somehow avoided the sunlight, even though the half-inch shirt collar caught so much sunlight there is glare. This half-inch return MUST be the same size as the half-inch shirt collar, and yet the shadow from the indentation of the fabric is all we see. There is no 3+inch bulge in Towner, Croft, or Betzner. It's all Teabagger Party prevarication. Edited June 29, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 And he never runs out of breath does he? Like all Teabagger Partiers, Lamson's mouth is always open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 They "will"? You'll have to demonstrate this for us, Craig. You don't expect us to take your word for it, do you? No need to take my word for it at all. Simply view the images and do the math. Since the top of the horizontal fold on JFK's back...in each photograph... extend to the height of the top of the jacket collar, when viewed from the rear as oin Betzner the collar MUST be obscured. But the tops of the fold do not extend to the top of the collar in either Towner or Croft. Sure they do as my illustration clearly exhibits. You want to dispute this...illustrate it for us. Show us the tops of the folds in Croft and Towner. So we don't have to take your word for it. It should not be that hard, even YOU should be able to do it. What are you afraid of? And your two proof of concept photos show NO bunched fabric whatsoever, much less 3+ inches of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric. What? You have not proven that a fold must be bunched? If you can't show a difference between methods of folding fabric your objection fails and you lose. Of course you CAN'T show that difference and you know you have lost. hence the following... Like all followers of Sarah Palin, Craig Lamson is under the impression he can create reality by repeating his illogic over and over... Spoken by the loser... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 (edited) And he never runs out of breath does he? Like all Teabagger Partiers, Lamson's mouth is always open. And Varnell's is full of crap, so (self edit) like Edited June 29, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Nice one Michael. Does the word you are implying about him begin with a 'T'? Rhymes with "roll." A while back the mods here used to let his brains explode, a snarling loon who'd lost his bunch. It was quite the sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 (edited) Folds also have curved returns at two points. The minimum fold return I have measures is .25" .25 plus .25 equals .50" This half-inch return somehow avoided the sunlight, even though the half-inch shirt collar caught so much sunlight there is glare. This half-inch return MUST be the same size as the half-inch shirt collar, and yet the shadow from the indentation of the fabric is all we see. There is no 3+inch bulge in Towner, Croft, or Betzner. It's all Teabagger Party prevarication. Clearly your math skills suck, or is that y....oh nevermind. The unimpeachable fact remains that there is a 3+ in fold of fabric in Betzner, no matter now smelly Varnell makes the room Edited June 29, 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