David Josephs a question for you

[Craig Lamson]

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?

Its not a game? Oh CLEARLY it is.

[Craig Lamson]

Nice one Michael.

Does the word you are implying about him begin with a 'T'?

The proper T word here is TRUTH Jim. You seem to have troble understanding.

[Cliff Varnell]

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 illustrate nothing! None of your proof of concept photos show bunched fabric -- much

less 3+" of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric, which you have found impossible to replicate

(it's tough getting that shirt to move, innit, Craig?)

There is no bulge in Betzner 6 times the size of the exposed shirt collar.

Your arrows point to the jacket collar line against the shirt, and you don't even take

into account the glare on the left side of the shirt collar.

Keep working it, Craig! Sarah loves you.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Oh you really miss it Cliff, the "sight" is watching bumble around as your decades long fantasy explodes before your very eyes.

Finding the unimpeachable nail in your fallen jacket coffin was so fortunate. Busting you made it even better.

You are forever tainted. Now thats quite a sight!

Edited June 29, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

The pictures put the lie to your assertions. Minor folds in the back of the jacket,

as any sentient being can see.

[Craig Lamson]

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 illustrate nothing! None of your proof of concept photos show bunched fabric -- much

less 3+" of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric, which you have found impossible to replicate

(it's tough getting that shirt to move, innit, Craig?)

Sure I do, I show the tops of the fabric folds in Betzner, Croft and Towner. YOU are afraid to refute it wit an illustration of your own. Cluck Cluck!

I've show you three images of a 3+ inch fold in a jacket. You have offered no substantial attempt to refute ( flapping your arms like a chicken does not count)

I've offered unimpeachable evidence via proffof concept experiments. You have been unable to refute them. Your childish claims of "bunched" fabric is STIL unsupported wiht any sort of experimental, empirical evidence. All you offer is more flapping chicken arms. An utter failer but quite the sight never the less.

You have been beaten. No more cards to deal for Cliff.

There is no bulge in Betzner 6 times the size of the exposed shirt collar.

Sure there is, as has been proven in an unimpeachable fashion. You simply can't refute it.

Your arrows point to the jacket collar line against the shirt, and you don't even take

into account the glare on the left side of the shirt collar.

Yea, right. {/sarcasm}

Keep working it, Craig! Sarah loves you.

You know CLiff, you really have lost it. You are coming unglued. The endgame is here and despite your best efforts to deflect, (and my willingness to watch you make a fool of yourself by playing along) your prospects have not changed.

Either you can provide us with experimental, empirical proof of concept evidence that shows a viable alternative to the 3+ inch fabric fold seen iin Betzner, or you are done. It's as simple as that.

Its time for you to put up or shut up. Either you can show us and prove to us that alternative will work given the unbendable natural laws of light, shaodw and angle of incidence, or you lose.

I have NO problem batting you around like a half dead mouse for the next month. A smuch fun as that could be its getting pointless.

Here is where it is cliffy....

It's time for you to put up or shut up. Either you can show us and prove to us that alternative will work given the unbendable natural laws of light, shaodw and angle of incidence, or you lose

Whats it gonna be?

Edited June 29, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

The pictures put the lie to your assertions. Minor folds in the back of the jacket,

as any sentient being can see.

No, they put the lie to YOURS.

It's time for you to put up or shut up. Either you can show us and prove to us that an to alternative will work given the unbendable natural laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence, or you lose

[Craig Lamson]

Uh Craig, forget the "natural unbendable laws of light" etc.

Why, because they screw your pooch? Sorry, thats what I study. YOU can play speculation games until the cows come home. It seems to suit you quite well. You can directly with the photos...or just make some stuff up....

I really can't help it you pimp really stupid photo analysis.

How did Oswald get that rifle, if:

1. The P Office did not deliver objects to people whose name did not fit the box--which was the case here.

I'll be happy to answer this on though since I ran my business out of a PO box for years.

Your statement is pure pullsnit....

So Craig when you can answer all the above and show me how its all so innocent, I will buy into your "natural unbendable laws of light".

Oswald never ordered or picked up that rifle Craig. The pictures are forgeries. And you never researched any of this.

No Jim I don't have to do any of that. I don't CARE to research this crap. i'm not into SPECULATION. I deal with photos....period. And I know that telling the truth about these photos, really busts your chops. Because ONLY if the images are fake can your fantasy live.

Sorry, but you can't PROVE the images are faked. In fact the attempts to do so are beyond childish. Of course thats why you choose to deflect.

When you can deal directly with the photos let me know. Until then speculate to your hearts content. It really suits you.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

.

So we see that whatever Craig's "expert" opinion tells him about Kennedy's jacket, the more relevant photographs prove there was a conspiracy.

No "opinion" Martin, simply uninpeachable FACT. I notice YOU can't refute it either.

Can you say the same for the evidence you are quoting?

But hey, you gotta love all that speculating don't ya? Makes your world go round and round.

[Cliff Varnell]

The pictures put the lie to your assertions. Minor folds in the back of the jacket,

as any sentient being can see.

No, they put the lie to YOURS.

It's time for you to put up or shut up. Either you can show us and prove to us that an to alternative will work given the unbendable natural laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence, or you lose

So where is the "return", Craig? You ignore the glare on the left side of the

shirt collar.

Your arrows point to to the shirt collar-line, but there MUST be at least a .25"

horizontal line from the top of the jacket fold.

No such "return" line exists.

It's all in your head, Craig.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

The pictures put the lie to your assertions. Minor folds in the back of the jacket,

as any sentient being can see.

No, they put the lie to YOURS.

It's time for you to put up or shut up. Either you can show us and prove to us that an to alternative will work given the unbendable natural laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence, or you lose

So where is the "return", Craig? You ignore the glare on the left side of the

shirt collar.

I've ignored nothing, except your continued ignorant blovations.

Your arrows point to to the shirt collar-line, but there MUST be at least a .25"

horizontal line from the top of the jacket fold.

Is it the shirt collar line or the top of the fold?

BTW that would be .125" As we see again your math truly SUCKS.

No such "return" line exists.

Of course it exists, in Betzner, in Croft, in Towner....

The photos prove it in an unimpeachable manner.

It's all in your head, Craig.

No cliff, its all unimpeachable. Which is why YOU have spent months unable to construct a viable alternative and then prove it via experimental, empirical evidence. This speaks VOLUMES about your lack of intellectual honesty. Of course THAT is very old news.

[Cliff Varnell]

Uh Craig, forget the "natural unbendable laws of light" etc.

Craig Lamson is clearly bluffing about the Dealey Plaza photos.

The fact that he cannot replicate his claims should tell you that they're bogus.

[Craig Lamson]

I have no desire to "refute" your OPINION, Craig. As I already pointed out, it's entirely irrelevant to the the question of conspiracy.

The only one speculating around here is you. I gave you the official evidence, not my personal opinion. That you have not the slightest grasp on the real evidence in this case is your problem, not mine.

"offical" evidence? So that evidence is uncontested? There is NO speculation about it? Please.

Of courese you don;t have to try and refute hte unimpeachable fact of that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner.

It not an opinon Martin. You seem to have trouble dealing with direct fact compared to opinion.

That you can't deal directly with unimpeachable fact and instead prefer to deal in the speculative is not my problem either. Thats your choice, its just not very intelllectually honest. But then again that just bolsters my OPINION about the TRUE honesty of most CT's

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson is clearly bluffing about the Dealey Plaza photos.

The fact that he cannot replicate his claims should tell you that they're bogus.

I don't care WHO you are, this coming from Cliff Varnell, handwaver in chief, is truly funny!

Edited July 1, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

"offical" evidence? So that evidence is uncontested? There is NO speculation about it? Please.

There is no such thing as uncontestable evidence, Craig.

Sure there is. The fact that there is a 3= inch fold of fabric in JFK's jacket in Betzner cannot be contested. For that to happen someone must provide an alternative and then prove that alternative works given the hard restraints of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Of course thats the wonder of the scientifc compared the speculative. I guess that just files right over your head.

Of courese you don't have to try and refute hte unimpeachable fact of that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner.

It not an opinon Martin. You seem to have trouble dealing with direct fact compared to opinion.

And you seem to have a problem seperating your OPINIONS from fact.

No, I don't. In the case of the fold on JFK's back in Betzner, the properties of light and shadow are not subject to opinion, nor is the restrait of the suns angle of incidence. They are what they are and simply cannot be changed to fit an agenda.

That you can't deal directly with unimpeachable fact and instead prefer to deal in the speculative is not my problem either. Thats your choice, its just not very intelllectually honest. But then again that just bolsters my OPINION about the TRUE honesty of most CT's

At no point have I offered any personal speculation.

Martin Hay sez:

"This simple fact all by itself destroys the SBT, necessitates a second gunman, and proves a conspiracy."

Truth, meet Martin...

If you can't handle the evidence that's your problem. I don't care what you consider to be "intellectually (really, you understand that word?) honest," I don't care what your opinion of "CT's" is and I doubt any other living soul on planet earth does either.

I can handle FACTS. You can't,

Sad but true. But hey, lets not let a pesky unimpeachable fact get in the way of a worldview...heck no!