Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 (edited) 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. You've ignored everything! Or at least tried to ignore everything... First of all, you can't produce a photo of what 3+ inches of jacked up shirt and jacket fabric look like. Secondly, you claim there is a .5" "return" on the top of your imaginary jacket fold, but half of that (.25") must be visible in Betzner. But there is no .25" thick artifact. You merely point out the shirt collar line and pretend that the glare off the shirt is the top of the fold. 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? The shirt collar-line, obviously. Where is the horizontal return line that MUST extend to the left of the edge of the shirt collar? But there is a vertical/diagonal fold artifact in Betzner instead, right where your arrows put it. This is why you're afraid to show us your attempts to replicate this fantasy of yours. You can't bunch fabric in this manner -- it's contrary to the nature of reality. BTW that would be .125" As we see again your math truly SUCKS.[/color] You claim the return is ".50 inch" -- half of that would be .25 inch. Of course it exists, in Betzner, in Croft, in Towner.... In Towner and Croft the top of the fold is even with the bottom of the collar. That is obvious, unimpeachable. You cannot identify a "return" line in Betzner, instead you disingenuously point to the shirt collar-line. You've failed to prove that you grasp the concept of "bunched" fabric, much less show us a photo of what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like. The burden of proof is on you, Craig. Show us the "return" line of the top of the fold; show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like; explain how JFK's shirt and jacket hiked up his back multiple inches in a matter of seconds. [cue "Final Jeopardy"] Edited July 1, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH You've got nothing of any worth to contribute to any discussion related to the assassination of JFK. Translated form Hayspeak, I got caught telling a falsehood and I can't refute the unimpeachable...so lets try and deflect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH You've got nothing of any worth to contribute to any discussion related to the assassination of JFK. Martin, here's how it works on the internet: any time someone posts the prima facie case for conspiracy (the low back wound, the throat entrance wound), there is push-back. It's automatic. The argument that JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy makes Craig's brain explode, and making up stuff about the Dealey Plaza photographs is the only way he can push-back. People like Craig don't care how unprovable their claims are -- the important thing for him is to make a counter-argument, no matter how idiotic. I get a kick out of watching Craig blow smoke while he back-peddles from one absurdity to the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Cliff, Yes, I've noticed that his posts are always the same (denial followed by insult) which is why I shall no longer waste my time replying to his nonsense - except to remind him that he's got nothing to say. I'll take care of the light work, Martin. Making Craig's head explode is amusing entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 (edited) The pictures put the lie to your assertions. Minor folds in the back of the jacket, as any sentient being can see. Ah yes, the magic Varnell "minor" folds that extend to the top of the jacket collar... 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. You've ignored everything! Or at least tried to ignore everything... First of all, you can't produce a photo of what 3+ inches of jacked up shirt and jacket fabric look like. I've just produced three, see above. Secondly, you claim there is a .5" "return" on the top of your imaginary jacket fold, but half of that (.25") must be visible in Betzner. But there is no .25" thick artifact. You merely point out the shirt collar line and pretend that the glare off the shirt is the top of the fold. Your ignorance and inability to read knows no bounds! I correctly claimed a fold contains TWO returns, ONE is located at the top of the fold. This return is .25 inches (est.) and we can only see HAFL od that.... .125 inches. You are a laughing stock. And lets review your shirt collar line. What is it that you claim you are seeing in connection wiht the shirt collar? It cant be the jacket collar because the jacket collar MUST be in full sunlight as demanded unbendable natural laws. it can't be an "impression" in the fabric caused by your "fantasy diagonal fold" since that too is not possible due to unbendable natural laws. So what is it cliffy? You wanna wave your hands again? ROFLMAO! 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? The shirt collar-line, obviously. Where is the horizontal return line that MUST extend to the left of the edge of the shirt collar? See above. Once again we witness the Varnell ignorance explode! LMAO! But there is a vertical/diagonal fold artifact in Betzner instead, right where your arrows put it. This is why you're afraid to show us your attempts to replicate this fantasy of yours. You can't bunch fabric in this manner -- it's contrary to the nature of reality. Sure I can, and I'll destroy your fantasy in the process.... BTW that would be .125" As we see again your math truly SUCKS.[/color] You claim the return is ".50" -- half of that would be .25". Wrong again..the Varnell ignorance expands AGAIN! Of course it exists, in Betzner, in Croft, in Towner.... In Towner and Croft the top of the fold is even with the bottom of the collar. No, as the photos and my illustration above clearly show, the fold extends to the TOP of the jacket collar in Betzner, Croft and Towner. The fact that your ignorance precludes your seeing this proven fact is simply beyond funny! That is obvious, unimpeachable. Yes, it IS unimpeachable that the folds extend to the TOP of hte iacket collar in Betzner, Croft and Towner. Thanks for finally agreeing. You cannot identify a "return" line in Betzner, instead you disingenuously point to the shirt collar-line. Shirt collar line next to what? The top of the fold? If so...YES! You've failed to prove that you grasp the concept of "bunched" fabric, much less show us a photo of what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like. The burden of proof is on you, Craig. I grasp fully that fabric fold by by neans is fabric folded. You, however have shown nothing to the contrary. Your chicken like handwaving is duly noted, and quite frankly it's roflmao funny! As for the phoots of 3+ inches of folded jacket, please review Betzner, Croft and Towner..... Show us the "return" line of the top of the fold; show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like; explain how JFK's shirt and jacket hiked up his back multiple inches in a matter of seconds. Done, done and not required given the jacket was already at 3+ inches of fold in Towner... Here's the endgame Cliff. 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 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 BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH You've got nothing of any worth to contribute to any discussion related to the assassination of JFK. Translated form Hayspeak, I got caught telling a falsehood and I can't refute the unimpeachable...so lets try and deflect... Correction: You've got nothing of any worth to contribute to any discussion. Nothing of worth to YOU. That speaks volumes considering the unimpeachable nature of the proof provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH You've got nothing of any worth to contribute to any discussion related to the assassination of JFK. Martin, here's how it works on the internet: any time someone posts the prima facie case for conspiracy (the low back wound, the throat entrance wound), there is push-back. It's automatic. The argument that JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy makes Craig's brain explode, and making up stuff about the Dealey Plaza photographs is the only way he can push-back. People like Craig don't care how unprovable their claims are -- the important thing for him is to make a counter-argument, no matter how idiotic. I get a kick out of watching Craig blow smoke while he back-peddles from one absurdity to the next. More fantasy from the fantasy master Cliff Varnell. Lets watch his head explode. Here is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. Varnell's fantasy claim that the jacket fell in Dealey Plaza has been exposed for what is really is. The musings of an ignorant man. And I must say ignorance becomes him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 I correctly claimed a fold contains TWO returns, ONE is located at the top of the fold. This return is .25 inches (est.) and we can only see HAFL od that.... .125 inches. You are a laughing stock. No, we can't see half of that! Where is this horizontal artifact that MUST be there? And this horizontal fold MUST extend to the left of the shirt collar -- but there is a vertical/diagonal artifact there instead. None of your proof of concept photos show bunched up jacket fabric. When are you going to show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like? Answer: never. Such a thing is contrary to the nature of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH You've got nothing of any worth to contribute to any discussion related to the assassination of JFK. Martin, here's how it works on the internet: any time someone posts the prima facie case for conspiracy (the low back wound, the throat entrance wound), there is push-back. It's automatic. The argument that JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy makes Craig's brain explode, and making up stuff about the Dealey Plaza photographs is the only way he can push-back. People like Craig don't care how unprovable their claims are -- the important thing for him is to make a counter-argument, no matter how idiotic. I get a kick out of watching Craig blow smoke while he back-peddles from one absurdity to the next. Cliff, Yes, I've noticed that his posts are always the same (denial followed by insult) which is why I shall no longer waste my time replying to his nonsense - except to remind him that he's got nothing to say. Thanks for the gift. Trying to talk fact to those blinded by their worldview can be so much work. I'll enjoy the break. That however dose not change the unimpeachable fact that there is 3+ inch fold of fabric in Betzner...that you can't deal with in an honest fashion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 More fantasy from the fantasy master Cliff Varnell. Lets watch his head explode. Here is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. The top of the fold MUST be in full sunshine, but it isn't because it didn't exist. Where is your replication of this 3+ inch jacket fold, Craig? No where, since you've only produced photos of fabric you've pulled or twisted. Still haven't figured out what it means to "bunch" fabric, have you Craig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 (edited) That however dose not change the unimpeachable fact that there is 3+ inch fold of fabric in Betzner...that you can't deal with in an honest fashion.... Such a massive bulge MUST be in full sunshine. But it isn't. In order to prove his claim Craig must demonstrate that it's even possible to bunch up 3+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric. But he can't. Since Towner and Croft show the top of the small folds to be level with the bottom of the jacket collar, Craig must explain how JFK's clothing hiked up his back in seconds. But Craig cannot explain this. Craig's purpose here is purely political, part of the right wing noise machine. Thank goodness Teabagger Partiers are so amusing! Edited July 1, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 I correctly claimed a fold contains TWO returns, ONE is located at the top of the fold. This return is .25 inches (est.) and we can only see HALF of that.... .125 inches. You are a laughing stock. No, we can't see half of that! sure we can, It's right where I pointed it out. Its also in Crof and Betzner. Its not my problem this is too complicated for you. Where is this horizontal artifact that MUST be there? And this horizontal fold MUST extend to the left of the shirt collar -- but there is a vertical/diagonal artifact there instead. Right where indicated. There is only a horizontal fold with a vertical SHADOW created by the left corner of the fold. Now I know all of this technical stuff simply fries your remaing brain cells, but that really not my problem. It is technically correct, and fits the demanded natural laws perfectly and has been proven via experimental, empirical, proof of concept evidence. In fact its all that does fit the natural demands. Thats why it is unimpeachable. And why the Varnell Fantasy has been destroyed. None of your proof of concept photos show bunched up jacket fabric. And thats a problem why? When are you going to show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like? Answer: never. Such a thing is contrary to the nature of reality. That will be news to JFK.... 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 More fantasy from the fantasy master Cliff Varnell. Lets watch his head explode. Here is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. The top of the fold MUST be in full sunshine, but it isn't because it didn't exist. It is. Where is your replication of this 3+ inch jacket fold, Craig? No where, since you've only produced photos of fabric you've pulled or twisted. And you can show us why there is a difference how? Still haven't figured out what it means to "bunch" fabric, have you Craig? Sure I have, what has not happened is for you to figure how to show it makes a difference to a fold. WHy is that again Cliff? Got more fantasy to spread? You want to impeach this you need more than your chicken-like wings. cue 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 That however dose not change the unimpeachable fact that there is 3+ inch fold of fabric in Betzner...that you can't deal with in an honest fashion.... Such a massive bulge MUST be in full sunshine. But it isn't. It is in full sunshine in Betzner, Crofd and Towner. How can you miss this? You have fantasydust in your eyes? In order to prove his claim Craig must demonstrate that it's even possible to bunch up 3+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric. But he can't. The extant photo record proves more than once that it is possible for there to bea 3+ inch fold of jacekt on JFK's back. Varnell cannot prove other wise. Since Towner and Croft show the top of the small folds to be level with the bottom of the jacket collar, Craig must explain how JFK's clothing hiked up his back in seconds. But Craig cannot explain this. Sure I can. The top of the folds extended to the top of the jacket collar in Betzner, Croft,and Towner as my illustration clearly shows. Cliff has failed to offer an illustration countering this because he can't. His objection along with his fantasy claims fail. Here is 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 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