David Josephs a question for you

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Where does the shadow of the neck fall over the left shoulder?

Where is this bulge at the left base of JFK's neck, Craig? The immutable laws

of light and shadow dictate that a massive 3+" bulge at the left base of JFK's

neck MUST catch sunshine and appear distinct from the shirt collar.

No such artifact exists.

None of your faux-studies address bunched fabric, much less 3+ inches of shirt

and jacket bunch.

You can't identify the fold in any of the photos; you can't replicate the fold;

you can't point out any other photos on Elm St. which show the top of the fold

above the bottom of the collar.

The facts of the case matter not to you -- only the push-back, no matter how

transparently absurd.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Where does the shadow of the neck fall over the left shoulder?

Right where it should, over the jacket collar and jacket back under the shaodw of the neck on the shirt collar. Is that really so hard for you to understand or is it simply beyond your ken?

Where is this bulge at the left base of JFK's neck, Craig? The immutable laws

of light and shadow dictate that a massive 3+" bulge at the left base of JFK's

neck MUST catch sunshine and appear distinct from the shirt collar.

It is right where I have indicated and it is glowing brightly in the noon day sun. It appears as totally distinct from the shirt collar as black and white. Is that really so hard for you to understand or is it simply beyond your ken?

No such artifact exists.

Of course it does, it is the ONLY arrangement of fabric that can produce what is see in Betzner, Croft and Towner. No other arrangement of fabric can create the artifacts seen. That is unimpeachable.

None of your faux-studies address bunched fabric, much less 3+ inches of shirt

and jacket bunch.

Of course they do. They show examples of coat fabric folded 3+ inches and prove via experimental and emperical proof of concept examples that the only arrangement of fabric that CAN cause the artifact is in fact a 3+ inch fold of fabric. Again this is simply unimpeachable. Your ignorance in this matter is by no means a rebuttal. It is only ignorance. You don't try simply because you can't.

You can't identify the fold in any of the photos; you can't replicate the fold;

you can't point out any other photos on Elm St. which show the top of the fold

above the bottom of the collar.

To the contrary, I have show threee examples of the fold, Towner, Croft and Betzner. each which show the fold rising to the level of the top of the collar. I've proven the fold exists using shadow analysis and by direct experimentation. This is unimpeachable.

You on the other hand can't prove your claim the fold stops at the bottom of the collar and the claim that it's a "diagonal" fold causing the artifact seen in Betzner The fact of the matter is you can't prove anything. You rely on meaningless displays of ignorance and handwaving instead...which only prove your inabilty to refute the unimpeachable.

The facts of the case matter not to you -- only the push-back, no matter how

transparently absurd.

Last I looked this is a fact..and an unimpeachable one...of the case. The fact it totally destroys your decades old claim is a true bonus. now we can witness the Varnell honor in action. Either you act in an honorablre fashion and admit you have been in error for the last decade or you can be labled as an intellectually dishonest actor. Clearly your choice. Now if to discuss the absurd, lets review your case in this matter. That is truly absurd.

All of which brings us 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.

[Cliff Varnell]

You're bluffing.

Point out the upper and lower margins of this 1/8" "return". Drawing lines

in shadow and murk count for nothing, especially since you've conceded that

you have failed to replicate 3+" of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric.

[Craig Lamson]

You're bluffing.

Point out the upper and lower margins of this 1/8" "return". Drawing lines

in shadow and murk count for nothing, especially since you've conceded that

you have failed to replicate 3+" of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric.

Oh Cliff, I never bluff.

In fact I've been quite open with the processes involved. Unlike you, I don't ask anyone to just believe, I give the tools so they can check for themself.

It STILL (and will forever) stands unimpeached that there was a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner.

It also still ( and will forever) stands unimpeached that the Varnell fantasy that the jacket fell is false.

Forget the endgame Cliff. It's game over for you.

It's been quite entertaining watching you implode and spew your intellectual dishonesty about.

Stick a fork in him...Cliff Varnell and his decades long fantasy are now done.

Thanks for the grins.

[Cliff Varnell]

You're bluffing.

Point out the upper and lower margins of this 1/8" "return". Drawing lines

in shadow and murk count for nothing, especially since you've conceded that

you have failed to replicate 3+" of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric.

Oh Cliff, I never bluff.

Bingo!

When pressed to point out the upper and lower margins of this so-called fold

Craig tap dances.

Again: point out the upper and lower margins of this 1/8" "return" which MUST

be visible in full sunlight.

[Craig Lamson]

You're bluffing.

Point out the upper and lower margins of this 1/8" "return". Drawing lines

in shadow and murk count for nothing, especially since you've conceded that

you have failed to replicate 3+" of bunched up shirt + jacket fabric.

Oh Cliff, I never bluff.

Bingo!

When pressed to point out the upper and lower margins of this so-called fold

Craig tap dances.

Again: point out the upper and lower margins of this 1/8" "return" which MUST

be visible in full sunlight.

And they are. I've pointed it out with THREE different images.

Lets make that FOUR images...

Please refute it.

Or not.

Since its game over for fantasy Cliff Varnell. He's done.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

More tap dance.

Your proof of concept photos demonstrate nothing. Show us in the Betzner photo

where is the upper margin of the fold, and where is the lower margin of the fold?

Btw, that red outline is JFK's hand. Just look at Z186 and you'll see it.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

You can't identify the fold in any of the photos; you can't replicate the fold;

you can't point out any other photos on Elm St. which show the top of the fold

above the bottom of the collar.

The facts of the case matter not to you -- only the push-back, no matter how

transparently absurd.

Amen Cliff.

And he doesn't care if he doesn't make any converts.

Converts are those who are intellectually honest. Where do YOU fit Jim?

[Craig Lamson]

More tap dance.

No more truth you simply can't handle.

Your proof of concept photos demonstrate nothing.

Of course they do, if you had the mental capacity to understand. YOUR limited ability does not an objection make.

Show us in the Betzner photowhere is the upper margin of the fold,

Done, many many times. That you still can't find it does not a rebuttal make.

and where is the lower margin of the fold?

Of WHICH part of the fold? If you don't even know what kind of question ot ask why should anyone even consider ANY of your questions?

Btw, that red outline is JFK's hand. Just look at Z186 and you'll see it.

Thanks for pointing out yet another fine example of Varnell Visual Ineptitude. You do truly suck at photo anaylsis, which is why in part you have gotten this wrong for a decade....

The correct placement of JFK's hand in Betzner, correct geometrically... Thanks Cliff, your ignorance is the gift that keeps on giving.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig, I'm going to make it real easy for you.

I'm not going to ask you to do anything impossible -- like replicate your claim,

which you have conceded you cannot do.

All I'm going to challenge you with is this: show us the upper and lower margins of

your teabagger bunch in Betzner.

That's it.

I'll show you how easy this is...According to the immutable laws of light and

shadow the lip of the fold we see in Towner and Croft MUST be visible in Betzner

as a horizontal artifact with 1) a visible upper margin, and 2) a visible lower

margin.

I'll go first, then it's your turn...

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, I'm going to make it real easy for you.

I'm not going to ask you to do anything impossible -- like replicate your claim,

which you have conceded you cannot do.

All I'm going to challenge you with is this: show us the upper and lower margins of

your teabagger bunch in Betzner.

That's it.

I'll show you how easy this is...According to the immutable laws of light and

shadow the lip of the fold we see in Towner and Croft MUST be visible in Betzner

as a horizontal artifact with 1) a visible upper margin, and 2) a visible lower

margin.

I'll go first, then it's your turn...

Wonderful Cliff, you have just described an arrangement of fabric that, based on the very unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence you trumpet, CANNOT produce the artifact seen in Betzner. Thanks so much for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt your claim is false.

As has been shown time and time again, Varnell is visually ignorant and his decades long claim the jacket has fallen has been proven wrong in an unimpeachalbe manner. This time Varnell does it to himself! PRICELESS!

Stick a fork in Cliff, he is done!

Edited July 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig, I'm going to make it real easy for you.

I'm not going to ask you to do anything impossible -- like replicate your claim,

which you have conceded you cannot do.

All I'm going to challenge you with is this: show us the upper and lower margins of

your teabagger bunch in Betzner.

That's it.

I'll show you how easy this is...According to the immutable laws of light and

shadow the lip of the fold we see in Towner and Croft MUST be visible in Betzner

as a horizontal artifact with 1) a visible upper margin, and 2) a visible lower

margin.

I'll go first, then it's your turn...

Wonderful Cliff, you have just described an arrangement of fabric that, based on the very unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence you trumpet, CANNOT produce the artifact seen in Betzner.

Excuse me?

According to the unbendable laws of light and shadow the lip of the Towner/Croft fold MUST

be visible in Betzner.

This is unimpeachable.

Now the challenge for you, Craig, especially in light of the fact that you

cannot show us what 3+ inches of shirt + jacket fabric looks like,

is to point out in the Betzner photo the upper margin of the teabagger bunch

"return," and the lower margin of the "return."

If you cannot replicate 3+" of shirt + jacket bunch-up -- and cannot

point out the upper and lower margins of the teabagger bunch return -- then

you simply have no case.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, I'm going to make it real easy for you.

I'm not going to ask you to do anything impossible -- like replicate your claim,

which you have conceded you cannot do.

All I'm going to challenge you with is this: show us the upper and lower margins of

your teabagger bunch in Betzner.

That's it.

I'll show you how easy this is...According to the immutable laws of light and

shadow the lip of the fold we see in Towner and Croft MUST be visible in Betzner

as a horizontal artifact with 1) a visible upper margin, and 2) a visible lower

margin.

I'll go first, then it's your turn...

Wonderful Cliff, you have just described an arrangement of fabric that, based on the very unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence you trumpet, CANNOT produce the artifact seen in Betzner.

Excuse me?

According to the unbendable laws of light and shadow the lip of the Towner/Croft fold MUST

be visible in Betzner.

It is as I have shown. My burden of proof has more than been met, in fact it is unimpeachable.

This is unimpeachable.

Yes it is unimpeachable that ONLY a 3+ inch fold of fabric can create the artifacts seen in Betzner.

Now the challenge for you, Craig, especially in light of the fact that you

cannot show us what 3+ inches of shirt + jacket fabric looks like,

is to point out in the Betzner photo the upper margin of the teabagger bunch

"return," and the lower margin of the "return."

But I have Cliff, and I've shown you more than one photo of a 3+ inch fold of fabric.

If you cannot replicate 3+" of shirt + jacket bunch-up -- and cannot

point out the upper and lower margins of the teabagger bunch return -- then

you simply have no case.

But I DO have a case since the ONLY arrangement of fabric that can produce what is seen in Betzner is a 3+ inch fold of fabric. This is PROVEN in a unimpeachable manner via both the extant images, Towner, Croft and Betzner and unimpeachalbe proof of concept images.

Not only do I have a case it is unimpeachable as witnessed by your continued inabiltiy to find a different arrangement of fabric that will produce what is seen in Betzner...AND obey the unbending natural laws of light and shadow. In fact your latest display of visual ignorance proves the point.

All of which brings us once again to the game over segment of the show.

Varnell, unwittingly, sealed his own fate by drawing lines he says indicate the fold on JFK's back in Betzner. The unbendable laws of light and shaodw AND angle of incidence ( remember that one, its a killer for Varnell) which he invoked in his own claim lay waste to his silly cliam. His fold simply cannot produce the artifact seen in Betzner nor can it elininate the shadow from JFK's neck that MUST fall over his jacket colar and jacket back. This is UNIMPEACHABLE.

Squirm, deflect and insult all you want Cliff, you can't bend the unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Your very own claim proves you wrong and ends the debate.

Thanks for playing. It was a real pleasure watching your massive display of ignorance and your total defeat.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig,

Your last two Betzner analyses show the upper margin of the teabagger bunch

to be under the shirt collar on the left side of JFK's upper body, and up

around the level of his ears on the right side.

If the fabric was bunched up 3+ inches on the left side, it had to have been

bunched up what? -- another 6 inches on the right side?

No wonder you can't replicate your claims!

Now, while you've shown us where you claim the top of the bunch was, you've yet

to point out the lower margin of the 1/8" return.

The unbendable laws of light and shadow dictate that there must be both upper

and lower margins to the 1/8" return.

You don't have to produce this right away, Craig. Spend the weekend on your

Betzner studies and get back with us Monday.

I'll be out of town and away from my computer until then.

[Craig Lamson]

Cliff, ever hear of the WIzard of Oz?

The question I don't get is why Craig would go through all this rather painful trial and error and reversal, when he says doesn't give two cents about who killed JFK? But yet, his ersatz arguments always seem to jibe with the official story. I mean if you can just ignore all the evidence that says Oswald didn't order that rifle, you are in John Lattimer country.

Very puzzling.

The Wizard of Oz is the perfect comparison Jim. I'm simply pulling aside the curtain to expose what WITHIN. Sadly for CT's like yourself, what we find when we look behind the curtain of CT photographic claims is blatant ignorance and massive doses of intellectual honesty. Cliff Varnell is the perfect example of ignorance and dishonesty.

Of course thats why you pushback. You simply can't let the photographic truth ruin your fantasies.

And if you wonder why the photogrpahic facts many times jive with the offical account...perhaps they got more correct than you can even begin to understand, and that CT photo analyists are woefully ignorant.