David Josephs a question for you

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Funny, thats nowhere in the studies. Is this just more of Varnell telling falsehoods? I must say, telling these l... I mean falshoods has become quite the pattern for you. Do you actually think telling them earns you points or advances your position...or undermines mine?

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?

Blatant and very poor attempt at the strawman arguement. You really do suck, don't you?

No wonder you can't replicate your claims!

Replicate? How in the world can I replicate what happened to the jacket in Dealey Plaza. I can't place JFK in the Limo, I don't have his coat, I can't exactly recreate his motions...in short NO ONE can replicate it.

We can however inspect the Betzner photo and test different arrqangements of fabric to prove what will or will not produce the artifact seen in the photo. Of course those tests prove in an unimpeachable manner that only a 3+ inch fold of fabric can obscure the jacket collar at the point where the neck shadow MUST pass over it. Since that is TRUE, your claim the jacket has fallem is FALSE. Unimpeachable.

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.

But Cliff, thats exactly what I provided for you as you asked. The fact you are simply unable to comprehend does not an objection make.

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.

Take your time Cliff. As we have seen for the last few days, you have nothing of substance to offer anyways.

I think its about time to detail the varnell ignorance. I think we are gonna need a webpage to properly present your "insights".

This once again brings us to game over.

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.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

The only person the game is over for is you Craig.

Repeatedly you ignore the physical evidence which takes precedence over your "unbendable law of light" (sounds like the Unbearable Lightness of Being to me)

Since my studies are limited to the photography the rest is meaningless. It's YOU who must deal directly with the photographic proof when making your speculatons.

In the backyard photos, you ignore almost all the evidence about the rifle order showing the pics are forged--and had to be so, since it was not LHO's rifle.

See above. Your speculation is meaningless.

With Cliff, you ignore the shot location on the shirt and all the witness evidence and documentary trail, like the Burkely death certificate etc.

What part of this is it you can't understand Jim? Your ignorance does not a rebuttal make.

The worst thing about you is you are so arrogant you don't even think you need to know this other stuff.

I don't because it has zero value to the process at hand. Either the photos are real or they are not. Either the claim they show one thing or another is either true or false. How that fits into speculation of the course of events is not my concern. How you use the photographic truth does however does have a direct bearing on your intellectual honesty. And quite frankly that has been found to be sorely lacking in one Jim DiEugenio.

Which is why no one is listening anymore: you sound too much like a salesman. Or a WC zealot i.e. Lattimer

And yet here you are, trying your damnest to deflect from the photographic truth I am presenting. I'ts why Varnell has had to resort to telling bold faced falsehoods. The photographic truth is chipping away at your fantasy world and it's scareing the hell ouf of you....

Edited July 6, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

You are a lost cause.

Lost to what? Your warped worldview? Gladly....

What with "the photographic truth" which was undermined by the Eisendrath Report--to the point it was suppressed.

Ah DiEugenio adds a heaping helping of gross speculation and calls it fact! Hard and proven facts are just too much for him.

And a rifle that wasn't ordered or picked up.

Ah DiEugenio adds yet another heaping helping of gross speculation and calls it fact! Hard and proven facts are just too much for him.

And a shirt that could not possibly have risen that far.

Ah DiEugenio adds yet another heaping helping of gross speculation and calls it fact! Hard and proven facts are just too much for him.

Keep it up though. You're entertaining yourself I guess.

You too it seems, you still keep trying and failing to REFUTE the actual photographic truths. They scare the hell of you!

BTW, did you know Farid was on the government dole for 3.2 milion over the last decade? Good work if you can get it.

And that somehow refutes his WORK? Wow, you really are a weak stick Jim. No wonder this stuff scares you.

[Craig Lamson]

"And this refutes his work?"

This is what I mean about being a lost cause.

It is like you have no historical backdrop on this case--which you don't. And you prove it over and over.

Not needed , WHEN the area of study is the technicals of the photography. The lost cause is Jim DiEugenio, who can't think clearly enough and in an intellectualally honest fashion ot realize something this simple. My area of study is quite clear as are my results which simply scare the hell out of you.

(snip out DiEugenio's massive fetzering....)

So for you to say "And this refutes his work?" shows just how ignorant of this record you are.

Yes it does. I will not trust any so-called expert who is associated with the FBI on the JFK case. Because the FBI is the main reason we are in the soup we are today. Or maybe you didn't know that either? The WC had no independent investigators. So they relied on the FBI for about 80% of the work.

Wrong. This the perfect example of the warped worldview of one Jim DiEugenio and points out in vivid detail his total lack of intellectual honesty. "Trust" has nothihg to do it. Place of employment has NOTHING to do with it.

Information is either correct or not. Source is truly meaningless, at least to those who are not intellectually compromised like Jim DiEugenio.

With abominable results. SInce Hoover had decided Oswald was guilty the day of the assassination. And many FBI witnesses have admitted the fix was in: there was no real investigation and reports were rewritten that did not jibe with the Oswald did it story.

See above. Your intellectual dishonestly is simply staggering. DiEugenio does not look for truth at all.

So excuse me if I laugh at any so called FBI consultant who makes a stupid photo comparison without even asking the following questions:

Laugh all you like , it only makes you look even more silly. As we have seen quite clearly your so called QUESTIONS really have no bearing on the technical questions Farid answered. But of course thats the real reason for this attack by DiEugenio.; He can't refute the technical details.

Q: Why is this picture important?

A: Well, it was on the cover of Life Magazine and it incriminated Oswald in the mind of the public since it shows him with the rifle allegedly used in the murder.

Q: Is there a debate about whether Oswald ordered the rifle?

A: Yes there is. On both sides of the transaction: whether he could have mailed it and whether he picked it up.

Q: I'll pass then. I know law enforcement agencies like to manufacture evidence in situations like that.

Farid never asked. He's too busy making million off the government dole.

Wow DiEugenio, forget the facts lets just attack character...its so much easier. Too bad for you it just makes you look like a wounded child. Please keep it up, its very entertaining. I

What's your excuse?

Excuse? I've been quite clear. I really enjoy seeing ignorants such as Jim DiEugenio squirm when they are confronted by unimpeachable evidnce that destroys their fantasy world. The entertainment value is priceless.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Craig:

This is it for me.

When you can say there is no background knowledge needed on a case as complex as this, and that if someone is tied up with the FBI that doesn't matter, when in fact the following is true:

THE FBI LIED ABOUT EVERY MAJOR ASPECT OF THE CASE!

ANd then, with a record like that, you have the ignorant gall to say the source does not matter.

ANd you then admit you are here to be a xxxxx.

FIne, be a xxxxx with someone else.

Are you mentally defective? We are not talking about the "CASE". It that so difficult that it can't seep into your brain? We are talking about the technical qualities of photographs.

How a shadow falls in relation to the object obstructing the sun has ZERO connection to the "CASE". It's strictly a technical issue. Who brings the information, who they work for, how they are conhnected..HAS NO BEARING on how the natural laws of light, shaodw and angle of incidence work.

You can't dismiss technical data by waving the FBI SUCKS flag. Either you can disprove the data or you can't. Clearly you can't so you offer us this vain and very failed attempt to defect. Sorry, you lose.

You wanna be an ignorant CT nutjob, be my guest. However your continued fetzering won't change the data.

Your cover is totally blown. Your intellectual dishonesty is now on full display. DiEugenio cares not a whit about the truth, all he cares about is protecting his precious worldview, no mattter how warped it has become.

Thanks for the grins.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Please note, gentle reader, that in this reply Craig Lamson fails yet AGAIN to

point out both an upper and a lower margin to his 1/8" teabagger

bunch return.

Craig has reached the point of no return.

According to the unbendable laws of light and shadow the horizontal 1/8" return

MUST be in full sunlight.

According to the immutable, unbendable laws of light and shadow there MUST be

an upper margin and a lower margin.

Craig can only point to the absurd upper margins BELOW the shirt collar on the

left side and up by the ear on the right side.

The unimpeachable fact is that the lower horizontal artifact is the lip of the fold.

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.

Funny, thats nowhere in the studies. Is this just more of Varnell telling falsehoods? I must say, telling these l... I mean falshoods has become quite the pattern for you. Do you actually think telling them earns you points or advances your position...or undermines mine?

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?

Blatant and very poor attempt at the strawman arguement. You really do suck, don't you?

No wonder you can't replicate your claims!

Replicate? How in the world can I replicate what happened to the jacket in Dealey Plaza. I can't place JFK in the Limo, I don't have his coat, I can't exactly recreate his motions...in short NO ONE can replicate it.

We can however inspect the Betzner photo and test different arrqangements of fabric to prove what will or will not produce the artifact seen in the photo. Of course those tests prove in an unimpeachable manner that only a 3+ inch fold of fabric can obscure the jacket collar at the point where the neck shadow MUST pass over it. Since that is TRUE, your claim the jacket has fallem is FALSE. Unimpeachable.

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.

But Cliff, thats exactly what I provided for you as you asked. The fact you are simply unable to comprehend does not an objection make.

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.

Take your time Cliff. As we have seen for the last few days, you have nothing of substance to offer anyways.

I think its about time to detail the varnell ignorance. I think we are gonna need a webpage to properly present your "insights".

This once again brings us to game over.

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.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Please note, gentle reader, that in this reply Craig Lamson fails yet AGAIN to

point out both an upper and a lower margin to his 1/8" teabagger

bunch return.

Craig has reached the point of no return.

According to the unbendable laws of light and shadow the horizontal 1/8" return

MUST be in full sunlight.

According to the immutable, unbendable laws of light and shadow there MUST be

an upper margin and a lower margin.

Craig can only point to the absurd upper margins BELOW the shirt collar on the

left side and up by the ear on the right side.

The unimpeachable fact is that the lower horizontal artifact is the lip of the fold.

No, once again Cliff Varnell just points out his utter visual ignornace and his continued telling if utter falsehoods. Please Varnell please show the reader where I have indicated the location of the top of the fold in relation to JFK's right ear? Oh thats right, you just made that strawman up from thin air. Oh if we could only call a spade a spade and not name it a falsehood....

Cliff Varnell asked to be shown both the upper margin of the highlight on the top of the fold on JFK's back in Betzner and also the lower margin of the highlight on the fold on JFK's back in Betzner.

I have given him exactly what he has asked for in this graphic, (orange stroke) which is once again posted for Varnells inspection.

His visual ignorance does not a rebuttal make. It only points out his continued ignorance.

There are now TWO unimpeachable facts.

1. There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner that obscures the jacket collar.

2. The unbendable laws of light and shadow, and most importantly ANGLE OF INCIDENCE ( wow that just flew right over Varnells head) prove in an umimpeachable fashion that fantasy fold indicated by Varnell cannot produce the artifacts seen in Betzner.

This once again brings us to game over.

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 shadow 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, tell falsehoods 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.

He can't show us experimental, empirical proof of concept evidence that shows his fantasy claim can produce the artifacts seen in Betzner. He can't produce it because it is not physically possible.

Say goodnight Varnell, you have STILL lost.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Please note, gentle reader, that in this reply Craig Lamson fails yet AGAIN to

point out both an upper and a lower margin to his 1/8" teabagger

bunch return.

Craig has reached the point of no return.

According to the unbendable laws of light and shadow the horizontal 1/8" return

MUST be in full sunlight.

According to the immutable, unbendable laws of light and shadow there MUST be

an upper margin and a lower margin.

Craig can only point to the absurd upper margins BELOW the shirt collar on the

left side and up by the ear on the right side.

The unimpeachable fact is that the lower horizontal artifact is the lip of the fold.

Actually it is Varnell who has reached the point of no return.

By invoking the unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence in his rebuttals, he now must live by them in his claims.

He MUST be able to prove his claim concerning the so called "horizontal fold and dark area on JFK's left shoulder in Betzner.

Let the fun begin as we watch Varnell try and PROVE the unprovable!

Edited July 7, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig, you remain unclear on this whole "burden of proof" thing.

According to your analysis there was a massive jacket/shirt fold below JFK's

shirt collar at the left-back of his neck that extended up around his ear on

the right-back of JFK's neck.

This psychedelic artifact MUST have a 1/8" "return" according to YOUR analysis.

You have shown us the upper margins of this fantastic fold, but you still haven't

shown us the lower margin.

There MUST be both an upper and lower margin of the 1/8" fold.

And, of course, there is.

Upper margin indicated by the red line, lower margin indicated by the green line (below).

You can't show us the lower margin of the teabagger bunch because it didn't exist.

Otherwise, you could show us the lower margin. But you can't.

This should be simple enough for you to grasp, Craig.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, you remain unclear on this whole "burden of proof" thing.

According to your analysis there was a massive jacket/shirt fold below JFK's

shirt collar at the left-back of his neck that extended up around his ear on

the right-back of JFK's neck.

This psychedelic artifact MUST have a 1/8" "return" according to YOUR analysis.

You have shown us the upper margins of this fantastic fold, but you still haven't

shown us the lower margin.

There MUST be both an upper and lower margin of the 1/8" fold.

And, of course, there is.

Upper margin indicated by the red line, lower margin indicated by the green line (below).

You can't show us the lower margin of the teabagger bunch because it didn't exist.

Otherwise, you could show us the lower margin. But you can't.

This should be simple enough for you to grasp, Craig.

I really can't help it that Cliff Varnell is both visually and mentally impaired.

And there you go again with that silly fantasy about JKF's ear. Your ignorance and dishonestly really knows no bounds. Something about a burden of proof comes to mind but that goes beyond Varnell's mental capacity...

The upper and lower margins of the highlight on the top of the 3+inch fold of fabric on JFK's back are CLEARLY indicated here. Varnell is just to ignorant to understand what is right in front of his eyes. Stupidity on the part of Varnell does not a rebuttal make.

You lose once again and you can't even grasp WHY! Now I don't care WHO you are, that is just plain funny!

Of course that brings us to the impossible Varnell Fantasy Fold. The one Varnell can't square withthe unbendable laws of light, shadow and ANGLE OF INCIDENCE....

I'm sure we can expect more ignorant babbling by Varnell, but he is done. His fantasy fold simple will not work given the strict confines of the Betzner photograph.

His very silly and decades long claim the the jacket fell is busted. Thats unimpeachable.

Stick a fork in VARNELL..He is DONE!

Edited July 7, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

The upper and lower margins of the highlight on the top of the 3+inch fold of fabric on JFK's back are CLEARLY indicated here.

Where? Don't draw a thick line over the non-existent artifact, use arrows to point

out the upper margin of the artifact and the lower margin of the artifact.

You can't do this because there is no such artifact at that location.

Like all Teabagger Partiers Craig Lamson just makes up nonsense and repeats it

endlessly.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

The upper and lower margins of the highlight on the top of the 3+inch fold of fabric on JFK's back are CLEARLY indicated here.

Where? Don't draw a thick line over the non-existent artifact, use arrows to point

out the upper margin of the artifact and the lower margin of the artifact.

You can't do this because there is no such artifact!

Like all Teabagger Partiers Craig Lamson just makes up nonsense and repeats it

endlessly.

I'm so sorry you are too ignorant to understand a simple illustration. I did exactly as you asked. I CLEARLY indicated the upper and lower margins of the highlight on the top of the 3+inch fold of fabric on JFK's back.

Deal directly with your own stupidity Cliff, it's not my problem.

Which brings us back to your demise....

That brings us to the impossible Varnell Fantasy Fold. The one Varnell can't square with the unbendable laws of light, shadow and ANGLE OF INCIDENCE....

I'm sure we can expect more ignorant babbling by Varnell, but he is done. His fantasy fold simple will not work given the strict confines of the Betzner photograph.

His very silly and decades long claim the the jacket fell is busted. Thats unimpeachable.

Stick a fork in VARNELL..He is DONE!

BTW, I see you are back to teabagger talk again. Remembering your holiday weekend? ROFLMAO!

Edited July 7, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig,

Will you please post an analysis of the Betzner close-up with two (2) lines,

a red line to indicate the upper margin of the horizontal fold, and a green

line pointing to the lower margin of the fold.

Like this:

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

Will you please post an analysis of the Betzner close-up with two (2) lines,

a red line to indicate the upper margin of the horizontal fold, and a green

line pointing to the lower margin of the fold.

Like this:

Why? This one too hard for you cliffy?

[Cliff Varnell]

Why? This one too hard for you cliffy?

It obviously doesn't point out the upper and lower margins of the fold.

Why can't you point out the upper and lower margins of the fold, instead of drawing

a thick line to represent something that isn't there?

Why is it so hard for you to show us what 3+ inches of bunched shirt and jacket

fabric look like?

Why can't you back up any of your claims?

Your purpose here has nothing to do with photo-analysis, it's all about your hatred for

all things Kennedy. Be honest, Craig.