Cliff Varnell Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 (edited) None of your graphics show the distinct upper and lower margins of the horizontal "return" you claim MUST be visible in Betzner. I can point out just such an artifact, and you cannot. This is unimpeachable. None of your proof of concept photos show us what 3+" of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like. All you've proven is that you have no concept of what "bunched" fabric entails. Instead, all we get are dodges, tap dancing, non sequiturs, bloviating. You think because you draw a line on a photo that the line itself is an artifact in the photo? It's fun watching you melt down like this, Craig. Edited July 11, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 (edited) LOL! More childish gibberish from Varnell. You lost. Your destruction is complete. You simply can't find a way to beat the unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. You have been impeached. It was truly a pleasure chopping you off at the knees. Your ignorance knows no bounds. Thanks so much for the entertainment. You are done. Edited July 11, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 Craig, no where in the above do you point out both the upper and lower margins of the teabagger bunch "return," which YOU have claimed MUST be clearly visible in full sunshine. You have failed to offer any proof of your conclusion whatsoever. You have failed to show us what 3+" of bunched shirt and jacket fabric look like. Absent these proofs, what is to stop someone from concluding that Craig Lamson is an intellectually corrupt hack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 (edited) Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. All the work is in this tread for anyone to see. In fact I challenge anyone to find ANY other arrangement of fabric that can create the artifact seen in Betzner and impeach my findings. Of course no Varnell-like chicken wing style handwaving....you must offer experimental, empirical proof of concept evidence to back your claim and adhere to the strict confines of the sun and body position angle as defined in Betzner. The childish Varnell can't do it, maybe the best and hte brightest from the CT community can help him out. That is if you can find anyone who is not a hack.... More to the point the ONLY atrrangement of fabric that can produce the artifact seen in Betzner is a 3+ inch fold of fabric. That is unimpeachable, as witnessed by your utter failure to do so in the many months you have been running your mouth and spewing falsehoods. And of course the Varnell Growing Fantasy Fold simply cannot create the artifact seen in Betzner... I know who the hack is here Varnell. It's YOU. Heck you can't even understand how a simple shadow works. Talk about ignorance! ROFLMAO! Working within the strict confines of the Betzner Photo in respect to the correct angles of subject and sun, the VARNELL Growing Fantasy fold fails to create the artifact seen in Betzner. As such Varnell and his claims about the fold seen in Betzner and that the jacket fell are false. Varnell commits to a farbic arrangement that MUST totally reverse the natural laws of light shadow and angle of incidence to be true. Clearly Varnell is totally ignorant of even the basics of the properties of light and shadow and commits errors even a child should not make. Varnells Waterloo... Edited July 11, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 (edited) Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. All the work is in this tread for anyone to see. In fact I challenge anyone to find ANY other arrangement of fabric that can create the artifact seen in Betzner and impeach my findings. What "findings"? You haven't found out how to bunch shirt and jacket fabric up 3+ inches -- you haven't established that such a thing is even possible (it isn't, custom-made shirts only have a fraction of an inch of slack). You haven't found both the upper and lower margins of the teabagger bunch even though you acknowledge that the immutable, unbendable, irrefutable and...(wait for it)... unimpeachable laws of light and shadow dictate that there MUST be a horizontal artifact in that location with distinct upper and lower margins. No such artifact exists where you put your fantasy fold, Craig. This is obvious to anyone who isn't a Kennedy-hating crank drunk on Sarah Palin's Kool-Aid. Edited July 12, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 (edited) Sorry Cliff but this is all ANYONE needs to know its PROVABLE. There is an artifact seen in Betzner. It's a well defind dark shape. There can be no dispute that the shape is there. HOW it got there is meaningless because it IS there. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT IS MEANINGFUL IS WHAT ARRANGENENT OF FABRIC CAN CAUSE THE ARTIFACT. Thats it. Period. Your endless strawmen are now rendered useless. The arguement has moved past you. This is the only argument left Cliff. IF YOU CAN'T SHOW US AN ARRANGEMENT OF FABRIC THAT CAN PRODUCE THE ARTIFACT SEEN IN BETZNER OTHER THAN A 3+ INCH FOLD....YOU LOSE. A 3+ inch fold is the ONLY thing that works. This is unimpeachable. Experimental, empirical proof of concept evidence shows its a perfect fit within the strict confines of light, shaodow and angle of incidence found in Betzner. NOTHING ELSE CAN CREATE THE SHAPE SEEN IN BETZNER. Again...unimpeachable. You have lost and lost bigtime. Now you have two choices. You can accept the unimpeachable facts or you can continue to wander aimlessly. I'm more than happy to spend another 40 pages of the forums bandwidth battering you ( self censored so as not to upset some who view graphic movies and photos of a man getting his brains blown out) with your own gross incompetence and utter ignorance. I find it quite amusing to watch the late, great Cliff Varnell looking like a total fool. So hey keep bringing it on it you wish. But it will always take us back to the unimpeachable. And you will always lose. There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. IT IS THE ONLY arrangement of fabric that can produce the artifact seen in Betzner. That is uniimpeachable. So it's either game over or game on cliffy, you decide. Here is where you stand, and I might add, it's perhaps the most moronic positon you have ever taken. Shows beyond a shadow of a doubt your incompetence and ignorance. Wow...that makes it the perfect icon for Cliff Varnell and his decades old fantasy... Edited July 12, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 CRAIG ""QUOTE""I'm more than happy to spend another 40 pages of the forums bandwidth battering you about the head until you are bloody with your own gross imcompetence and utter ignorance. I find it quite amusing to watch the late, great Cliff Varnell looking like a total fool."" MR.NASTY STRIKES AGAIN, AND HOW MANY UGLY PILLS DID YOU TAKE TODAY??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 (edited) CRAIG ""QUOTE""I'm more than happy to spend another 40 pages of the forums bandwidth battering you about the head until you are bloody with your own gross imcompetence and utter ignorance. I find it quite amusing to watch the late, great Cliff Varnell looking like a total fool."" MR.NASTY STRIKES AGAIN, AND HOW MANY UGLY PILLS DID YOU TAKE TODAY??? Have you missed Cliffs posts or is this just an yet another example of your fair and balanced worldview? Inquiring minds really want to know? Edited July 12, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 (edited) worldview,you really are obtuse craig really,or is that an act also ?? like mr nasty and mr ugly ? b.. Edited July 12, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 worldview,you really are obtuse craig really,or is that an act also ?? like mr nasty and mr ugly ? b.. Yea, WORLDVIEW.... 1.The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2.A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 (edited) Sorry Cliff but this is all ANYONE needs to know its PROVABLE. There is an artifact seen in Betzner. It's a well defind dark shape. There can be no dispute that the shape is there. Craig, you know that the shape isn't 3+ inches of bunched fabric -- there is no horizontal artifact with distinct upper and lower margins at that location. But there is such an artifact below that, which is obvious. You know that the jacket collar was occluded by the glare from sunshine on the 1/2" of exposed shirt collar, which appears in Betzner as if it were several inches wide. You know that bunched fabric creates indentations, which are filled with shadow. The shadow area was caused by the indentation of the fabric when JFK turned to the right and began to wave his right arm circa Z172. You know that the lower artifact I have highlighted was the Towner/Croft fold. You know these things, Craig, and yet you repeat your fictions over and over. It's what right-wing nutjobs do. Simple as that. You people prevaricate as readily as you respirate. Edited July 12, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 worldview,you really are obtuse craig really,or is that an act also ?? like mr nasty and mr ugly ? b.. You're going to have to forgive Mr. Lamson, Bernice. The cognitive dissonance is killing him, and like many Teabagger Partiers, Mr. Lamson must resort to violent language to compensate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Ah I see VArnell has decided to continue getting his mental beating and continuing his entertaining display of incompetence and ignornace. Great! Sorry Cliff but this is all ANYONE needs to know its PROVABLE. There is an artifact seen in Betzner. It's a well defind dark shape. There can be no dispute that the shape is there. Craig, you know that the shape isn't 3+ inches of bunched fabric -- there is no horizontal artifact with distinct upper and lower margins at that location. Cliff I have PROVEN there IS a 3+inch fold of fabric.-.and nice large horizontal fold. The margins bot top and bottom of hte highlight have been clearly marked for ouy inspection. Its reaaly quite entertaining ythat your limited metal capacity precludes you from understanding. However your incompetence does not an objection make. But there is such an artifact below that, which is obvious. No that is not case at all. What you have indicated, and has proven by proof of concept evidence is nothing more than the shadow created by the natural curve of the shoulder on the bottom and the shadow created by the left corner of the large horizontal fold. In other words your "artifact" is nothing more than a figment of your ignorance. It's exactly what we have come to expect from Cliff Varnell You know that the jacket collar was occluded by the glare from sunshine on the 1/2" of exposed shirt collar, which appears in Betzner as if it were several inches wide. Really? Point that out for us Cliff. Show us the shadow cast from JFK's neck as it passes over the shirt collar, then over rhe jacket collar and finally over the jacket back. This should be good for at least sweveral days of LOL sillyness from the master of incompetence..Cliff Varnell! You know that bunched fabric creates indentations, which are filled with shadow. No Cliff, thats not the blanket statement you want it to be. Its CONDITIONAL...upon the ANGLE OF INCIDENCE. Its quite easy for an indentation NOT to be filled by shadow. Are you to ignorant to understand this simple concept of the unbendable laws of light and shadow? Quite clearly you are way in over your head....back to flopping cards for you. This is beyond your ken. The shadow area was caused by the indentation of the fabric when JFK turned to the right and began to wave his right arm circa Z172. No, but you can try and PROVE it instead of waving your hands. There is a very specfic angle of incidence present in Betzner. For your stupid claim to be true..SOMETHING MUST BLOCK THE SUNLIGHT from reaching the jacket back and jacket collar creating the dark artifact seen in Betzner. What is it? Then prove via experimental, empirical proof of concept that it WILL create the artifact. Balls in your court Varnelll. No handwaving allowed. You know that the lower artifact I have highlighted was the Towner/Croft fold. I know no such thing. What I know and what I have proven ( and your can't impeach) is that there is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner. Still uninmpeachable. What I also know is that your stupid claim about the jacket falling and the "clothing evidence" has been flushed down the toilet along with your creds. It was my pleasure to be the flusher... You know these things, Craig, and yet you repeat your fictions over and over. What I KNOW is that you are WRONG and I am correct. The only "fiction' is coming from you. It's what right-wing nutjobs do. Simple as that. You people prevaricate as readily as you respirate. LOL! Even your attempts at insults reek of incompetence along with your failed arguements. Maybe incompetence is the wrong word. Incontinence is more like it. After many months you are still going allover yourself. So given your stupid claims above its now YOUR turn to prove something. Show us how it works by producing a few proof of concept photos CLiff. The burden ot proof is NOW ON YOU!...by your own making. So snap too it. How hard can it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 [quote name=Craig Lamson' date='12 July 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1278981981' post='197171' Cliff I have PROVEN there IS a 3+inch fold of fabric.-.and nice large horizontal fold. The margins bot top and bottom of hte highlight have been clearly marked for ouy inspection. You've proven nothing. You can't show us what 3+" of bunched fabric looks like. You can't point out the upper and lower margins of the fold's return. You repeat yourself endlessly and say nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 (edited) [quote name=Craig Lamson' date='12 July 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1278981981' post='197171' Cliff I have PROVEN there IS a 3+inch fold of fabric.-.and nice large horizontal fold. The margins bot top and bottom of hte highlight have been clearly marked for ouy inspection. You've proven nothing. You can't show us what 3+" of bunched fabric looks like. You can't point out the upper and lower margins of the fold's return. You repeat yourself endlessly and say nothing. You keep saying I've proven nothing but you cna't REFUTE the data I've put forth. The only on repeating themself endlessly and saying nothing is YOU. Now about those claims you made in your last post...snap to it boy and prove your claims... Varnell = cognative incontinence. Your claim...prove it. the burden of proof is YOURS. BTW thanks for admitting your so called fold is nothing more than the natural shadow of created by the shoulder line and the shadow cast by the left corner of the large horizontal fold. By doing so you admitted defeat! Edited July 13, 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