David Josephs a question for you

[Craig Lamson]

Well Cliff you DID got one thing right, this is not about the Kennedy assassination, its about ONE PHOTO. Politics can't change how the sun works. Political spin can't change how a shadow works.

Gentle reader, isn't that a fine collection of non sequiturs Craig has compiled

above?

No this is just more Varnell ignorance....

None of Craig's work has anything to do with bunched fabric. Craig doesn't betray any hint

that he understands fabric bunch at all.

Varnell continues to wave his hands in ignorance. He simply can't show there is a substantial difference in a fold that results by any means including his vaunted BUNCHING. His incompetent handwaving does not an objection make.

Craig, your right-wing lunacy can't make 3+" of shirt and jacket fabric bunch up,

nor can it identify the 4 distinct horizontal features which the unbendable

laws of light and shadow dictate MUST appear in Betzner according to your own analysis.

Cliff your silly fantasy that the jacket fell and that there was an "indentation" on JFK's back creating the dark artifact in Betzner is simply not rooted in reality. Its a FANTASY that cannot withstand the bright light of truth and the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. The ONLY arrangement of fabric that CAN wihtstand inspection AND comply wihthte strict natural demands as seen in Betzner is a 3+ inch fold of fabric.

Simple, precise and unimpeachable as we have seen as you have failed to to in many months of trying.

None of your proof of concept photos shows bunched fabric; none of your desperately drawn lines point out the 4 distinct horizontal features you CONCEDE must be present.

Thats just MORE of the silly Varnell Left wing wackjob bs and a wondewrful display of his incompetence.

The bottom margin of the shirt collar and the top and bottom margins of the Towner/Croft fold return

are all ONE horizontal feature according to Craig Lamson, in spite of his stipulation to

the fact that all three MUST be distinct features!

Really? The truth however is that Varnell is simply incompetent. He can't even understand a simply graphic that CLEARLY defines the upper and lower margins of the highlight on the top of the 3+ inch fold seen in Betzner. What a silly boy.

Thanks for providing the comic relief we need in these difficult days, Craig!

Thanks for continuiing to show us your gross incompetence Cliff...all these words words and you still can't deal honestly with this....your ignorance knows no bounds!

Until Varnell can find a way to break the undendable laws of Light, Shadow and Angle of Incidence, his vaunted "MAGIC FALLING GROWING FANTASY BUNCH" fails as does his years long claim that the jacket fell. To put a fine point on it, the left wing, card dealing and incompetent Varnell is simply ignorant of something as simple as how the SUN works. What a ringing endorsement of his warped worldview!

Your failures will never go away Varnell, that's a FACT you can take to the bank. What a wonderful hit you have taken to your reputation. It's been my pleasure to make that happen.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Well Cliff you DID got one thing right, this is not about the Kennedy assassination, its about ONE PHOTO. Politics can't change how the sun works. Political spin can't change how a shadow works.

Gentle reader, isn't that a fine collection of non sequiturs Craig has compiled

above?

No this is just more Varnell ignorance....

Here's the non sequitur you're pimping, Craig: Large folds cast shadows; there is a

shadow area in Betzner; therefore, the shadow was created by a large fold.

Fabric indentations also cause shadows, Craig.

Your problem Craig is that the 1/8" return on that fold MUST be visible with

distinct upper and lower margins.

This is unimpeachable.

This is a fact according to the unbendable, immutable, irrefutable laws of light

and shadow.

The 1/2" shirt collar also has distinct upper and lower margins.

Since Craig Lamson doesn't have it in him to show us what 3+" of bunched up shirt

and jacket fabric looks like, it's up to Craig to point out the upper and lower margins

of his teabagger fold.

But all Craig does is point to the lower margin of the shirt collar and claim that

the lower margin of the shirt collar is ALSO the upper and lower margins of the

teabagger fold return!

How does the lower margin of a 1/8" wide artifact appear indistinct from its

upper margin AND the lower margin of another artifact?

Why don't you replicate this event, Craig?

Oh...because it's impossible? Just like the 3+" of bunched up shirt and jacket

fabric you've failed to replicate? Is that the problem?

[Cue more breast-beating and loud noise...]

Edited July 14, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Boom!

There goes Craig Lamson's brains blowing all over his nice keyboard.

LOL! Gentle reader as the child likes to call you, don't be fooled it was VARNELLS head that just exploded.

Here's the non sequitur you're pimping, Craig: Large folds cast shadows; there is a

shadow area in Betzner; therefore, the shadow was created by a large fold.

No, the fold IS the shadow..is this really that hard for you to understand...even a third grader could figure it out. Too many days in a poker room addled your brains? LOL!

Your problem Craig is that the 1/8" return on that fold MUST be visible with

distinct upper and lower margins.

This is unimpeachable.

Yep, it is visable

This is a fact according to the unbendable, immutable, irrefutable laws of light

and shadow.

Yep, it sure it is.

The 1/2" shirt collar also has distinct upper and lower margins.

Since Craig Lamson doesn't have it in him to show us what 3+" of bunched up shirt

and fabric looks like, it's up to Craig to point out the upper and lower margins

of his teabagger fold.

Ah but I have shown you 3+ inchs of folded jacket many times. And I've clearly pointed out the top and bottom of the highlight on the top of the fold. Your brain like swiss cheess now too! Poor Varnell, just can't get anything correct.

But all Craig does is point to the lower margin of the shirt collar and claim that

the lower margin of the shirt collar is ALSO the upper and lower margins of the

teabagger fold return!

I've clearly pointed out the top and bottom of the highlight on the top of the fold. You being inept idoes not an objection make ( we are clearly in Varnell happy meal land now.

How does the lower margin of a 1/8" wide artifact appear the exact same as the

upper margin and the lower margin of another artifact as well?

Translaterd from Varnellspeak..."I'm REALLY stupid"

Why don't you replicate this event, Craig?

I've given you a very nice proof of concept photo that proves in an unimpeachable manner that only the 3+ inch fold can produce the artifact seen in Betzner. Heck it even has a similar highlight on the top of the fold...imagine that...

Oh...because it's impossible?

No what is impossible is for your FANTASY FOLD/indentation to create the artifact seen in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. Which is why you have avoided the elephant in the room for weeks. You CAN'T make the dark artifact happen.

[Cue more breast-beating and loud noise...]

Cue weeks more of Varnell shucking and jiving in a vain attempt to evade the uninpeachable.

Poor Varnell. This is going to haunt him forever unless he mans up ( or was that the Varnell holiday fun??) and admits his error. The truth is not going away and neither am I.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

No, the fold IS the shadow...

Not the return, Craig. In order for there to be a shadow something must cast

the shadow. The 1/8" fold return MUST be visible in sunshine. This is unimpeachable.

There MUST be an artifact with distinct upper and lower margins. Your fold exists

only in your mind, Craig, otherwise you could readily point to these features.

And there is a horizontal artifact with distinct upper and lower margins. Right

below the indented shadow area, which was right below the jacket collar which was occluded

by the glare off the shirt collar.

This is unimpeachable.

I can point to 4 distinct horizontal features in Betzner. Craig Lamson can't.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

And there is a horizontal artifact with distinct upper and lower margins. Right

below the indented shadow area, which was right below the jacket collar which was occluded

by the glare off the shirt collar.

This is unimpeachable.

Of course its impeachable Varnell!

Can you say game over for cliffy? I knew that you could.

[Craig Lamson]

I can point to 4 distinct horizontal features in Betzner. Craig Lamson can't.

You have perfected the art of making a azz of yourself Cliff! ROFLMAO!

You have identifed:

(green) the natural shadow created by the shoulder.

(red)The required shadow cast by the left corner of the 3+ inch fold

(Yellow}The top of the 3+ inch fold ( well at least PART of it, up to the point where the shadow frmo JFK's neck crosses the shirt collar. The remainder is just Varnell Fantasy)

Thanks you have just located the 3+inch fold on JFK's back and the dark artifact created by it.

Game over, you lose!

Edited July 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

I can point to 4 distinct horizontal features in Betzner. Craig Lamson can't.

You have perfected the art of making a azz of yourself Cliff! ROFLMAO!

You have identifed:

(green) the natural shadow created by the shoulder.

Wrong!

There are many photos of JFK in the motorcade -- including one in the set

Chris posted upthread -- that show the exact same horizontal fold in the

exact same place on the jacket.

Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like

so we can verify what is otherwise a baseless assertion.

(red)The required shadow cast by the left corner of the 3+ inch fold

Show us what a 3+ inch shirt + jacket fabric fold looks like. Why should

anyone take your word for it?

You've never seen such a fold, Craig, how would you know what it looked like?

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson is a "bunch theorist" who has no clue what it means to "bunch" fabric.

In his "proof of concept" photo "Betzner/Croft fold" Craig shows us unrelated fabric

which he admits he arranged by pulling directly up on it.

Pulling on fabric is the exact opposite of bunching fabric.

Craig needs to unroll that towel he used in his clue-less concept photos and

lay it out flat on the table.

Then Craig needs to stand over the towel and casually grip the edges of the towel with his little mitts. Holding the left side of the towel with his left hand and the right side of the towel with his right hand, Craig then needs to move his hands out in opposite directions, stretching the towel in front of him.

If Craig does this he will notice a horizontal or horizontal/diagonal fold in the fabric.

Next, Craig will keep his light grip on the edges of the towel but this time he will move his little mitts toward each other, pushing the fabric together.

If Craig does this he will notice a vertical or vertical/diagonal fold in the fabric.

Pulling on fabric is the opposite of bunching fabric, and achieves the opposite results.

But for the life of him, Craig Lamson cannot get his brain around this simple demonstration.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

I can point to 4 distinct horizontal features in Betzner. Craig Lamson can't.

You have perfected the art of making a azz of yourself Cliff! ROFLMAO!

You have identifed:

(green) the natural shadow created by the shoulder.

Wrong!

There are many photos of JFK in the motorcade -- including one in the set

Chris posted upthread -- that show the exact same horizontal fold in the

exact same place on the jacket.

Ah but show us ONE that creates the dark shape seen in Betzner IN THE CORRECT LIGHT! Never gonna happen because the unbendable natural laws of light and shadow render it IMPOSSIBLE. The only way the create the artifact seen in Betzner is a 3+ inch fold of fabric. Thats it cliffy. It's unimpreachable. Your silly handwaving gamse are OVER.. You lost.

Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like

so we can verify what is otherwise a baseless assertion.

Betzner, Croft, and Towner ALL show a 3+ inch fold of fabric. Again unimpeachable. The only thing baseless is your decades long claim.

(red)The required shadow cast by the left corner of the 3+ inch fold

Show us what a 3+ inch shirt + jacket fabric fold looks like. Why should

anyone take your word for it?

See above. I don;t expect anyone to take my word for anything unlike what YOU demand of the reader. Anyone can do the empirical tests themself. In fact I welcome it. You an the other hand totally RUN away whan you are asked to prove anything. That really speaks volumes about your claims.

This is a perfect example of your cowardice...

You've never seen such a fold, Craig, how would you know what it looked like?

Sure I have. I made one and photogrpahed it...you know proof of concept photos. And you know what? It was a perfect fit for the conditions found in Betzner. In fact its the ONLY thing that fits. Unimpeachable.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Now we can see the fear rise in Varnell. He knows he has lost and has now reverted to mindless handwaving. Notice Varnell can't offer any DIRECT evidence that a one fold in materially different than another based on the method of creation.

He wants to to believe the towel is stretching! Imagine that a towels will stretch while being folded! He wants you to believe that somehow distorts a fold???

Also notice VARNELL can only offer you a BELIEF! He can't prove his statements so he hopes for ignorance from his readers.

These proof of concept images nail the coffin shut on Varnells decades long falsehood. It scares his senseless. Its his undoing. It's UNIMPEACHABLE!

And yet Varnell cannot get his brain around the simple fact that he has lost. What a silly boy cliffy is....

Edited July 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Gentle reader, please note that Craig Lamson attacks my conclusions but he

stipulates to the facts upon which I based my conclusions.

1) There are two measurable horizontal artifacts that MUST appear in the

Betzner photo: the 1/2" of exposed shirt collar and 1/8" lip

of the Towner/Croft fold return.

2) Both of these artifacts MUST feature distinct lower and upper margins.

And yet when challenged to point out the distinct horizontal features

of his teabagger bunch all Craig does is huff and puff and point to the lower

margin of the shirt collar.

He acknowledges that these distinct features MUST be in Betzner, but he invariably fails to point them out as distinct from the lower margin of the collar.

Why is that, Craig?

Edited July 15, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

You've never seen such a fold, Craig, how would you know what it looked like?

Sure I have. I made one and photogrpahed it...you know proof of concept photos.

Those photos do not show 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric.

Did JFK wear a towel in the motorcade? did someone pull up on the towel?

It's a bluff. You can't show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and

jacket fabric looks like, and you can't identify the upper and lower margins

of the fold return to which you have already stipulated.

But the tap dancing is great!

Edited July 15, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Now we can see the fear rise in Varnell. He knows he has lost and has now reverted to mindless handwaving. Notice Varnell can't offer any DIRECT evidence that a one fold in materially different than another based on the method of creation.

But the method of creation in the case of JFK is clear: the material had to

"bunch" in order to create the artifacts observed.

Nope the method is IMMATERIAL. WHAT IS THERE IS THERE. None of your handwaving bullsnit can change it. All that matters is WHAT CAN CREATE THE ARTIFACT IN BETZNER. The argument moved past your handwaving and into the unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. That was the very MOMENT you lost the argument and your decades long series of falsehoods. And thats why you are quaking in fear this very moment. Poof! Varnell is burnt to a crisp by the noonday sun!

The movement of the fabric in your photo MUST match the movement of JFK's

shirt and jacket fabric.

Nope. Meaningless. All that matters is WHAT CAN CREATE THE ARTIFACT IN BETZNER.

If you do not replicate "bunching" your proof of concept photo is irrelevant.

Nope. All that is required is a simple FOLD. What matters is HOW IT REACTS to light. Your "bunch" is bullsnit.

Please show us what 3+ inches of bunched fabric looks like, Craig.

No problem, view Betzner , Croft or Towner....

Why is this simple proof so hard for you to produce?

There you go!

Now why is this simple proof so hard for you to produce? Is it because you KNOW you can't or is it you are AFRAID of the results. Cluck Cluck cliffy...

He wants to to believe the towel is stretching!

Yes, when you PULL on clothing you are stretching it out, as opposed to pushing it together.

The two motions are fundamentally opposite and create opposite folds.

I knew you couldn't get your head around it.

Hint: no one pulled on JFK's jacket.

Really...PROVE a similar fold created by each method is materially different. Why is this simple proof so hard for you to produce? No more handwaving bullsnit from you cliffy, Your 15 minutes is UP!

Stick a fork in Varnell he's done and the argument has moved past his limited ability to understand. His fear is palpable.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Gentle reader, please note that Craig Lamson attacks my conclusions but he

stipulates to the facts upon which I based my conclusions.

Your conclusions are meaningless IF they can't produce hre artifat seen in Betzner. And they can't Strike one on cliff.

1) There are two measurable horizontal artifacts that MUST appear in the

Betzner photo: the 1/2" of exposed shirt collar and 1/8" lip

of the Towner/Croft fold return.

2) Both of these artifacts MUST feature distinct lower and upper margins.

And yet when challenged to point out the distinct horizontal features

of his teabagger bunch all Craig does is huff and puff and point to the lower

margin of the shirt collar

Nope I've shown quite clearly TIME AND TIME AGAIN both the upper and lower marigns of the highlight on the top edge of the 3+ inch fold of fabric in Betzner. Would you like to see them both again? Strike two on cliffy...

He acknowledges that these distinct features MUST be in Betzner, but he invariably fails to point them out as distinct from the lower margin of the collar.

Why is that, Craig?

Why is it that you are too ignornant to understand cliffy? Brain dead? Strike three on cliffy. You are outta here...

Edited July 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

You've never seen such a fold, Craig, how would you know what it looked like?

Sure I have. I made one and photogrpahed it...you know proof of concept photos.

Those photos do not show 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric.

Don't need to. They show exactly how a fold similar to what is seen in Betzner reacts to the correct lighting. And it proves in an unimpeachavble manner that ONLY a large horizontal fold of fabric can produce the artifact seen in Betzner. Once again Varnell wanders around in circles. You dizzy or something?

Did JFK wear a towel in the motorcade? did someone pull up on the towel?

Sheesh Varnell the towel WAS YOUR IDEA. LOL..you are dizzy. Spin around a bit more and maybe youi can make yourself puke up an admission of fault.

It's a bluff. You can't show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and

jacket fabric looks like, and you can't identify the upper and lower margins

of the fold return to which you have already stipulated.

Bluff? sheesh thats rich coming from the guy who has not produced one piece of proof to back his claims. Cliff Varnell flaping his arms like a chicken and spinning like a top... what a hilarious scene.

But the tap dancing is great!

Yea, thats all you have done for months, ever since you lost the argument. You do look funny as heck spewing your nonsense. I can play this game of beating you to a pulp forever!

Remember this one cliffy? It will haunt you until the day you admit you are in error. I LMAO everytime I see the part where you can't even decide how large the Varnell Magic GROWING Fantasy Fold really is? ROFLMAO! You are really a piece of work cliffy. Well worth the effort for the laughs you provide.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson