La-La-Lamson Land

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson has repeatedly concluded that the Betzner 3 photo, taken at Z186, shows

the same fold at the back of JFK's jacket as seen in other Elm St. films and photos

such as the Towner photo, the Towner film, Willis #4, and Croft #3.

Craig has also acknowledged that JFK's shirt collar is visible in those images.

Up to that point we are in agreement: that the Betzner photo MUST show the shirt

collar and the 1/8" lip of the Elm St. fold.

Craig agrees with me that both of these horizontal artifacts MUST have distinct upper and

lower margins.

However, where I can point directly to the upper and lower margins of the

shirt collar and fold lip, Craig is content to draw an orange dot on the shirt collar.

An orange dot!

Craig Lamson's "work" on the Betzner photo is a transparent fraud.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson's "work" on the Betzner photo is a transparent fraud.

Thanks so much for proving once again your total lack of visual acuity and ability to reason. The graphic I created indicates the four points of contention.

You failed the test.

Of course thats not the only faiilure by Cliff Varnell. The Varnell Magic Growing Fantasy Fold simply cannot produce the artifact seen in Betzner. It fails to to create the dark shape seen in Betzner as required by the unbending natural laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence.

Ask Varnell to show you his proof of concept photos?

Surely he has some..right? After all how else would he know if his fantasy fold will actually work?

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson's "work" on the Betzner photo is a transparent fraud.

Thanks so much for proving once again your total lack of visual acuity and ability to reason. The graphic I created indicates the four points of contention.

Your orange dot (!) points to nothing, obviously. You claim there is a horizontal artifact

with two distinct horizontal features -- the upper and lower margins of the lip of the fold -- but

when pressed to point out these features you produce an orange dot (!) and expect people

to take your word for it.

When challenged to show us what 3+ of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like

you pull out a towel that's "pulled directly up" in one photo, and twisted in another.

No one pulled up on JFK's jacket, obviously.

The burden of proof is on you to point out the horizontal features you claim

are in Betzner.

You have failed to point to the upper and lower margins of the horizontal artifact

because it simply isn't there.

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks so much for proving once again your total lack of visual acuity and ability to reason. The graphic I created indicates the four points of contention. Your total inability to see and reason does not an objection make.

You have failed to prove that a fold by any means is anything other than a fold.

You have failed to prove that a large horizontal fold cannot make the artifact seen in Betzner.

You have failed to prove that your Magic Growing Fantasy Fold can create the artifact seen in Betzner.

You have simply failed.

Please try again next time.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Thanks so much for proving once again your total lack of visual acuity and ability to reason.

Oh no, Mr. Lamson, thank you for once again failing to show us what 3+ inches

of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like. It makes your fraud so much more apparent.

And thanks again for failing to point out the distinct horizontal margins of the lip

of the Elm St. fold.

You confirm the fact that no such fold existed.

[Craig Lamson]

LOL! you are really a joke to watch!

Thanks so much for proving once again your total lack of visual acuity and ability to reason. The graphic I created indicates the four points of contention. Your total inability to see and reason does not an objection make.

You have failed to prove that a fold by any means is anything other than a fold.

You have failed to prove that a large horizontal fold cannot make the artifact seen in Betzner.

You have failed to prove that your Magic Growing Fantasy Fold can create the artifact seen in Betzner.

You have simply failed.

Watch Varnell Squirm....

[Cliff Varnell]

When challenged to show us what 3+ of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like

you pull out a towel that's "pulled directly up" in one photo, and twisted in another.

No one pulled up on JFK's jacket, obviously.

LOL

The brilliance of Mr. Lamson's BS is far from dazzling but always amusing.

[Craig Lamson]

LOL

LOL indeed. Watch DiEugenio continue to ignore the elephant in the room...

[Cliff Varnell]

LOL! you are really a joke to watch!

Thanks so much for proving once again your total lack of visual acuity and ability to reason. The graphic I created indicates the four points of contention.

Where does the graphic you produce point to the four horizontal features:

the upper/lower margins of the shirt collar and the upper/lower margins the lip

of the Elm St. fold?

This transparent falsehood of your orange dot marks your utter intellectual corruption.

You have failed to prove that a fold by any means is anything other than a fold.

What? Every horizontal fold has a lip. Every lip has both an upper and lower margin.

You claim that such an artifact exists but you cannot point to the upper/lower margins

of something that clearly isn't there.

You have failed to prove that a large horizontal fold cannot make the artifact seen in Betzner.

Point to the upper and lower margins of this artifact.

Why are the simplest empirical proofs beyond you, Mr. Lamson?

Edited July 20, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Because Mr. Lamson can't replicate or identify the fold he champions, he must

resort to gross distortions of my analysis.

I prepared two different studies of the lip of the Elm St. fold in Betzner.

The first one located the artifact and provided contrast, the second one pointed

to the distinct upper and lower margins of the fold artifact.

Craig can't perform a similar analysis, which makes him jealous and out of sorts.

[Craig Lamson]

Where does the graphic you produce point to the four horizontal features:

the upper/lower margins of the shirt collar and the upper/lower margins the lip

of the Elm St. fold?

This transparent falsehood of your orange dot marks your utter intellectual corruption.

This graphic clearly locates the four margins you requested. Your continued inability to understand a very simple graphic does not a valid objection make. You continue to lose this point.

Craig Lamson:

You have failed to prove that a fold by any means is anything other than a fold.

Learn to read Varnell and not try and change the subject....You STILL have FAILED to prove that a fold by any means is anything other than a fold. Your lack of reading comprehension does not a vaild objection make.

What? Every horizontal fold has a lip. Every lip has both an upper and lower margin.

You claim that such an artifact exists but you cannot point to the upper/lower margins

of something that clearly isn't there.

Asked and answer more than once. Yet another graphic that clearly marks the margins as you asked. See ORANGE. Your failure at at photoanalysis does not an objection make.

Point to the upper and lower margins of this artifact.

Why are the simplest empirical proofs beyond you, Mr. Lamson?

Unimpeachable experimetal, EMPIRICAL proof of concept photos prove in an unimpechable manner that the large horizontal fold is what CAN produce the artifact seen in Betzner and that the Varnell FANTASY FOLD cannot.

Your inability to produce a simple proof of concept image that shows your fantasy fold CAN make the Betzner artifact does not an objection make. In fact it's what causes you to lose the argument. Thanks.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Because Mr. Lamson can't replicate or identify the fold he champions, he must

resort to gross distortions of my analysis.

That Varnell must resort once again to telliing outright falsehoods AGAIN speaks volumes, and is a good indication of the level of honesty one can expect from Cliff Varnell.

I prepared two different studies of the lip of the Elm St. fold in Betzner.

The first one located the artifact and provided contrast, the second one pointed

to the distinct upper and lower margins of the fold artifact.

Instead of Varnell trying to tell you what wants you to believe, lets view the actual posts and witness his dishonesty firsthand.

July 2, 2010 Cliff Varnell:

July 7, 2010 Cliff Varnell:

Edited July 20, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Is it even an artifact?

Or are these photos that poor?

Tell us what is then DiEugenio....something is there. Explain what it is, how it got there and then prove it possible.

Oh wait, that requires something other than speculation on your part...sorry my bad.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Dean Hagerman]

Cliff (and Craig) I have a quick question

At what point between all the photos taken on Houston showing the back of the jacket and then up to Betzner through Towner and Croft did JFKs jacket happen to bunch up so much?

I am not at all saying I disbelieve either you or Craig

I have been trying to find an explanation of when this fold happened, I have tried to read back through the threads on the subject but its just to much for me to find

Please tell me when you think this fold/bunching happened because the amount of time between Croft and Betzner is so small

I might be seeing this the wrong way and if thats not your position I apologize, its just that I have not been following this debate between you and Craig very closly and now im interested

[Craig Lamson]

Cliff (and Craig) I have a quick question

At what point between all the photos taken on Houston showing the back of the jacket and then up to Betzner through Towner and Croft did JFKs jacket happen to bunch up so much?

I am not at all saying I disbelieve either you or Craig

I have been trying to find an explanation of when this fold happened, I have tried to read back through the threads on the subject but its just to much for me to find

Please tell me when you think this fold/bunching happened because the amount of time between Croft and Betzner is so small

I might be seeing this the wrong way and if thats not your position I apologize, its just that I have not been following this debate between you and Craig very closly and now im interested

Who cares when it happened Dean, that is really meaningless because SOMETHING is creating the artifact seen in Betzner. It's there, no need to speculate HOW or WHEN it happened because by Betzner...it has happened.

The only question with any merit that remains is WHAT CAUSED the artifact.