Craig Lamson Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 (edited) Well, no Craig. Dean made a kind of important point. Just like its hard to see in the first place with those photos. No Dean made a meaningless point. 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 Edited July 20, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 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. How can you say that when or how it happened is meaningless? You know thats important, you cant ignore that Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 (edited) How can you say that when or how it happened is meaningless? You know thats important, you cant ignore that Craig Why is that important Dean? The answer is that is NOT important any longer. That arguement is dead. The shadow cast by JFK's neck that MUST fall over the shirt collar, jacket collar and jacket back in Betzner is missing where it MUST fall over the jacket collar and jacket back. The unbendable laws of light, shodow and angle of incidence demands the shadows fall over all three of these items. We can't see the shadow fall over the jacket collar and jacket back. WHY? There MUST BE SOME REASON this is happening. WHEN the jacket may rose or fell earlier has no bearing. HOW the jacket many have or have not been folded earlier has no bearing. The artifact EXISTS. Of that there is no doubt. The only MEANINGFUL question is WHAT is causing the artifact? And of course thats the actual beauty of the current argument. It distills the question to a single point. WHAT CAN CAUSE THE ARTIFACT. Even better is that this is a black and white answer. No speculation. It is or it is not. But of course this is the reason Varnell's head has exploded. His decade old arguement has been destroyed and he can't find a away out. It's really simple. Find out WHY the shadows of JFK's neck are obscured. Thats the only question left that means ANYTHING. Edited July 20, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 20, 2010 Share Posted July 20, 2010 (edited) Post Deleted. Wrong on that thought. chris Edited July 20, 2010 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 21, 2010 Author Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) 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 Good question Dean, and deserves an adult answer. Here's JFK on Houston St. Note that the jacket is smooth across the upper back and the shirt collar is not visible. The jacket collar rides below the hairline but above the shirt collar. I put the elevation at 3/4". Bunch theorist Chad Zimmerman put the elevation at 1 inch. Two frames of the Nix film (below) show the moment when JFK's jacket collar dropped to reveal the shirt collar. The fabric right below the jacket collar remained elevated creating the artifact I've dubbed The Dealey Lip. The top of this inch-or-less fabric fold appears in every film and photo taken thereafter. At Z172 JFK began to wave to the crowd and the fold was knocked down to a bare fraction of an inch. Edited July 21, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Well Dean given Varnells _adult_ answer, why not ask him for an _adult_ answer to the question of where the neck shadow went on JFK's jacket collar and jacket back in Betzner, and then ask for an _adult_ to prove this answer works within the strict confines of the lighting seen in Betzner. BTW, the _adult_ answer is that Varnells small fold is a FANTASY... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Thank you Cliff and Craig Im gonna go with Cliff on this one How in the world could JFKs jacket bunch up that much in such a short (and I mean super short) period of time? Was JFK doing jumping jacks between Towner/Croft and Betzner that not only was missed by every cameraman but by every witness as well? Craig common sense says that kind of fold/bunching cant just "happen" out of the blue And like another member said JFK was not wearing some cheap suit, it was a tailored form fitting expensive suit No way its going to just bunch up like that from JFK waving his hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Thank you Cliff and Craig Im gonna go with Cliff on this one How in the world could JFKs jacket bunch up that much in such a short (and I mean super short) period of time? Was JFK doing jumping jacks between Towner/Croft and Betzner that not only was missed by every cameraman but by every witness as well? Craig common sense says that kind of fold/bunching cant just "happen" out of the blue And like another member said JFK was not wearing some cheap suit, it was a tailored form fitting expensive suit No way its going to just bunch up like that from JFK waving his hand Ok Dean, your choice, but how do you deal with the fact that the artifact IS in Betzner and Cliff AND you can't make it happen given the lighting seen in Betzner. (lets not even talk about Betzner and Towner at this point.) Given your position you NOW MUST show us a way to create the artifact seen in Betzner...or you are wrong. It's all right here. Please, try and salvage Cliffs and now your faulty positon. You need to or you go down in flames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 I have no problem with that Craig However I am a very busy with work, so you need to give me some time to look into it Craig I have studied Betzner more then any other still photo, however my studies had nothing to do with JFKs suit Cliff feel free to contact me through PM with your thoughts to get me going Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) I have no problem with that Craig However I am a very busy with work, so you need to give me some time to look into it Craig I have studied Betzner more then any other still photo, however my studies had nothing to do with JFKs suit Cliff feel free to contact me through PM with your thoughts to get me going Thats fine Dean, Varnell has had years and he STILL can't find a way. Remember I'm going to ask for proof, not just a wave of your hands, Varnell style Edited July 21, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 21, 2010 Author Share Posted July 21, 2010 I have no problem with that Craig However I am a very busy with work, so you need to give me some time to look into it Craig I have studied Betzner more then any other still photo, however my studies had nothing to do with JFKs suit Cliff feel free to contact me through PM with your thoughts to get me going Thats fine Dean, Varnell has had years and he STILL can't find a way. Remember I'm going to ask for proof, not just a wave of your hands, Varnell style Craig, why can't you show us what 3+ inch of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like? Why can't you locate the upper and lower margins of the top of the fold? Why can't you figure out that "bunching" causes fabric to indent? The shadow area you call an "artifact" was created by the indentation of the fabric. This is unimpeachable. Between the red lines below we find the lip of the JFK's minor fold. Craig can't match this analysis, and he's green with jealousy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 The shadow area you call an "artifact" was created by the indentation of the fabric. This is unimpeachable. Great, then all that is left is for you to prove this great "unimpeachable" idea actually works. I'm really interested in how your "indentation" moves UPWARDS into the standing jacket collar? Thats a neat trick. Just how did that happen again? No proof, you lose. Its really pretty simple. You are going to do that...rihgt? Between the red lines below we find the lip of the JFK's minor fold. Craig can't match this analysis, and he's green with jealousy! No Cliff, "green" describes your ability to understand how the SUN works. Too many days in the poker parlor for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 21, 2010 Author Share Posted July 21, 2010 The shadow area you call an "artifact" was created by the indentation of the fabric. This is unimpeachable. Great, then all that is left is for you to prove this great "unimpeachable" idea actually works. I'm really interested in how your "indentation" moves UPWARDS into the standing jacket collar? It didn't. The glare off of the shirt collar occluded the jacket collar. The indentation was below the jacket collar, just as we see in the Adolphus Hotel photo taken on Main St. Same posture as in Betzner, same diagonal indentation. Shadows form in fabric indentations, which naturally occurs when fabric bunches. If you understood what it means to bunch fabric you'd grasp that, Craig. Here is the Adolphus photo and Betzner -- same posture, similar fold, similar shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 It didn't. The glare off of the shirt collar occluded the jacket collar. Pardon my ignorance here, but exactly how do you define "glare"? And I'm really unsure where this glare might be causing thee jacket collar to be occluded. Again my ignornace of this is just showing through again. I simply can't understhand how there can be glare seen by Betzner and for thee life of me just can't understand whereit is located. It just does not compute. Why not enlighten me and indicate the area of glare. Use a dot, a wide line, arrows evene a triangle if you would prefer...I'll figure it out. The indentation was below the jacket collar, just as we see in the Adolphus Hotel photo taken on Main St. Same posture as in Betzner, same diagonal indentation. Ok, just a quick question. If the indentation is the same in the Adolphus photo and Betzner, is it possible for the shadow to be the same? Really? Can you explain how that works? Better yet why don't you replicate it? Surely you can do that. can't you? Shadows form in fabric indentations, which naturally occurs when fabric bunches. Who, Thats really exciting news, and all new to me. My ignornace is showing once again. I thought something had to prevent light from reaching a surface for a shaodw to be cast. In my haste to debunk you I must have missed the interference that causing the shadow to be filling the indentation and is casting the shadow on the very top of JFK's shouler. I mean its in full sunlihgt nad then BAM ther is a horizontal shadow. I thought I really knew how lihgt and shaodow really worked but man this one has me baffled. Can you elaborate on the actual shape and depth of htis indentation and show us how this indentation casts a shadow on the top of hte shoulder. If you could take some kind of photo that shows how this works I could really learn from it. If you understood what it means to bunch fabric you'd grasp that, Craig. Here all this time I tought a fold was a fold was a fold. Let be be sure I grasp the concept. A fold looks different and reacts to light different depending on how it was made? Thats amazing stuff Cliff. But I'm still unsure how your concept works. Why don't you post your experimental photos that shows this so we can all learn from you. Here is the Adolphus photo and Betzner -- same posture, similar fold, similar shadow. Wow Cliff thats amazing . It sure appears that you really know this stuff inside and out. But I'm still bothered by the great difference in light direction. One would think it would have a big impact on how the shadow forms in your indentation. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds your concept hard to grasp. If you could take a few photos to illustrate it would be a great help. You can do that for all of us, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 22, 2010 Author Share Posted July 22, 2010 (edited) It didn't. The glare off of the shirt collar occluded the jacket collar. Pardon my ignorance here, but exactly how do you define "glare"? I drew a 1/4" vertical blue line on the shirt collar artifact in Betzner (top photo). The amount of exposed shirt collar in that location: 1/2". Are you telling us, Craig, that the entirety of that white artifact is shirt collar? If that were the case -- JFK had a three inch head! We see a similar effect on the left shirt collar in Willis 4 (bottom) Edited July 22, 2010 by Cliff Varnell 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