La-La-Lamson Land

[Craig Lamson]

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".

So you are saying, just so we can all understand you clearly, that your blue line includes the 1/2 you say is exposed collar and the 1 1/4 of jacket collar hidden by glare?

Are you telling us, Craig, that the entirety of that white artifact is shirt collar?

I'm asking YOU Cliff

If that were the case -- JFK had a three inch head!

Ok how exactly did you measaure the blue line in your graphic? That is how did you come to attach a distance within the betzner for the area covered by your blue line?

We see a similar effect on the left shirt collar in Willis 4 (bottom)

And what effect would that be? The glare? The occluded jacket collar? The 1/2 inch shirt collar? The shape of the exposed shirt collar starting out quite wide at the lapel and narrowing sharply at the back of the neck? Your statement lacks specfics.

[Cliff Varnell]

Forget the blue line.

Top red line points to JFK's hairline.

Bottom red line points to the bottom of JFK's jacket collar.

Give or take a millimeter or two.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Forget the blue line.

Top red line points to JFK's hairline.

Bottom red line points to the bottom of JFK's jacket collar.

Give or take a millimeter or two.

Ok, so your statement that the entire jacket collar has been consumed by the "glare". Ok.

So I'm still feeling a bit ignorant here? Glare in this case, as described by dictionary.com:

to shine with or reflect a very harsh, bright, dazzling light.

So here's my problem Cliff, and perhaps your superior grasp of the situation can clear it all up. My understanding of how light works, limited as it is, tells me that a reflection (since a shirt collar cannot shine) is governed by two things.

First the rule that angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Second, that the surface of the object where the reflection comes is important to the quality of the reflection.

Finally, in photographic terms, a glare that would destroy surrounding detail is called haliation. Simply put it means that the light is so bright it spills past its boundries and excites the film grains in the surrounding area.

Can you clear any of this up Cliff. You appear to have thought this out completely, so can you tell us if your glare works properly given the confines of the Betzner photo, the surface quality of the shirt collar and how halation works?

Edited July 22, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Ok, so your statement that the entire jacket collar has been consumed by the "glare". Ok.

No. Look again. The bottom of the jacket collar is in the gray area below

the white artifact.

The upper margin of the white artifact is .75" - 1" above the top of the shirt

collar. The lower margin of the white artifact is .75" - 1" below the bottom

of the 1/2" exposed shirt collar.

Got it? Most of the jacket collar is occluded.

So I'm still feeling a bit ignorant here? Glare in this case, as described by dictionary.com:

to shine with or reflect a very harsh, bright, dazzling light.

So here's my problem Cliff, and perhaps your superior grasp of the situation can clear it all up. My understanding of how light works, limited as it is, tells me that a reflection (since a shirt collar cannot shine) is governed by two things.

First the rule that angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Second, that the surface of the object where the reflection comes is important to the quality of the reflection.

Finally, in photographic terms, a glare that would destroy surrounding detail is called haliation. Simply put it means that the light is so bright it spills past its boundries and excites the film grains in the surrounding area.

Can you clear any of this up Cliff. You appear to have thought this out completely, so can you tell us if your glare works properly given the confines of the Betzner photo, the surface quality of the shirt collar and how halation works?

No, Craig, I'll leave all that to you.

If you're contending lack of haliation in that photo, then JFK's shirt collar was

a couple of inches wide in the back.

Such was not the case, obviously.

[Craig Lamson]

Ok, so your statement that the entire jacket collar has been consumed by the "glare". Ok.

No. Look again. The bottom of the jacket collar is in the gray area below

the white artifact.

The upper margin of the white artifact is .75" - 1" above the top of the shirt

collar. The lower margin of the white artifact is .75" - 1" below the bottom

of the 1/2" exposed shirt collar.

Got it? Most of the jacket collar is occluded.

Sorry no, I still don't understand your logic and measurments. So HOW did you decide this was the case? You had to measure it somehow? What is your method?

No, Craig, I'll leave all that to you.

If you're contending lack of haliation in that photo, then JFK's shirt collar was

a couple of inches wide in the back.

Such was not the case, obviously.

I'm making no claim. You are. Thus the burden of proof is yours. So the questions I've asked concerning your claim still stands unanswered by you. Clearly you have given this great consideration, surely you can support your claim with the proper technical details, can't you?

Let me repeat the questions in case you have forgotten. I'm sure the gentle readers as you like to call them are as interested as I am in your detailed answer.

So here's my problem Cliff, and perhaps your superior grasp of the situation can clear it all up. My understanding of how light works, limited as it is, tells me that a reflection (since a shirt collar cannot shine) is governed by two things.

First the rule that angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Second, that the surface of the object where the reflection comes is important to the quality of the reflection.

Finally, in photographic terms, a glare that would destroy surrounding detail is called haliation. Simply put it means that the light is so bright it spills past its boundries and excites the film grains in the surrounding area.

Can you clear any of this up Cliff. You appear to have thought this out completely, so can you tell us if your glare works properly given the confines of the Betzner photo, the surface quality of the shirt collar and how halation works?

Edited July 22, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Ok, so your statement that the entire jacket collar has been consumed by the "glare". Ok.

No. Look again. The bottom of the jacket collar is in the gray area below

the white artifact.

The upper margin of the white artifact is .75" - 1" above the top of the shirt

collar. The lower margin of the white artifact is .75" - 1" below the bottom

of the 1/2" exposed shirt collar.

Got it? Most of the jacket collar is occluded.

Nope. So HOW did you decide this was the case? Yo had to measure it somehow? What is your method?

I use the Stoughton posterior close-up of JFK in Fort Worth, used in comparison with

Betzner in my last post. Using his 1/2" shirt collar as a measure, it appears as if JFK's

hairline was roughly 3/4" above the top of the shirt collar.

The upper margin of the white artifact is very close to the hairline, within a few millimeters.

This upper margin is roughly 3/4" (as much as an inch) above the top of the shirt collar.

The haliation would also effect the area .75" - 1" below the lower margin of the exposed

shirt collar, consuming most but not all of the jacket collar.

No, Craig, I'll leave all that to you.

If you're contending lack of haliation in that photo, then JFK's shirt collar was

a couple of inches wide in the back.

Such was not the case, obviously.

I'm making no claim. You are. Thus the burden of proof is yours. So the question I've asked concerning your claim still stands unanswered by you. Clearly you have given this great consideration, surely you can support your claim with the proper technical details, can't you?

Either there was a haliation effect in Betzner or JFK's shirt collar was 2" wide in the back.

Which was it, Craig?

You've made the claim that JFK's shirt jacket was bunched up 3+".

Did you know that the technical name for "bunch" is "ease."

Why don't you share with the gentle reader an explanation of "clothing ease," Craig?

Please tell us the difference between "gross ease" and "normal ease."

What kind of body movements create "gross ease," Craig?

"Normal ease"?

I know you've given this a great deal of thought, since YOU make the claim that JFK's

clothing moved in a very specific way.

Please share with us your knowledge of clothing fit -- since YOU made the claim.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

One question at a time Cliff...

I use the Stoughton posterior close-up of JFK in Fort Worth, used in comparison with

Betzner in my last post. Using his 1/2" shirt collar as a measure, it appears as if JFK's

hairline was roughly 3/4" above the top of the shirt collar.

The upper margin of the white artifact is very close to the hairline, within a few millimeters.

This upper margin is roughly 3/4" (as much as an inch) above the top of the shirt collar.

The haliation would also effect the area .75" - 1" below the lower margin of the exposed

shirt collar, consuming most but not all of the jacket collar.

Sorry but how can you consider that a measurement at all? And how can you compare Stoughton to Betzner when it comes to the collar. After all there is a marked difference in the camera angle to JFK's centerline. How did you measure this as well, what was your findings and how much more of the shirt collar can be seen in Betzner...measurement wise. These are important facts Cliff, and I'm not seeing them in your analysis. I'm sure the gentle reader is missing them as well.

Please provide the details.

Also just to be clear you are now claiming that 1/2 of not even white shirt collar can reflect enough sunlight to cause 1.5 to 2 inches of image area outside of the 1/2 inch collar ( four tiimes the original size of the collar) to be consumed? Can you offer us any proof that this is possible. Please replicate it for us.

Either there was a haliation effect in Betzner or JFK's shirt collar was 2" wide in the back.

Which was it, Craig?

Well Cliff since you have made the clain FOR this so called glare, surely you must know the technicals of how it works. Why the reluctance to answer the simple questions about the specfics of your claim?

Edited July 22, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

One question at a time Cliff...

Sorry but how can you consider that a measurement at all? And how can you compare Stoughton to Betzner when it comes to the collar.

How can you deny that using an artifact of known measurement in a photo

provides proper measurement?

That's John F. Kennedy in both photos. JFK's shirt collar was about 3/4"

below his hairline.

That's a fact.

There was roughly 1/2" of exposed shirt collar in both photos, although in Stoughton his head

was tipped back a bit -- witness the folds in the neck -- and that may have been a millimeter

or two less than 1/2".

Either there was the effect of haliation or JFK's shirt collar was exposed 2" in the

back in Betzner.

Which is it, Craig?

Are you denying the effect of haliation in both the Betzner and Willis #4 photos?

[Craig Lamson]

How can you deny that using an artifact of known measurement in a photo

provides proper measurement?

But you did not measure at all Cliff, you just waved your hands and said..this is it. You are using photos taken at differnt camera heights, different camera angles, showing differnt amounts of shirt collar and then saying..this is it.

So the questions still remain unanswered and your reluctance to deal directly with the questions is...well telling.

So lets ask them again and you can expalin it all in detail for your gentle readers.

Sorry but how can you consider that a measurement at all? And how can you compare Stoughton to Betzner when it comes to the collar. After all there is a marked difference in the camera angle to JFK's centerline. How did you measure this as well, what was your findings and how much more of the shirt collar can be seen in Betzner...measurement wise. These are important facts Cliff, and I'm not seeing them in your analysis. I'm sure the gentle reader is missing them as well.

Please provide the details.

Also just to be clear you are now claiming that 1/2 of not even white shirt collar can reflect enough sunlight to cause 1.5 to 2 inches of image area outside of the 1/2 inch collar ( four tiimes the original size of the collar) to be consumed? Can you offer us any proof that this is possible. Please replicate it for us.

[Cliff Varnell]

How can you deny that using an artifact of known measurement in a photo

provides proper measurement?

But you did not measure at all Cliff, you just waved your hands and said..this is it. You are using photos taken at differnt camera heights, different camera angles, showing differnt amounts of shirt collar and then saying..this is it.

Different amounts of shirt collar?

No Craig, the most amount of shirt collar would be 1/2"

You're quibbling over millimeters while YOUR claim involves multiple inches.

Answer the central question, Craig: is there the effect of haliation on the shirt

collar in Betzner, or not?

So the questions still remain unanswered and your reluctance to deal directly with the questions is...well telling.

I have dealt with it directly.

I see you keep evading the central question:

Is the effect of haliation visible in Betzner or not, Craig?

In not, please show us photos of JFK's shirt collar extending into his hairline.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

How can you deny that using an artifact of known measurement in a photo

provides proper measurement?

But you did not measure at all Cliff, you just waved your hands and said..this is it. You are using photos taken at differnt camera heights, different camera angles, showing differnt amounts of shirt collar and then saying..this is it.

Different amounts of shirt collar?

No Craig, the most amount of shirt collar would be 1/2"

Really? so now you claim that The amount of JFK's shirt collar from the tie to the centerline of the back of his neck stays constant at 1/2 inch? Thats a game changer...

You're quibbling over millimeters while YOUR claim involves multiple inches.

Answer the central question, Craig: is there the effect of haliation on the shirt

collar in Betzner, or not?

That's not my question to answer Cliff, its your question to PROVE. You do remeber that burden of proof thing...right?

I have dealt with it directly.

No you have not, you have just waved your hands, made up some "measurements" from thin air and tried your best to AVOID answering the technical questions directly. Let post them again...shall we..for your gentle readers...you know....

So here's my problem Cliff, and perhaps your superior grasp of the situation can clear it all up. My understanding of how light works, limited as it is, tells me that a reflection (since a shirt collar cannot shine) is governed by two things.

First the rule that angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Second, that the surface of the object where the reflection comes is important to the quality of the reflection.

Finally, in photographic terms, a glare that would destroy surrounding detail is called haliation. Simply put it means that the light is so bright it spills past its boundries and excites the film grains in the surrounding area.

Can you clear any of this up Cliff. You appear to have thought this out completely, so can you tell us if your glare works properly given the confines of the Betzner photo, the surface quality of the shirt collar and how halation works?

I see you keep evading the central question:

Is the effect of haliation visible in Betzner or not, Craig?

We don't know. We are still awaiting your techincal proof of your claim that it DOES exist.

In not, please show us photos of JFK's shirt collar extending into his hairline.

Excuse me? You are the one one making the claim about what is seen were in the Betzner shirt collar area with your blue and red lines. Please prove YOUR claims..in technical detail. And maybe a replication to show us how it works. You can do that, right?

Thats the central question right now Cliff, why are you avoiding it like the plague?

I wonder if your gentel readres are asking the same?

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig,

There was 1/2" of exposed shirt collar at the nape of his neck. I said nothing about

his shirt front or the side of his neck.

Craig, is there an effect of haliation in Betzner, or not?

Yes or no.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

There was 1/2" of exposed shirt collar at the nape of his neck. I said nothing about

his shirt front or the side of his neck.

Really, is that what you showed us with your blur line, the nape of the neck?

Craig, is there an effect of haliation in Betzner, or not?

Yes or no.

What part of theis don't you understabd CLiff? Perhaos you can explain it to your gentle readers as well.

YOU made he claim that ther was glare onthe shirt collar that washed out the ne3ck and jacket collar of JFK in Betzner. You simply waved your hands and said "this is true"

You were asked to prove the technical validity of your claim, and your answer is:

Craig, is there an effect of haliation in Betzner, or not?

Yes or no.

Sorry Cliff but thats just not gonna cut it. Your claim, your burden of proof. Why is this so hard for you? Why not just take a photo and replicate it?

Is it because you can't?????

The questions Cliff Varnell just can't answer....

So here's my problem Cliff, and perhaps your superior grasp of the situation can clear it all up. My understanding of how light works, limited as it is, tells me that a reflection (since a shirt collar cannot shine) is governed by two things.

First the rule that angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Second, that the surface of the object where the reflection comes is important to the quality of the reflection.

Finally, in photographic terms, a glare that would destroy surrounding detail is called haliation. Simply put it means that the light is so bright it spills past its boundries and excites the film grains in the surrounding area.

And lets not forget these:

Sorry but how can you consider that a measurement at all? And how can you compare Stoughton to Betzner when it comes to the collar. After all there is a marked difference in the camera angle to JFK's centerline. How did you measure this as well, what was your findings and how much more of the shirt collar can be seen in Betzner...measurement wise. These are important facts Cliff, and I'm not seeing them in your analysis. I'm sure the gentle reader is missing them as well.

Please provide the details.

Also just to be clear you are now claiming that 1/2 of not even white shirt collar can reflect enough sunlight to cause 1.5 to 2 inches of image area outside of the 1/2 inch collar ( four tiimes the original size of the collar) to be consumed? Can you offer us any proof that this is possible. Please replicate it for us.

Can you clear any of this up Cliff. You appear to have thought this out completely, so can you tell us if your glare works properly given the confines of the Betzner photo, the surface quality of the shirt collar and how halation works?

This is a MAJOR plank in your failing argument. Taht you can't describe it in technically correct detail is astounding, but not suprising.

This is not going away for you Cliff. Why not just answer the questions and let the gentle reader see your claim is on technically solid ground. You really WANT them to know that, don't you?

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig,

There was 1/2" of exposed shirt collar at the nape of his neck. I said nothing about

his shirt front or the side of his neck.

Really, is that what you showed us with your blur line, the nape of the neck?

Obviously.

Craig, is there an effect of haliation in Betzner, or not?

Yes or no.

What part of theis don't you understabd CLiff? Perhaos you can explain it to your gentle readers as well.

What part of the question don't you understand?

Are you denying the effect of haliation on the shirt collar in Betzner.

Yes or no?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

There was 1/2" of exposed shirt collar at the nape of his neck. I said nothing about

his shirt front or the side of his neck.

Really, is that what you showed us with your blur line, the nape of the neck?

Obviously.

My bad I should have been more specfic. HANDWAVING is not a vaild form of proof. Please try again and this time provide solid TECHNICAL proofs.

Are you denying the effect of haliation on the shirt collar in Betzner.

Yes or no?

Thats the question we are trying to get answerd in a competent technical manner from one Cliff Varnell. Last I looked Cliff Varnell was the orginator of the "glare" claim. Thus the burden of proof for this claim is his. We (the gentle readers and me) are still waiting for you to show your claims meets the technical requirements stipulated by the Betzner photo.

Is there some valid reason WHY you won't answer these questions that will support the validity of your claim?

Can you provide a replication photo?

Why is this so hard for you?

The questions Cliff Varnell just can't answer....

So here's my problem Cliff, and perhaps your superior grasp of the situation can clear it all up. My understanding of how light works, limited as it is, tells me that a reflection (since a shirt collar cannot shine) is governed by two things.

First the rule that angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Second, that the surface of the object where the reflection comes is important to the quality of the reflection.

Finally, in photographic terms, a glare that would destroy surrounding detail is called haliation. Simply put it means that the light is so bright it spills past its boundries and excites the film grains in the surrounding area.

Can you clear any of this up Cliff. You appear to have thought this out completely, so can you tell us if your glare works properly given the confines of the Betzner photo, the surface quality of the shirt collar and how halation works?

Sorry but how can you consider that a measurement at all? And how can you compare Stoughton to Betzner when it comes to the collar. After all there is a marked difference in the camera angle to JFK's centerline. How did you measure this as well, what was your findings and how much more of the shirt collar can be seen in Betzner...measurement wise. These are important facts Cliff, and I'm not seeing them in your analysis. I'm sure the gentle reader is missing them as well.

Please provide the details.

Also just to be clear you are now claiming that 1/2 of not even white shirt collar can reflect enough sunlight to cause 1.5 to 2 inches of image area outside of the 1/2 inch collar ( four times the original size of the collar) to be consumed? Can you offer us any proof that this is possible. Please replicate it for us.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Craig Lamson