Cliff Varnell Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) 2 photos speak 2,000 words. The haliation is obvious. You have no other explanation for the size of the white artifact in Betzner. Add that to the pile of Craig Lamson's Greatest Misses, along with the fact you can't demonstrate what 3+ inch of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like, in fact you can't even demonstrate that you grasp what it means to "ease" fabric. You can't identify the distinct upper and lower margins of the Dealey Lip which you concede MUST be clearly visible in Betzner You can't challenge the fact that the Altgens 5 photo shows at most an inch of jacket elevation before the jacket dropped. And you can't challenge the simple observation of haliation in Betzner. The photo comparison says it all: Edited July 23, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Varnell blusters and bumbles again about a subject about which he has no clue. He claims a mysterious glare that he claims reflects form a tiny section of off white shirt collar and spreads to consume over 2 inches of of surronding detail. This is a technical photographic arguement and CLAIM made by Varnell. As such it's HIS duty to provide the technical proof his arguement holds water. Varnell is constantly asking his oopposition to do the same. No he DEMANDS it. So WHY is Varnell so adverse to answering the very types of he askes of others. The question here for VArnell is simple. Prove for hte gentle reader that you glare claim is technically correct. How tough can that be? Don't give us your usual hand waving, give us detail technical data. For Varnell the discussion stops HERE. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Varnell blusters and bumbles again about a subject about which he has no clue. Craig, could you explain to us how JFK's jacket collar could drop while the fabric underneath it simultaneously rode up 2+ inches from it's position in this photo? How does that work, exactly? You can't deny that the jacket collar occludes the shirt collar in this photo. The Nix film clearly shows the jacket collar dropping. So how could the jacket collar drop but the fabric below it ride up multiple inches? How is that physically possible? Inquiring minds want to know. Edited July 23, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Varnell blusters and bumbles again about a subject about which he has no clue. He claims a mysterious glare that he claims reflects form a tiny section of off white shirt collar and spreads to consume over 2 inches of of surronding detail. This is a technical photographic arguement and CLAIM made by Varnell. As such it's HIS duty to provide the technical proof his arguement holds water. Varnell is constantly asking his oopposition to do the same. No he DEMANDS it. So WHY is Varnell so adverse to answering the very types of he askes of others. Why is Craig Lamson so adverse to showing us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like? Why is Craig Lamson so adverse to pointing out the distinct upper and lower margins of an artifact he insists exists but is shy about identifying? Why can't Craig Lamson show us a photo of what any kind of bunched fabric looks like? Why can't Craig Lamson explain using the technical terms of clothing design how JFK's casual movements in the limo caused gross movements of his clothing? Can Craig Lamson tell us the difference between "normal clothing ease" and "gross clothing ease"? As far as Betzner goes, the photo comparison with the Stoughton photo clearly estblishes the effect of haliation. JFK's shirt collar didn't extend into his hairline. The white artifact in Betzner clearly extends into the region of his hairline. The white artifact in Betzner is obviously not all shirt collar. Edited July 23, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Varnell blusters and bumbles again about a subject about which he has no clue. He claims a mysterious glare that he claims reflects form a tiny section of off white shirt collar and spreads to consume over 2 inches of of surronding detail. This is a technical photographic arguement and CLAIM made by Varnell. As such it's HIS duty to provide the technical proof his arguement holds water. Varnell is constantly asking his oopposition to do the same. No he DEMANDS it. So WHY is Varnell so adverse to answering the very types of he askes of others. Why is Craig Lamson so adverse to showing us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like? Towner, Croft, Betzner shwo 3+ inches of jacket fold. Why is Craig Lamson so adverse to pointing out the distinct upper and lower margins of an artifact he insists exists but is shy about identifying? I have clearly identifed both the upper and lower margins of the highlight on the top of the fold. Why can't Craig Lamson show us a photo of what any kind of bunched fabric looks like? I have. a really nice proof of concept photo. Varnell can't dispute this photo nor prove in a technical manner that fold shown is materially different than a fold by any other means. Why can't Craig Lamson explain using the technical terms of clothing design how JFK's casual movements in the limo caused gross movements of his clothing? I don't need to do that. My argument does not rely on how fabric moves. The atrifacts exsst and it has been proven WHAT can create them. HOW they got there is meaningless...the fqact reamins THEY ARE THERE. Varnells arguement does however rely on the movement of fabric. He can't show you you his claims are technically correect. He can HANDWAVE but he can't prove his handwaving is correct. He can't offer any physical evidence that hsi suppositions are correct, nor can he peovied any empirical, experimental evidecne to back it up. He jsut says TRUST ME...and history has shown he simply cannot be trusted Can Craig Lamson tell us the difference between "normal clothing ease" and "gross clothing ease"? No I can't. But my arguement does not rely on how fabric may have moved. It deals with the fact that there is a fold visable, not how it got there. Varnell just can't deal with this simple concept. Varnell has not benn able to refute this. As far as Betzner goes, the photo comparison with the Stoughton photo clearly estblishes the effect of haliation. Only in your warped mind. The facts are clear. You simply have NOT establised in a technical correct manner that your glare is even POSSIBLE, let alone actually htere. WHy are you so afraid to answer these questions? Fear got you shaking in your boots? JFK's shirt collar didn't extend into his hairline. Your statement is STILL NOT established by soild technical proof. WHy are you so afraid of providing it? The white artifact in Betzner clearly extends into the region of his hairline. It does? Into? You have yet to estabish the content of this artifact. Please submit your technical proofs to back this statement The white artifact in Betzner is obviously not all shirt collar. obviously is handwaving, and as such does not qualify as proof of anything. Please provide your technical proofs. Which bring sus back the these still unanswered questions... 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. And this: Edited July 23, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Varnell blusters and bumbles again about a subject about which he has no clue. Craig, could you explain to us how JFK's jacket collar could drop while the fabric underneath it simultaneously rode up 2+ inches from it's position in this photo? How does that work, exactly? You can't deny that the jacket collar occludes the shirt collar in this photo. The Nix film clearly shows the jacket collar dropping. So how could the jacket collar drop but the fabric below it ride up multiple inches? How is that physically possible? Inquiring minds want to know. No need to explain as it is meaningless in the context of my argument. The artifacts being studied EXIST in Towner, CrofT and Betzner, HOW they got there is of no concern since they ARE there. YOU acknowlege the existance in each case. The Varnell sideshow continues in a failed attempt to deflect from his inability detail the technicals of his 'glare' claim...obviously... Edited July 23, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 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 Your comments are spot on, Dean. Thanks for weighing in. Craig makes a very specific claim about JFK's clothing movement but he can't explain how it could have occured given the technical parameters of clothing design. The word "bunch" is a layman's term for what clothing designers call "ease." There are two kinds of clothing ease: normal ease and gross ease. "Normal ease" occurs when you casually move your body, like JFK's actions in the limo. "Gross ease" occurs when the body stretches out -- as say when Andres Torres leaps over the top of the wall to rob someone of a home run! Normal ease results in fractions of an inch of clothing movement. Invariably. It is flat out physically impossible to cause gross clothing ease when the body movement is normal. I call the fraud Arlen Specter commenced in 1964 -- Gross Ease Fallacy. Gaeton Fonzi confronted Specter in 1966 and had Specter demonstrate to the world Gross Ease Fallacy when he couldn't get Fonzi's clothing to bunch up no matter how hard he tried. Quite simply, the claim that JFK's normal movements caused gross clothing ease is physically impossible according to the unbendable, irrefutable, immoveable laws of clothing fit. Craig Lamson is attempting to leverage his expertise as a photographer to further Specter's fraud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Your comments are spot on, Dean. Thanks for weighing in. Craig makes a very specific claim about JFK's clothing movement but he can't explain how it could have occured given the technical parameters of clothing design. Why do they need explaining? YOU CONCEDE they exist Quite simply, the claim that JFK's normal movements caused gross clothing ease is physically impossible according to the unbendable, irrefutable, immoveable laws of clothing fit. But Cliff you have conceded that the artifacts DO exist.... Craig Lamson is attempting to leverage his expertise as a photographer to further Specter's fraud LOL! Facts are facts..please refute this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Now, back to that Varnell wishes gone... He claims a "glare" is seen in the shirt collar of JFK in Betzner that consumes 2 inges of surrounding image detail. He still can't answer these questions: Don't give us your usual hand waving, give us detail technical data. For Varnell the discussion stops HERE. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Your comments are spot on, Dean. Thanks for weighing in. Craig makes a very specific claim about JFK's clothing movement but he can't explain how it could have occured given the technical parameters of clothing design. Why do they need explaining? YOU CONCEDE they exist Quite simply, the claim that JFK's normal movements caused gross clothing ease is physically impossible according to the unbendable, irrefutable, immoveable laws of clothing fit. But Cliff you have conceded that the artifacts DO exist.... Craig Lamson is attempting to leverage his expertise as a photographer to further Specter's fraud LOL! Facts are facts..please refute this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 Craig, your claims have been proven to be contrary to the nature of reality. Your failures are manifest. This is unimpeachable. We'll see how many of your fellow nutters take up your cause going forward. Thanks for starring in my under-construction website -- Gross Ease Fallacy -- Anatomy of a Fraud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) If you think you have unimpeachble ANYTHING it will require that you sumbit the results of your testing so it can be verufied. When can we expect these test results Cliif? BTW, you can include the answers to these questions as well.. I can't wait to put them in my web page on the Varnell Fantasy...it will be a wonderful addition the pages that destroy the work of Jack White and John Costella. Those are VERY popular places on the web. I'm sure the exploding of CLiif Varnell and his fantasy will do just as well. Edited July 23, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Now, back to that Varnell wishes gone... He claims a "glare" is seen in the shirt collar of JFK in Betzner that consumes 2 inges of surrounding image detail. He still can't answer these questions: Don't give us your usual hand waving, give us detail technical data. For Varnell the discussion stops HERE. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Now, back to that Varnell wishes gone... He claims a "glare" is seen in the shirt collar of JFK in Betzner that consumes 2 inges of surrounding image detail. He still can't answer these questions: Don't give us your usual hand waving, give us detail technical data. For Varnell the discussion stops HERE. No, the discussion stops Here: JFK didn't have 2 inches of exposed shirt collar at the back of his neck, and he didn't have a 3-inch head. When are you going to replicate 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric, Craig? Everyone is curious about what that looks like! And when you get around to it, could you point out the distinct upper and lower margins of the artifact you claim to see in Betzner but can't identify? And then explain to us how JFK's jacket collar could drop on Houston St. while the fabric below the collar rode up 2+ inches. Edited July 23, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Now, back to that Varnell wishes gone... He claims a "glare" is seen in the shirt collar of JFK in Betzner that consumes 2 inges of surrounding image detail. He still can't answer these questions: Don't give us your usual hand waving, give us detail technical data. For Varnell the discussion stops HERE. He claims a "glare" is seen in the shirt collar of JFK in Betzner that consumes 2 inges of surrounding image detail. He still can't answer these questions: Don't give us your usual hand waving, give us detail technical data. For Varnell the discussion stops HERE. 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. 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