Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 No, the discussion stops Here: JFK didn't have 2 inches of exposed shirt collar at the back of his neck, But Cliff, that exactly what you told us in the first post on this thread. How do you explain that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 Craig, According to you the fold at the back of JFK's jacket is almost 3 times the size of the 1.25" jacket collar in the Towner photo. Are you seeking help for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Craig, According to you the fold at the back of JFK's jacket is almost 3 times the size of the 1.25" jacket collar in the Towner photo. Are you seeking help for this? Lets see 3 x 1.25= 3.75 3 almost equals 3.75? Can you balance a check book or count your pennies? BTW, did you miss post 64? 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 Craig, According to you the fold at the back of JFK's jacket is almost 3 times the size of the 1.25" jacket collar in the Towner photo. Are you seeking help for this? Lets see 3 x 1.25= 3.75 3 almost equals 3.75? Yes, Craig 3+ almost equals 3.75. What is confusing you the "plus" or the "almost"? Note the non-answer, gentle reader. The 1.25" jacket collar accurately measures the minor, fraction of an inch fold. It's unimpeachable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 No, the discussion stops Here: JFK didn't have 2 inches of exposed shirt collar at the back of his neck, But Cliff, that exactly what you told us in the first post on this thread. How do you explain that? No, I cited the 1/2" exposed shirt collar repeatedly. You are the one implying he had 2 inches of exposed shirt collar, not I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 Gentle readers, I'm happy to announce the cessation of the 3-year running Lamson/Varnell debate. Craig has run out of specious technical arguments and relies now solely on puerile misrepresentations of my argument. The intellectual challenge of engaging him is spent. The Dealey Plaza image that has rendered him speechless is the Towner photo. His claim that the minor fabric fold on the back of JFK's jacket was almost 3 times the size of the 1.25" jacket collar is an egregious absurdity which speaks for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 (edited) Oh I'm not speachless Varnell. YOU have lost your clownish arguement. Why? Because the ONLY thing thing that can create the artifact seen in Betzner is a 3+ inch fold of fabric. This is not some wimpy claim like those made by the clown Varnell, whos idea of technical proof is to say "obviuosly". The unimpeachable fact of the 3+ inch fold is backed by solid, experimental, empirical evidence that is reproducable by ANYONE. The proof also shows that the VARNELLS GROWING FANTASY FOLD is just that, a fantasy, that cannot produce the artifact seen in Betzner. This too is unimpeachable which is why Varnell cannot offer any technical proof that his claim holds water. So yes, despite what is sure to be more Varnell falsehoods, and distractions the argument iS over. He has lost, which is the same outcome that as stood for some time now. Want to send him scooting under a rock...just ask him for some proof of concept photos that prove his fantasy fold can produce the artifact seen in Betzner and obeys the strict confines set by the photo. All that you will find will be rat tracks... Edited July 25, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 No, the discussion stops Here: JFK didn't have 2 inches of exposed shirt collar at the back of his neck, But Cliff, that exactly what you told us in the first post on this thread. How do you explain that? No, I cited the 1/2" exposed shirt collar repeatedly. You are the one implying he had 2 inches of exposed shirt collar, not I. I direct the reader to post one of this thread to see Varnells claim of the two inch collar.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 (edited) That Towner photo (which because the camera is following Kennedy has him sharp with a heavily blurred background (this might also be one where the speed of the limo can be derived from a single image by knowing the shutter speed) is a good example of a substantial fold. Off hand it looks like about 2 1/2'' behind Kennedys left side of head, plus it's ridden up over the shirt collar (which means they don't move as one unit) which would make it more behind right . The prob with the betzner is its complicated blur composite and resolution and value range making for a much greater error margin in deriving measurements especially when you start fiddling with the value range. edit add: I think either way that what can be seen in betzner; Craigs explanation makes sense. Edited July 25, 2010 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 That Towner photo (which because the camera is following Kennedy has him sharp with a heavily blurred background (this might also be one where the speed of the limo can be derived from a single image by knowing the shutter speed) is a good example of a substantial fold. Off hand it looks like about 2 1/2'' behind Kennedys left side of head, plus it's ridden up over the shirt collar (which means they don't move as one unit) which would make it more behind right . The prob with the betzner is its complicated blur composite and resolution and value range making for a much greater error margin in deriving measurements especially when you start fiddling with the value range. edit add: I think either way that what can be seen in betzner; Craigs explanation makes sense. All one neeeds to know about the fold in Betzner is that it obscures the neck shadow that MUST fall over the jacket collar and jacket back but is missing in both. Croft, in the same lighting as Betzner shows both...they MUST be in Betzner too. I challenge anyone to produce a fabric arraingement other than a 3+ inch fold that can obscure the shadow in Betzner and then PROVE it will work given the confines of light. shaodw and angle of incedence found in Betzner. Varnell has had 3 years and he still can't do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 27, 2010 Author Share Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) That Towner photo (which because the camera is following Kennedy has him sharp with a heavily blurred background (this might also be one where the speed of the limo can be derived from a single image by knowing the shutter speed) is a good example of a substantial fold. Off hand it looks like about 2 1/2'' behind Kennedys left side of head, plus it's ridden up over the shirt collar (which means they don't move as one unit) John, the fold in Towner appears to you to be twice the size of the 1.25" jacket collar? How did you come to that conclusion? Would you care to show us what 2.5" of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric looks like? Make that a custom-made dress shirt. The bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar; the hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar. If the shirt and jacket didn't move in tandem why is there only .125" difference between the locations? Edited July 27, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 27, 2010 Share Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) Poor cliffy, up shirts creek without a paddle. There is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's back in Betzner. This is unimpeachable. Nothing cliffy can ever say or do will ever change this fact. His attempt to show some magic fold and indentation can create the artifact seen in Betzner is an afront to the unbendable natural laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence... just as cliffy is to honest people everywhere. cliffy, his claims and false objections are nothing but a scam. Edited July 27, 2010 by Craig Lamson 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