Jump to content
The Education Forum

A Question for John Dolva


Recommended Posts

Hi John,

On the La-La-Lamson Land thread you wrote:

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 .

JFK's jacket collar was 1.25" from top to bottom. How did you conclude that the fabric

fold was twice the size of the jacket collar in the Towner photo below?

And if the fold was riding over the top of the shirt collar, why is the shirt collar visible?

And if the shirt and jacket didn't ride as a unit why are the bullet holes in the clothes

matching to within 1/8 of an inch?

I'd appreciate it if only John Dolva answered these questions.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Why? chicken?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qYWqkun6JJg&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qYWqkun6JJg&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

nice post deano...can't wait for you to show us your version of the Varnell Magic Growing Fantasy fold. Thats your new mission.

I see you fixed it. Don't worry, cliff has not the nads to actually try and prove his position works, he knows it CAN'T. You will too whne you actually try it. You ARE going to actually try it ... right?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd appreciate it if only John Dolva answered these questions.

Why? chicken?

You didn't address any of the questions about the Towner photo, Craig.

Why are you jumping in if you aren't going to address the topic of the thread?

Your non-sequiturs address nothing. We'll see if John can let us know what

2.5" of bunched up fabric looks like, and tell us why he thinks the fold in

the Towner photo is twice the size of the jacket collar.

No one else can answer these questions, as you've demonstrated yourself, Craig.

Maybe John can succeed in providing the bare minimum empirical proof to back his claims,

where every Gross Ease Fallacist has failed so miserably.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have been addresed over and over. That YOU can't understand your objections are failures is no ones problem but YOURS cliffy...

But ihat brings us back to the beginning of the end for one cluck cluck cliffy varnell.

If you can't show a farbic arrangement that can produce the Betzner artifact...and can withstand the unbending natural laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence...other than a 3+ inch fold...YOU LOSE.

Of course your magic fantasy fold indention whatever has already been shown to be a failure. What do you have left cliffy?

As much as you want to change the course of the arguement with this sideshow, its already too late. Your claim fails.

Poof..cluck cluck is plucked.

finalvarnell.jpg

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have been addresed over and over.

You've never answered any questions about Towner, not even your usual non sequiturs.

You lapse into dumbfounded silence at the sight of Towner, which is why you jumped into this

thread without anything to contribute.

You can't handle the Towner photo -- it has you stumped, Craig.

That you contend that the fold in this photograph is 2.5 to 3 times larger than

the jacket collar is clearly absurd.

I'm curious to see if John Dolva can answer the questions you can't.

[attachment=20641:townerjim.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, since others feel free to post I'll give my take (I've expressed my opinion on one on one debates elsewhere and my position on that hasn't changed). Right at this moment I got to do stuff and after staring at paintings last night and babbling about them I'm not in the frame of mind to do this right now. I want it to be short and succinct and over with quickly. When I did the shirt/blood stain analysis you tried to turn it into a discussion about this but that was not what that topic was about, and imo Craig holds his own on this one. Maybe if someone knows Kennedys ear length could it be posted?

edit:typo

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, since others feel free to post I'll give my take (I've expressed my opinion on one on one debates elsewhere and my position on that hasn't changed). Right at this moment I got to do stuff and after staring at paintings last night and babbling about them I'm not in the frame of mind to do this right now. I want it to be short and succinct and over with quickly. When I did the shirt/blood stain analysis you tried to turn it into a discussion about this but that was not what that topic was about, and imo Craig holds his own on this one. Maybe if someone knows Kennedys ear length could it be posted?

edit:typo

What's wrong with the 1.25" jacket collar?

It's right next to the fold. Since you agree with Craig that the fold is 2.5 to 3 times the size of the jacket collar -- why can't you share your methodology as to how you reached that conclusion?

And why can't anyone show us what 2 - 3 inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric

looks like?

Am I asking too much of you, John? It doesn't seem like it.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, are you taking a holiday or something and can't go till I've responded further, Jim? Of course you are not asking too much Cliff. I think your questions are prettyy clear. Could you just talk about something else for a while?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, are you taking a holiday or something and can't go till I've responded further, Jim? Of course you are not asking too much Cliff. I think your questions are prettyy clear. Could you just talk about something else for a while?

With all due respect, John, you appear to have a conclusion in search of a rationale.

If you are trying to replicate the movement of JFK's clothing laid out in your claims,

please keep in mind that JFK's shirt was a tucked-in custom-made number, and you can't

use your hands when replicating the "bunch up."

Pulling on fabric is the opposite of bunching fabric.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? chicken?

McFly

Dean, the amusing irony here is that it takes intellectual courage to answer these

questions about the Towner photo, a quality that finds no host in Craig Lamson.

I expect that John Dolva is made of sterner stuff, but we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Towner. It lays waste to the Varnell claim the jacket fell.

The fold is taller than the jacket collar.

The fold is independant of the shirt collar

No one knows for sure where the shirt is inside the jacket in Towner.

Towner shows a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JKF'S jacket.

travel.jpg

Now lets visit some true lack of intellectual courage....

Cliff Varnell sez there is a small fold and indentation on JFK's back in Betzner. It has been shown that such a fold cannot produce the artifact seen in Betzner, its against the unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence.

The unimpeachable fact remains that there is a 3+ inch fold of fabric on JFK's back in Betzner.

So, if Varnell has any intellectual courage he would show us how his fold or any other fold...other than a 3+ inch horizontal fold...can create the artifact seen in Betzner.

If he can't he loses.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When do yo plan on answering the question?

So jim,

What kind of fabric arrangement caused the dark artifact seen in Betzner? Please illustrate it and provide photographic proof of concept evidence that proves it works within the unbending confines of light, shaodw and angle of incidence found in the Betzner photograph.

No handwaving allowed.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...