Cliff Varnell Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Normal eh? Occluded by the jacket collar eh? DO the phrases PERSPECTIVE AND DIRECTION OF VIEW, along with SUBJECT ANGLE ring a bell at all? If they don't you simply LOSE again. This is just hand-waving. The normal amount of exposed shirt collar is .5". It appears as a white band around the back and side of the neck. You're not familiar with this, Craig? This white band does not appear in Weaver, unless we get a millimeter or two at the very top. Translated to the readers, this means cliff DOES NOT understand Perspective, Direction of view and Subject angle. As usual he has proven he is clueless. I see you don't deny that the normal amount of shirt collar is not visible in Weaver. Since you cannot deny that the jacket collar is elevated in Weaver you must admit that it subsequently dropped. But even the most obvious things are beyond your ability to admit, evidently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) BTW, you could at least use the correct image, but what can we expect from cliff, he "oversells" things.... I can admit to making a mistake when I've over-reached. People of sufficient integrity have that ability. Now, let's take a look at the "official" Craig Lamson Bunch graphic. What do we see? One thing, the bunch is asymmetrical, up on the left side and way up on the right side. None of the other Dealey Plaza photos show anything like that. And...wait...lookee here! According to the Official Craig Lamson Dealey Plaza Bunch Graphic the top of the fold on the left side was right below, or right at, the top of the jacket collar! Unfortunately for Craig -- who simply cannot keep his snake oil straight -- he long ago abandoned that claim and has subsequently prepared this graphic to indicate the top of the fold close to the top of the shirt collar -- a half an inch higher than before! Wow, this fold has come along way in the last four years. In the beginning Craig didn't even have the jacket bunched up on the left side at all! Edited July 7, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I'll do blue. Let's go burgundy Fellow researchers, gentle readers: I would like to point out that my conversation with Craig Lamson -- four years running -- has evolved to the point where Craig is arguing that the jacket collar was DOWN and I'm arguing that it was UP (until JFK leaned back from his chat from Nellie, when it fell). According to a chart on the wall of Chiropractor Chad Zimmerman -- of Beyond the Magic Bullet fame -- the bottom of a man's clothing collar rests at the level of C7, a fraction of an inch or so above the base of the neck. I've shown photos of JFK wearing a suit to my personal chiropractor and he is adamant that the bottom of the collar was at C7. For the sake of argument, let's say JFK's clothing collars rested at C6/C7, a fraction of an inch above Craig's C7 SBT in-shoot. Question for Craig: how could the jacket collar sit in a normal position just above the base of the neck if there were more than a half-foot of jacket and shirt fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot at C7? How could these two disparate concrete objects occupy the same physical space at the same time? Such a scenario is, sad for Craig, contrary to the nature of reality. Wow. What a great line of BS you spin. IOW, you can't deal with the particulars of my argument so you'll sneer and stomp and blow nothing but vapor. Except I do deal directly with your specifics and your proven track record of "overselling" below. And imaging this coming from cliff, the guy who can't deal directly with the unimpeachable sun/shadow evidence and blows smoke to cover his decided lack of knowledge. Pot,meet kettle. First I DON'T have a shoot in...period. That's a cliff varnell construct and its false. Sure you do. When you thought the SBT required 2+ inches of bunched shirt/jacket you claimed to see 2+ inches of bunch. When you realized that the SBT actually requires more like 3+ inches you started to argue for 3+ inches. You've hardly kept your agenda here under wraps, Craig. What an amazing pile of steaming bs. But its exactly what we have come to expect from the "constructor" cliff. Second the fold itself is approximately 1.25 inches, which consumes 3+ inches inches of fabric and could move a hole from fives inches down to to 2 inchs down. The entire 3+ inches of fabric MUST move above the SBT inshoot. OIr else you'd get more than one bullet hole. You can't get your mind around this, can you? No need to "get around' it. It works out perfectly. I would not have made the statement if I did not know it was true. And if you think other wise you can show us why. Sadly for cliff and his faulty constructs, THAT"S reality. All 3+ inches must move. Craig, or you get two bullet holes. Sorry. Why don't you show us that cilff, I would love to see how you think this works. I KNOW how it works....sorry is right, for your silly construct. The other REALITY is that in Betzner, just before the back shot there was a 3+inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket that could have moved a bullet hole from 5inches below the bottom of the collar to 2 inches below the bottom of the collar. The bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar. That's at least 3 inches of fabric entirely above the in-shoot less than 1 inch below the bottom of the collar. How did this half-foot of fabric ride up entirely above a bullet hole less than an inch below the collar without pushing up on the jacket collar itself? Whats the problem? you say that's exactly what we see in Jefferies? You can't have it both ways cliffy...or are you 'overselling" something here? According to Craig Lamson every photo shows JFK with a half foot of fabric bunched up in a less than one-inch space! The cliffy oversell continues. Please show us a direct quote of mine for your claim of "less than a one inch space". Your overselling is beginning to look compulsive The fact that his fold exists is unimpeachable. AS cliff well knows since he can't impeach it. That too is REALITY. Don't eat the brown acid, man. The only one who appears to be visiting an altered reality is is cliff.... Instead he creates false constructs. And tries in vain to salvage the impossible...his failed theory of a falling jacket....and his so called "prima fascia" evidence. Prima facie. The clothing evidence is prima facie evidence of conspiracy in the murder of JFK. It is nothing of the sort unless you consider having a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner a good fit fro your so called prima facie evidence. I don't see that fitting yo well with your silly construct. If you didn't care deeply about Lone Nuttery you wouldn't be making this series of absurd claims about gross clothing bulges that resemble jacket collars. I could care less. I just enjoy making silly and grossly uninformed "oversellers" like cliff varnell spin wildly in their chairs as their silly constructs are blown to smithereens right before their eyes. You don't have the first clue about any of this. You are...well I best stop here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) You just can't keep up cliff and you continue to make false constructs. "False constructs" is the vapor Craig blows when he can't explain how the jacket collar could rest at a normal position just above the base of the neck at C6/C7 if there were a half-foot of shirt and jacket bunched up entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7. A half-foot of clothing fabric in a vertical space of less than an inch! Craig can't deal with the facts of the case so when it goes south on him he waves his hand and calls it a "false construct." I hope Von Pein is taking notes. He's going to have to buy Craig's snake oil if he is to remain an LNer... Edited July 7, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) BTW, you could at least use the correct image, but what can we expect from cliff, he "oversells" things.... I can admit to making a mistake when I've over-reached. People of sufficient integrity have that ability. Now, let's take a look at the "official" Craig Lamson Bunch graphic. What do we see? One thing, the bunch is asymmetrical, up on the left side and way up on the right side. None of the other Dealey Plaza photos show anything like that. And...wait...lookee here! According to the Official Craig Lamson Dealey Plaza Bunch Graphic the top of the fold on the left side was right below, or right at, the top of the jacket collar! Unfortunately for Craig -- who simply cannot keep his snake oil straight -- he long ago abandoned that claim and has subsequently prepared this graphic to indicate the top of the fold close to the top of the shirt collar -- a half an inch higher than before! Wow, this fold has come along way in the last four years. In the beginning Craig didn't even have the jacket bunched up on the left side at all! Yes cliff, that's how intellectually honest people do things. When they find new and better evidence they modify their position if necessary. I'll happily admit I have learned a few new things along the way. And I made mistakes in the past. You should take some lessons. You really need them. Tonight is a perfect example. Everything you have put up over he last few pages of posts to try and support your position has blown up in your face. You ended up with even less than you had before the night started...not that you had anything to begin with. It was a total loser for you and you know it. How do we know that? By looking at what you got wrong that you tried to sweep under the rug rather than admit error. Not to mention your gross 'overselling", which makes you look very bad I might add. Nope, a horrible night for cliff. Oh and just remember this. I love this. I'll be here or wherever knocking down your constucts on this issue every time you make them. Every time. for as long as I find your silly stuff amusing. Have a great night cliff. You can have the last word tonight, just not forever..... As we have seen tonight, your position has taken a mighty beating. Edited July 7, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 And...wait...lookee here! According to the Official Craig Lamson Dealey Plaza Bunch Graphic the top of the fold on the left side was right below, or right at, the top of the jacket collar! Unfortunately for Craig -- who simply cannot keep his snake oil straight -- he long ago abandoned that claim and has subsequently prepared this graphic to indicate the top of the fold close to the top of the shirt collar -- a half an inch higher than before! Wow, this fold has come along way in the last four years. In the beginning Craig didn't even have the jacket bunched up on the left side at all! Yes cliff, that's how intellectually honest people do things. When they find new and better evidence they modify their position if necessary. I'll happily admit I have learned a few new things along the way. And I made mistakes in the past. You think? And yet you manage to sneer at everyone who doesn't buy into every conclusion you post. You change your story more than Lady Gaga does dresses, and yet at every step you get nasty with people who don't agree with you. Your "intellectual honesty" has been in full display for 4 years, Craig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 As we have seen tonight, your position has taken a mighty beating. Naught but a flesh wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I'll do blue. Except I do deal directly with your specifics and your proven track record of "overselling" below. And imaging this coming from cliff, the guy who can't deal directly with the unimpeachable sun/shadow evidence and blows smoke to cover his decided lack of knowledge. Pot,meet kettle. What an amazing pile of steaming bs. But its exactly what we have come to expect from the "constructor" cliff. No need to "get around' it. It works out perfectly. I would not have made the statement if I did not know it was true. And if you think other wise you can show us why. Why don't you show us that cilff, I would love to see how you think this works. I KNOW how it works....sorry is right, for your silly construct. Whats the problem? you say that's exactly what we see in Jefferies? You can't have it both ways cliffy...or are you 'overselling" something here? The cliffy oversell continues. Please show us a direct quote of mine for your claim of "less than a one inch space". Your overselling is beginning to look compulsive The only one who appears to be visiting an altered reality is is cliff.... It is nothing of the sort unless you consider having a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner a good fit fro your so called prima facie evidence. I don't see that fitting yo well with your silly construct. I could care less. I just enjoy making silly and grossly uninformed "oversellers" like cliff varnell spin wildly in their chairs as their silly constructs are blown to smithereens right before their eyes. You don't have the first clue about any of this. You are...well I best stop here.... Pure vapor. Craig has a history of making mistaken analyses. He admits that he has a history of mistaken analyses. And yet he expects us to take his word for everything and gets nasty when we don't. JFK's jacket collar in the Jefferies film is well above the top of the shirt collar at the back of the neck. And then JFK brushed the back of his head and knocked the Jefferies bunch down. Why doesn't Craig post photos of his work with custom shirts and jackets? Either he hasn't done any tests or his tests contradict his conclusions. Which is it, Craig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) I'll do Orange... And...wait...lookee here! According to the Official Craig Lamson Dealey Plaza Bunch Graphic the top of the fold on the left side was right below, or right at, the top of the jacket collar! Unfortunately for Craig -- who simply cannot keep his snake oil straight -- he long ago abandoned that claim and has subsequently prepared this graphic to indicate the top of the fold close to the top of the shirt collar -- a half an inch higher than before! It is nothing of he sort unless you consider having a 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner a good fit fro your so called prima facie evidence. I don't see that fitting yo well with your silly construct.? Wow, this fold has come along way in the last four years. In the beginning Craig didn't even have the jacket bunched up on the left side at all! Really? IS that what that graphic represents cliff? You might want to try since BOTH graphics present the top of the fold in the same position. Once again you "oversell" your claims. Really cliff, you should stop doing that. Or is it that this is compulsive? Besides, you might want to consider that for how many years now have you claimed nix showed the jacket falling when all it shows is motion blur? And gee just last night you tried to bury your mistake on this one....which is the varnell way to deal with being wrong. Yes cliff, that's how intellectually honest people do things. looked in a mirrors lately? When they find new and better evidence they modify their position if necessary. I'll happily admit I have learned a few new things along the way. And I made mistakes in the past. You think? And yet you manage to sneer at everyone who doesn't buy into every conclusion you post. You change your story more than Lady Gaga does dresses, and yet at every step you get nasty with people who don't agree with you. Sorry cliff but my story has been consistent from day one....there is a fold on JFK's back in the last Betzner photo. As the years have progressed and conclusive evidence found we have learned that fold is 3+ inches in Betzner and was also present in Jefferies, Weaver, Towner, Croft, and finally Betzner. In other words for the ENTIRE RIDE through the plaza. Which of course is contrary to your decades long claim. And that of course s the reason you are in full meltdown mode. I really don't care if you are anyone else likes my style. That's not my problem and it works as intended, Your "intellectual honesty" has been in full display for 4 years, Craig. Actually it has been on display since long before I began posting here. My intellectual honesty is intact. Is yours? Mr shirt? ROFLMAO! Edited July 7, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Naught but a flesh wound. ROFLMAO! A flesh wound...you lost all that you thought you had left..which was Houston street. In other words you lost the last remaining remnants of your silly theory that the jacket fell in Dealey Plaza. It's over cliffy...you are done. And its been a blast doing it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Pure vapor. Craig has a history of making mistaken analyses. He admits that he has a history of mistaken analyses. And yet he expects us to take his word for everything and gets nasty when we don't. JFK's jacket collar in the Jefferies film is well above the top of the shirt collar at the back of the neck. LMAO! In Jefferies the jacket collar is in its normal position, not well above the top of the shirt collar as cliff WANTS you to believe. The shirt and jacket collar are later occluded by the large FOLD ON JFK'S BACK. SOUND FAMILIAR? cliff has watched this film closely many times. He know what is seen. The question becomes why has he CHOSEN to "oversell"? http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k564/cliffvarnell55/weaver.jpg' alt='weaver.jpg'> Which is it, Craig? Actually the fold never left the back of JFK' coat in Weaver. The unbending laws of light and shadow prove there is still a FOLD on JFK's back in Weaver, just like it does in the final Betzner. Sadly for cliff, he can't understand how sunlight works. The jacket collar stayed below the top of the shirt collar, as cliff admits. cliff, once again gets his analysis wrong. Why doesn't Craig post photos of his work with custom shirts and jackets? Either he hasn't done any tests or his tests contradict his conclusions. Of course I've not done tests with custom shirts. Why should I? I can't recreate JFK, his suit coat, his shirt, his back brace,his actions while sitting car etc. Without these things a test would be meaningless. Of course we could also ask cliff to show us the work he has doen to support his ...failed...conclusions. Either he hasn't done any tests or his tests contradict his conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Fellow researchers, gentle readers, I'm going to put Craig on ignore for a while and make some obvious points with photo comparisons. This frame of the Jefferies film was taken on Main St. about 90 seconds before the shooting and shows JFK's jacket bunched up into the hairline and occluding most of the shirt collar. The following is the Willis 4 photo taken on Elm St. seconds before the shooting. It shows a highly visible shirt collar and a stubby 3/4" fabric fold. JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 This is the Weaver photo taken on the corner of Houston and Elm St. The 1/2" white band of JFK's shirt collar is not visible in this photo. The fabric is indented, the opposite of the bulge we see in Jefferies. The Betzner 1 photo on Houston St. The normal amount of exposed shirt collar is clearly visible. JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) JFK on Main St. The jacket rides into the hairline. There was a diagonal indentation in the jacket. JFK on Houston St. The jacket collar rides below the hairline and the jacket is smooth and symmetrical across the upper back. Craig claims that this photo shows a grossly asymmetrical fold that's smooth on the left side and lumpy on the higher up right side. Those with cognitive abilities not hindered by rabid right wing ideology may see it differently. And yes, JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Edited July 7, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Normal eh? Occluded by the jacket collar eh? DO the phrases PERSPECTIVE AND DIRECTION OF VIEW, along with SUBJECT ANGLE ring a bell at all? If they don't you simply LOSE again. This is just hand-waving. The normal amount of exposed shirt collar is .5". It appears as a white band around the back and side of the neck. You're not familiar with this, Craig? This white band does not appear in Weaver, unless we get a millimeter or two at the very top. Translated to the readers, this means cliff DOES NOT understand Perspective, Direction of view and Subject angle. As usual he has proven he is clueless. I see you can't understand, Perspective, Direction of biew and Subject direction can you cliff? Is all of htis too hard ofr you to understand? or are you just stuck trying your defend your proven FAILED theory I see you don't deny that the normal amount of shirt collar is not visible in Weaver. Since you cannot deny that the jacket collar is elevated in Weaver you must admit that it subsequently dropped. But even the most obvious things are beyond your ability to admit, evidently. I see you can't understand, Perspective, Direction of View and Subject Direction can you cliff? Is all of this too hard for you to understand? or are you just stuck trying your defend your proven FAILED theory? Continuing to post things that are "oversold" will not make them true... 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