John McAdams

[Cliff Varnell]

Also in SSID Tink speculates that the throat wound was an exit.

So I'd have to say his critique of the SBT is tepid, at best.

While I'm highly critical of Tink on the throat wound -- an issue near and dear -- I'd like to add that I agree with Tink on the issue perhaps most near and dear to him.

The Dealey Plaza films and photos are the bedrock evidence in the case -- specifically Z frames 186 to 255 + Betzner 3, Willis 5 & Altgens 6. I don't know if the Z-film was doctored after 255 and I'm only mildly interested in the subject.

No Z-alterationist has identified any fakery in Z186-255, and what those frames show is consistent with the three photos cited and the testimony of close witnesses.

Z186-255/Betzner3/Willis5/Altgens6 -- the bedrock evidence in the case. I'll argue it all day long.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

15 points? How complex. I don't have to argue anything. I can cite a few photos and send these clowns into delusional spasms. I can make my case to a five year old: JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

I don't care who you are that is funny stuff....

Here:

[/b]

[/color]

Man cliff you have OUTDONE YOURSELF! What a GREAT job of locating the results of MOTION BLUR ! ROFLMAO!

Your works is hopelessly wrong cliff.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Man cliff you have OUTDONE YOURSELF! What a GREAT job of locating the results of MOTION BLUR ! ROFLMAO!

Your works is hopelessly wrong cliff.

Once I stop laughing I'll respond in the "Deniers" thread.

[Craig Lamson]

Man cliff you have OUTDONE YOURSELF! What a GREAT job of locating the results of MOTION BLUR ! ROFLMAO!

Your works is hopelessly wrong cliff.

Once I stop laughing I'll respond in the "Deniers" thread.

Instead why don't you tell us WHY it"s NOT motion blur since all the internals of the two photos show us exactly that.

Poor cliff you can't even see the telltale marks of motion blur in both frames and how it increases from one frame to the next. And it not just a tiny bit of blur, its pretty large.

And while you try and wrap your head around motion blur, why don't you explain to us how it works as it pertains to light and dark areas within a frame of film. iI you can't explain this simple factoid, well you just get tossed onto the dustbin of history.

Oh wait, thats were you reside now...

Edited July 7, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

Man cliff you have OUTDONE YOURSELF! What a GREAT job of locating the results of MOTION BLUR ! ROFLMAO!

Your works is hopelessly wrong cliff.

Once I stop laughing I'll respond in the "Deniers" thread.

Instead why don't you tell us WHY it"s NOT motion blur since all the internals of the two photos show us exactly that.

Poor cliff you can't even see the telltale marks of motion blur in both frames and how it increases from one frame to the next. And it not just a tiny bit of blur, its pretty large.

And while you try and wrap your head around motion blur, why don't you explain to us how it works as it pertains to light and dark areas within a frame of film. iI you can't explain this simple factoid, well you just get tossed onto the dustbin of history.

Oh wait, thats were you reside now...

BLUR? Surely you can post a 1st generation frame with blur that one can compare to, yes? No sense fooling around here, give the lone nut to much wiggle room and you get lone nut nonsense. So post that 1st generation image, those of us that KNOW can make simple comparisons. We'll require the images lineage also, ya been dancing too long Craigster, let's see what ya got, son!

Or do we just have more lone nut noise for the Z-film uninitiated?

[Craig Lamson]

Man cliff you have OUTDONE YOURSELF! What a GREAT job of locating the results of MOTION BLUR ! ROFLMAO!

Your works is hopelessly wrong cliff.

Once I stop laughing I'll respond in the "Deniers" thread.

Instead why don't you tell us WHY it"s NOT motion blur since all the internals of the two photos show us exactly that.

Poor cliff you can't even see the telltale marks of motion blur in both frames and how it increases from one frame to the next. And it not just a tiny bit of blur, its pretty large.

And while you try and wrap your head around motion blur, why don't you explain to us how it works as it pertains to light and dark areas within a frame of film. iI you can't explain this simple factoid, well you just get tossed onto the dustbin of history.

Oh wait, thats were you reside now...

BLUR? Surely you can post a 1st generation frame with blur that one can compare to, yes? No sense fooling around here, give the lone nut to much wiggle room and you get lone nut nonsense. So post that 1st generation image, those of us that KNOW can make simple comparisons. We'll require the images lineage also, ya been dancing too long Craigster, let's see what ya got, son!

Or do we just have more lone nut noise for the Z-film uninitiated?

Oh dave, you gonna claim there is no motion blur too? Oh wait dave never claims anything he just dances around the edges without actually sticking his neck out..

So dave,is there motion blur in Nix or not? You don't need anything but whats posted to answer...

So how about it, you gonna stick you neck out and comment or is this just another in a long line of dave making empty hit and run posts?

[Cliff Varnell]

Crickets...

Is there "motion blur" in Betzner 1 as well, Craig?

Edited July 8, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[David G. Healy]

...

Oh dave, you gonna claim there is no motion blur too? Oh wait dave never claims anything he just dances around the edges without actually sticking his neck out..

So dave,is there motion blur in Nix or not? You don't need anything but whats posted to answer...

So how about it, you gonna stick you neck out and comment or is this just another in a long line of dave making empty hit and run posts?

Focus son.... Simply post a 1st generation (supplying proof of same) film-photo frame supporting your contention, that way reasonable folks can conclude as they will.... lone nut/non-film-photo alteration(IST) noise is no longer sufficient Craig, what are you afraid of? You own opinion? Your own lone nut clan?

Edited July 7, 2011 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

...

Oh dave, you gonna claim there is no motion blur too? Oh wait dave never claims anything he just dances around the edges without actually sticking his neck out..

So dave,is there motion blur in Nix or not? You don't need anything but whats posted to answer...

So how about it, you gonna stick you neck out and comment or is this just another in a long line of dave making empty hit and run posts?

Focus son.... Simply post a 1st generation (supplying proof of same) film-photo frame supporting your contention, that way reasonable folks can conclude as they will.... lone nut/non-film-photo alteration(IST) noise is no longer sufficient Craig, what are you afraid of? You own opinion? Your own lone nut clan?

Reasonable people (and those are so hard to find in the ct ranks) can decide just fine with the material available to everyone.

Just so I understand, nothing but first generation material by anyone or their work get trash canned?

BTW, Your say nothing ct photo/film posts are no longer sufficient dave. What are you afraid of? Your own opinion? Your own ct clan??

Edited July 7, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

Just so I understand, nothing but first generation material by anyone or their work get trash canned?

when the work is classified as OPINION and/or THEORY fine, when the work is stated as FACT and/or PROOF...... and not verifiable 1st generation film-photo material-- of course! That's a reasonable benchmark.

Edited July 8, 2011 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

Crickets...

Is there "motion blur" in Betzner 1 as well, Craig?

And you point is?

Oh wait... you posts are pointless. Sorry.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff:

You are arguing it all day and night and twilight long with Lammy.

No. It wasn't an "argument" (past tense; he's run out of BS and bailed). If you say "2+2=4" and I tell you, "No, 2+2=5" -- are we having an argument?

Hardly.

You cite the Croft photo as an argument for the SBT. But the Croft photo (and all the Elm St. photos) shows the normal amount of exposed shirt collar on the left side of JFK's neck.

That means his jacket collar rested at a normal position a fraction of an inch above the base of his neck.

John Hunt et al claim an SBT inshoot at the base of the neck. How could multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunch up entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the same location?

I think 95% of kindergartners in this country can grasp that such a scenario is impossible.

The percentage of the JFK Assassination Critical Community that gets it seems stuck in the single digits.

On any forum or newsgroup I've discussed the clothing evidence I'm shadowed by a dogged agent of disinformation, but how does that take away from the prima facie case Vincent Salandria first presented 45+ years ago?

I point out the obvious and people like Craig Lamson, John Hunt, and Chad Zimmerman do their best to blow smoke -- I've been doing this for 14 years and the cast of characters changes and their rationales shift around but never do they offer anything more than smoke.

The general inability of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community to see through this smoke is striking

As per me, as I have said, I do not take from Purvis or Hunt--or Speer--for that matter, their CONCLUSIONS.

I take their work which I think is most credible.

To me, it is nonsense to say that no this bullet did not do the SBF another one did. NO WAY.

If this bullet did not, then none did.

Or they would no have done what they did.

It's not a prima facie case, Jim. It's 15 points versus one point -- the jacket collar dropped to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck, precluding any possibility the clothing was bunched up above the base of the neck.

I can't imagine how it gets any more obvious!

The T3 back wound is the prima facie case for conspiracy, and in my opinion to argue it on lesser grounds is inherently obfuscationary.

[Cliff Varnell]

We disagree Cliff.

And no its not a prima facie case.

Of course it is. The bullet holes in the clothes are four inches below the clothing collars -- that's too low, Jim. It doesn't take expert analyses by the likes of Mantik and Speer to see that the SBT doesn't work with the wound at T3.

There is no argument about that, is there?

Maybe you need to drop Vincent Salandria a line.

Salandria to Gaeton Fonzi:

"I'm afraid we were misled...All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression...[T]he interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long..."

What evidence do you think Salandria was referring to as being "blatantly obvious"?

The clothing evidence, of course!

Just ask Pat Speer.

Oh, are you impressed with his non-arguments as well? Care to quote him?

The only thing Pat says about the clothing evidence is that he and his girlfriend saw him move his shirt around one time. That's it. Another in a long series of high-back wound vapor blowing.

But if you're impressed with what Pat says on this issue, by all means quote him, Jim. Or do you automatically ascribe value to his assertions on this issue regardless of their merit?

Pat Speer has noted in the past that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. How he can continue to believe that multiple inches of shirt/jacket fabric could bunch up above the SBT inshoot at the base of JFK's neck and still have the jacket drop to a normal position right above the base of the neck is indeed a mystery, if not an actual wonder.

Pat hates being confronted with this as much as you and Craig Lamson.

Meanwhile, do me a favor, leave me out of this from here on in.

No, that is a favor I cannot grant. If you make statements that can't be defended with fact-based argument -- as is the case here -- you're going to get called on it. That's the way it is.

If you don't want to be called on mis-statements of fact, don't make them.

I don' t like this endless recycling of this endless argument.

That's rich coming from David Von Pein's JFK assassination dance partner! In all the endless arguments you've had with Von Pein, Jim, how many times has he conceded a point to you?

Can you name one?

I've had exactly one conversation with the guy -- on this thread -- and he conceded the fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

There is no "endless argument." Von Pein's position was taken out with one stroke -- unlike your endless recycling arguments with the man.

As far as Craig Lamson goes, he has tried to leverage his expertise as a photographer to mis-characterize the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. I suspect he does the same with the Zapruder-alteration evidence.

In this day and age, its a bit passe.

Why?

Because it doesn't involve digging rabbit hole after rabbit hole and claiming the JFK assassination is "superhumanly complex"? What a crock!

The clothing evidence is the prima facie case, and the prima facie case should never go out of "style." Something that can be explained to small children should never be regarded as "passe."

Many of the modern generation of JFK assassination researchers want to revise history and claim that the conclusions of the WC somehow survived the first generation critics.

Anyone so much as implies such a thing is going to get a rise out of me.

(Jim D quote on)

I mean it goes back to Epstein in 1966. In my Buglios,i part four series for example, I spent a long section on this whole back wound issue. I did a nice job showing that there is no evidence that the bullet transited, and I did that separate from my discussion of CE 399.

And I did it without this shirt/jacket evidence.

(quote off)

Leaving out the hard physical evidence in the discussion of a murder case is nothing to brag about, Jim.

Bugliosi addressed the clothing evidence almost exclusively at the back of the accompanying CD. All the book does by way of argument is cite the Croft photo and repeat the endlessly repeated assertion (with which you seem to be impressed somehow) that folds in a jacket must involve multiple inches of fabric.

I don't need a four part series to destroy Bugliosi, anymore than I needed years of debate to get David Von Pein to agree to the simple fact that establishes conspiracy in the case -- the fall of the jacket in Dealey Plaza.

And it doesn't go back to Epstein in 1966, it goes back to Salandria in 1964.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

dupe

[Michael Hogan]

Salandria to Gaeton Fonzi:

"I'm afraid we were misled...All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression...[T]he interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long..."

What evidence do you think Salandria was referring to as being "blatantly obvious"?

The clothing evidence, of course!

Cliff, on what basis do you conclude the above?

No doubt Salandria felt that the clothing evidence was important, but to suggest that it is the singular

evidence Salandria considered in making his statement to Fonzi diminishes his work, in my opinion.

I like the word you've coined: obfuscationary. I know you've used it before. Most of us would have settled for obfuscatory.