Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) I know of no 5 year old (or 57 year old) who could not understand that the holes in the shirt and jacket are going to align with the wound in JFK's back from being shot. If the shirt and jacket were bunched up, however, they would not. But they do. So the shirt and the jacket were not bunched up when he was shot. You can demonstrate it with a pencil. The end of the story. Well, on at this specific topic, what is there I have explained that "a little kid" would not understand? Anything not relating to the physical evidence. Physical evidence can be demonstrated. A five year old may have difficulty with the intellectual frame-work of your reasoning, don't you think? More to the point, what is there about this topic as I explain it in "Reasoning about Assassinations" that you would not understand? I'm 57, not 5. Why not say to Lamson, "If the photo has not been faked, then there was some bunching; but it doesn't make any difference to the location of the wound in his back, because the holes and the other evidence align"? That's the end of the story. That's good. But I prefer to point to something I can physically demonstrate. Multi-inch bunch up of the clothing below the collar pushes up on the collar. In Croft the collar was not pushed up, ergo the clothing below it had minor, insignificant bunching. I can show that to a "little kid" in less than a minute. It will take you a little longer to get the tyke on board "Reasoning about Assassinations." Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) You saying you see it is like the Alterationists saying they see a black patch, no? If you can't replicate it, it never happened. What a clear example of your inability to read and comprehend. Same old rhetoric. Same ducking of the basic physical facts. Sigh Yes it is the same rhetoric by you. The only ducking of fact is by Cliff Varnell. The fact that a shadow falling over the jacket and shirt collar at the back center of JFK's neck is missing. That can't happen given YOUR claims. You LOSE. In the case of the so called "black patch" There is no dispute that there is SOMETHING at the back of JFK's head. The question is what created it. In the case of Croft, there is no dispute that there is a fold. EVEN YOU AGREE TO THAT POINT. What is important in Croft as it pertains to Betzner is the neck shadow. And this not a case where I say "I see it". I provide exacting data that supports this existence. UNIMPEACHABLE data. You provide nothing but rhetoric. Unless you can show us how you elevate a half-foot of clothing fabric entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at the base of the neck your rhetoric is meaningless. Wrong again. All I need to prove that the laws of light and shadow and angle of incidence MUST create a shadow at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner. I have. This is confirmed by Croft. Since this shadows that MUST be seen is Betzner is NOT, SOMETHING must obscure it. As I have shown via empirical testing and other means a 3"+ fold, just like we see in Croft and Towner will do exactly that. This is unimpeachable. And after all of this time YOU can't show us any other arrangement of fabric that can produce this result AND STILL OBEY THE LAWS OF LIGHT, SHADOW AND ANGLE OF INCIDENCE. HOW the fold was created is of no concern. Either it is there or it is not. I've offered my proof as to WHY it is there, and you still can't refute it. Your contention it must be replicated is false. It is no different than what you accuse the Alterationists of. I hold myself to the same standards as I expect from the "black patchers" No, you demand "extraordinary proof" and yet you cannot physically replicate your own claims in regards to the movement of clothing -- using a coat and shirt.[/colo My claim is that a shadow is missing from Betnzer because it is being obscured by a fold of fabric. I have provided a MOUNTAIN of evidence to back up this claim. HOW that fold got there is of no concern to my positron. And its just a frail excuse for yours. That is the beauty of this argument. And its why you can't defeat it. Show us the neck shadow that must fall over the shirt and jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner, or you lose. Period. Learn to live with the fact that your jig is up cliff. Your so called logic fails yet again. More empty rhetoric. Show us. Why can't you physically demonstrate in the real world how such an event could occur? Again, I DON"T NEED TOO. My argument does not require it. This marks almost 5 years of utter failure to replicate in the real world the claims you make. Then we get to this real gem of varnellian logic... "If you can't replicate it, it never happened" Clearly we can't replicate the birth of Cliff Varnell. so it never happened. ROFLMAO! Babies are born every day, last I looked. The act of child-birth is replicated constantly. I'm not asking you to make a demonstration with JFK's clothing -- you have to demonstrate in the real world how you can bunch up a half-foot of clothing fabric above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar. Can yo replicate YOUR EXACT BIRTH? If not by varnellian logic, you don't exist. Lack of a replication does not mean something cannot exist. My argument does not concern how or why the fold was created. It only concerns why a shadow is missing. Replicating HOW the fold might or might not have come to be is not pertinent to my shadow argument. Learn to live with it Cliff. The argument has moved WAY past your old school claims. They no longer matter. But you have found all attempts end in FAILURE. So you are left repeating yourself over and over. Quit making things up from thin air Cliff, it only makes you look really silly. We all know you "oversell". Quit now Cliff, you will never win this. There is no neck shadow in Betzner. Just a 3+" fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket. A fold you have founds physically impossible to replicate. So you repeat yourself over and over. You are employing an egregious a double standard. Really? I've and I cant make it happen? How in the world would you know, one way or the other? Silly Cillf, so utterly destroyed he has to resort to "overselling". What a pity. Show us what a half-foot wad of clothing fabric looks like at the base of the neck. Why? I don't need it for my claim to be correct. Show us the neck shadow that must fall over the shirt and jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner, or you lose. Period. Show us or scoot along . The argument has moved well past you Cliff. Its a new world and you are stuck in the past. Show us the neck shadow that must fall over the shirt and jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner, or you lose. Period. Or scoot along. Edited January 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Cliff, My point is that Lamson's argument is irrelevant, because we KNOW where the bullet entered the body, namely, 5.5 inches below the collar to the right of the spinal column at a downward angle. And it was a shallow shot with now point of entry. My point is that we've "been there, done that"! You're right, Jim. But one can say that about other issues in this thread as well. When I saw the critique Craig was making of Mr. Block's argument, it seemed to me that Craig was employing a double standard which deserved a hard look. As I've noted before -- in a field littered with dead horses I choose to beat the one that proves the case prima facie. I can explain my work to a little kid. You cannot do so with your work, can you? You don't HAVE any work Cliff. Sure I do. Let's review: Craig, glance over at your right shoulder-line. This is something a five year old can do, look over at their right shoulder-line. So I'm sure you're capable of this. After you've got your eyeballs peeled on the fabric of your shirt along your right shoulder-line, raise your right arm to wave like JFK and you WILL observe the fabric of your shirt INDENTING along the shoulder-line. This is the opposite effect of what you claim occurred with JFK. This is a demonstration in the the real world. You, on the other hand, cannot make any demonstration in the real world of clothing movement consistent with your claims. You can't come to grips with the fact that a simple shadow lays to you waste. You can't come to grips with the fact that the collar and the bunch can't occupy the same physical space at the same time. You cannot demonstrate your fantastic claims in the real world. You offer nothing but rhetoric. No need to prove how or when a fold may or not be created. You're missing the point. You have made an "extraordinary claim." You asset that a half-foot PLUS of shirt/jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the C7 SBT inshoot without displacing the jacket collar resting slightly above C7. You need to provide "extraordinary proof" of such an event in the real world. But you have failed to do so, because such an event is obviously impossible. If there is no neck shadow falling over the shirt/jacket collar ant the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner the 3+"fold is present. More empty rhetoric you expect people to buy because you're a self-declared photo expert. Show us what a 3+ inch of jacket and 3+ inch of shirt bunch up looks like. You cannot. You've tried and you have FAILED. It renders your decades long fantasy moot. Laws of sun and show simple DESTROYS you and you can't find a way out. More of what you accuse the Alterationists of. This impossible-to-replicate bunch was there because Craig Lamson says it was there. Your DEFEAT is complete. Learn to live with. TOAST! Prima facie? Not even close, your evidence is prima fakie. It's prima facie impossible to have a half-foot of clothing and JFK's jacket collar occupying the same physical space at the same time. A fact you cannot refute in the real world Edited January 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 It is unimpeachable that there was a 3+" fold of fabric at Betzner. WHERE DID IT GO? It's there because Craig Lamson says it's there. Can Craig ever go beyond these endlessly repeated assertions and demonstrate in the real world how clothing moves in the manner he describes? I don't NEED to show how or why a fold may or may not be formed. I only need to show a shadow is missing and then show why it is missing. You continue to lose as the argument has moved well past your limited ability to comprehend. Show us the neck shadow that must fall over the shirt and jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner, or you lose. Period. The argument has gone well past your old school claims. No, Craig merely pronounces himself an expert on light and shadow and blows hot air. Sadly again you are wrong and are looking arr more silly with each post. My proofs are well documented on this very forum. There is no need to reproduce them here. If you can't replicate it, Craig, it never happened. The "replication" of my birth and yours, Craig, is on-going, btw. Your inability to replicate your claims is also on-going. You are being REBORN? shrooms? ROFLMAO! My claim is well supported. Yours on the other had is all hand waving. You are toast Cliff, learn to live with it. rock on cliff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 It's prima facie impossible to have a half-foot of clothing and JFK's jacket collar occupying the same physical space at the same time. A fact you cannot refute in the real world Who in the world BESIDES YOU have ever made such a silly claim? ROFLMAO! Show us the neck shadow that must fall over the shirt and jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner, or you lose. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You provide nothing but rhetoric. Unless you can show us how you elevate a half-foot of clothing fabric entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at the base of the neck your rhetoric is meaningless. Wrong again. All I need to prove that the laws of light and shadow and angle of incidence MUST create a shadow at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner. I have. No you haven't. This is just another made-up claim, pure rhetoric and nothing more. You cannot demonstrate anything in regards to clothing movement. You pick the worst possible view of JFK and make unsupported claims about light and shadow. Other photos taken seconds earlier show nothing of what you claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You provide nothing but rhetoric. Unless you can show us how you elevate a half-foot of clothing fabric entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at the base of the neck your rhetoric is meaningless. Wrong again. All I need to prove that the laws of light and shadow and angle of incidence MUST create a shadow at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner. I have. No you haven't. This is just another made-up claim, pure rhetoric and nothing more. You cannot demonstrate anything in regards to clothing movement. You pick the worst possible view of JFK and make unsupported claims about light and shadow. Other photos taken seconds earlier show nothing of what you claim. The SHADOW IS MISSING IN BETZNER. BETZNER. BETZNER Show us the neck shadow that must fall over the shirt and jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner, or you lose. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name=Craig Lamson' date='13 January 2012 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1326475520' I don't NEED to show how or why a fold may or may not be formed. You most certainly do! You propose something that is impossible on it's face -- you claim that a half-foot wad of clothing occupied the same physical space as the jacket collar. Prima facie impossible. All your breast-beating and hand-waving are nothing but rhetorical gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Again, the back of the head is the same darkness as other parts of the frame, and the door is darker than the back of the head. I can save you the trouble of dealing with Lamson: motion blur. Connally has no face either. The camera is [pretending to be] panning backwards at the same rate as JFK's head is [pretending to be] going back and to the left (relative to the limo). Look at the door handle to get a fix on the amount of blur. That (and maybe some motion on Jackie's part) is enough to explain it away. (Note: physically possible -- that's my criterion.) (People who believe the Z film to be genuine, ignore words in [square brackets].) (There's plenty we can all agree on, scientifically, even if we can't agree on the square brackets.) J I'm quite proud to be a conservative Jim, far better than being a liberal to be sure. But you're more than a conservative -- you're a rabid Kennedy-hater. With an agenda. Nice to see you contradict your earlier denial. Something about fantasy and reality, was it? Now we'll see Craig Lamson's true talent -- blowing smoke while back-pedaling. To add to the discussion, I'm posting two thumbnails here, both cropped to (a) focus on the back of the head and (b ) be small enough to permit posting here. These are crops of Z-321 and Z-323. To me, it seems clear that the back of the head has been darkened. I'm leery of the word "patch" because that implies a quasi rectangular area with very sharp borders--i.e., either one is "inside" the "patch" or "outside" of it. l'm not sure exactly how this was done--just that the back of the head appears to have been darkened, in the general area where the Dallas medical team saw an exit wound. Also, please note: Jackie has facial features in these two frames. Only in frame 317 does it appear that she has none at all. Perhaps Mr. Lamson can address this matter of why Jackie appears to have lost all facial features in frame 317. Craig, I know you're an expert in all matters optical, anatomical, and political, so perhaps you can venture a guess, or a hypothesis. For example: 1) The Dealey Plaza "bird" hypothesis At the same time as a large bird flew overhead (or some other celestial phenomenon occurred) casting a dark shadow on the back of Kennedy's head (in beautiful sunlit Dealey Plaza, at "high noon"). Moreover, Jackie was so shocked at what she was witnessing that the blood simply drained from her face, and so all facial detail disappeared--but for just one film frame. But then, within just a few eighteenths of a second, everything changed, and --voila--Jackie "regain composure" and facial features returned! Moreover, this occurred during the same general period where dozens of witnesses thought the car slowed --and at least one dozen said it stopped completely. (2) The Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis Dealey Plaza was like the Bermuda Triangle...and so all sorts of weird and essentially inexplicable phenomena occurred at the time JFK was shot. A dark cloud was cast on the back of JFK's head, while at the same time dozens of people thought the car stopped, and at the same time, Jackie, staring in shocked disbelief, simply lost her facial features for a brief eighteenth of a second. Moreover, the Z film mysteriously doesn't show the same head wounds that the Dallas medical team reported five minutes later, but, inexplicably, shows wounds closer to what the Bethesda observers saw 6 hours later. Of course, this couldn't be part of a plot to alter the body (and imagery of the body)--perish the thought. Rather, the Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis "explains everything." Again, these are only suggestions. Far be it for me to interfere with the free reign of anyone's expertise. So I do invite you to exercise yours, and explain the absence of facial features on Jackie in the Z frame numbered Z-317, whereas her features "returned" by frames 321 and 323 (as well as the other matters mentioned above, if you're so inclined.) DSL 1/12/12; 9:50 PM PST Los Angeles, CA PLEASE NOTE: In the thumbnails below. . Z -323 is on the left; Z-321 is on the right. Frankly, I think the best move at this time would be to get to Dr. John Costella (if he has the time and the inclination), the Hollywood 4K scans of the entire Z-film, and D.Lifton's 4K scans of the entire Z-film for his 'professional' evaluation. Not rocket science, folks. Further, based on this thread content, 4k digital frames off of a 1st (Lifton's) and a 3rd (Hollywood group) generation 35mm positive prints of the alleged in-camera Zapruder 8mm film currently stored at NARA (National Archives). Do we need a new thread for this side of the discussion? Edited January 13, 2012 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) All I need to prove that the laws of light and shadow and angle of incidence MUST create a shadow at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner. I have. You simply declare yourself an expert on light and shadow and repeat your assertions over and over. You cannot demonstrate these assertions, you cannot find corroboration of them in other photos, you just cry Betzner Betzner Betzner over and over. But what you claim was physically impossible. Or else you could demonstrate it in the real world. Other photos taken seconds earlier show nothing of what you claim. The SHADOW IS MISSING IN BETZNER. BETZNER. BETZNER Show us the neck shadow that must fall over the shirt and jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner, or you lose. Period. Why should anyone take your "word" concerning light and shadow? Because you are a self-declared expert? Craig, you are the one making the claim that a half-foot wad of clothing and JFK's jacket collar occupied the same physical space at the same time. Physically demonstrate this or scoot along, son. Edited January 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name=Craig Lamson' date='13 January 2012 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1326475520' I don't NEED to show how or why a fold may or may not be formed. You most certainly do! You propose something that is impossible on it's face -- you claim that a half-foot wad of clothing occupied the same physical space as the jacket collar. Prima facie impossible. All your breast-beating and hand-waving are nothing but rhetorical gibberish. No, You are claiming that. SAME PHYSICAL SPACE? ROFLMAO! WHERE IS YOUR PROOF. The is no doubt the shadow in Betzner is missing. I can prove a 3"+ fold can do just that. I DON'T have to prove how or why that fold got there. Now either you can find another arrangement of fabric that can obscure the the shadow AND PROVE IT is possible in given the laws of sun and shadow and angle of incidence seen in Betzner, or you lose. Its pretty simple. But still well above your ability. You better run. I heard you were being reborn. You don't want to be late. ROFLMAO!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 All I need to prove that the laws of light and shadow and angle of incidence MUST create a shadow at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner. I have. You simply declare yourself an expert on light and shadow and repeat your assertions over and over. You cannot demonstrate these assertions, you cannot find corroboration of them in other photos, you just cry Betzner Betzner Betzner over and over. But what you claim was physically impossible. Or else you could demonstrate it in the real world. Other photos taken seconds earlier show nothing of what you claim. The SHADOW IS MISSING IN BETZNER. BETZNER. BETZNER Show us the neck shadow that must fall over the shirt and jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner, or you lose. Period. Why should anyone take your "word" concerning light and shadow? Because you are a self-declared expert? I don't ask anyone to take my word for anything. In fact I EXPECT people to do the tests personally to confirm my work. You on the other hand say , "just believe me" My work is well documented and I tell people all the time to do the work for them self. Wanna try again, because you just lost...again. Craig, you are the one making the claim that a half-foot wad of clothing and JFK's jacket collar occupied the same physical space at the same time. I did nothing of the sort. Quit telling whoppers. Physically demonstrate this or scoot along, son. No need. YOU should run along, you are toast and now have to resort to telling whoppers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Frankly, I think the best move at this time would be to get to Dr. John Costella (if he has the time and the inclination), the Hollywood 4K scans of the entire Z-film, and D.Lifton's 4K scans of the entire Z-film for his 'professional' evaluation. Not rocket science, folks. Further, based on this thread content, 4k digital frames off of a 1st (Lifton's) and a 3rd (Hollywood group) generation 35mm positive prints of the alleged in-camera Zapruder 8mm film currently stored at NARA (National Archives). Do we need a new thread for this side of the discussion? Why not just make them available to all? Edited January 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Cliff and Craig, your obsession with a shadow or not shadow on one photo has nothing to do with this thread, which is about evidence alteration. Your endless bickering about it is side-tracking what would otherwise be considered a productive exchange among members not interested in your obsession. Please take it elsewhere. Under normal circumstances, the moderators might choose to remove your posts re Betzner and put them into a separate thread. But everything you've posted is a repeat of a repeat of a repeat of posts you've made in earlier threads. So what would be the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Cliff and Craig, your obsession with a shadow or not shadow on one photo has nothing to do with this thread, which is about evidence alteration. Your endless bickering about it is side-tracking what would otherwise be considered a productive exchange among members not interested in your obsession. Please take it elsewhere. Under normal circumstances, the moderators might choose to remove your posts re Betzner and put them into a separate thread. But everything you've posted is a repeat of a repeat of a repeat of posts you've made in earlier threads. So what would be the point? I'm fine with that, in fact I suggested to Varnell quite a few times now. He wants to play here. So be it. But I'll not post again on this topic in thread. BTW, most threads on this forum end up being a repeat of a repeat of a repeat anyways. We had this every same discussion of the black patch back in 09. And a few times since. Edited January 13, 2012 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