The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Craig Lamson]

Isn't it interesting that Craig Lamson demands "extraordinary proof" from the Alterationists but refuses to do so with his pet SBT theories?

Isn't it interesting that Craig ridicules Alterationists for saying "I see a black patch therefore it is" and then he turns around and makes the same kind of noise about "unimpeachable 3+ jacket folds" in the Betzner photo?

Behold the Lamson, Lord of Light and Shadow!

Thanks so much for posting that Cliff, It shows the missing shadow which proves beyond a doubt that there is a 3+" fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket. And of course I've gone to extraordinary lengths to prove just that. Anyone who wants to find it can, by simply searching this forum. There are pages and pages of proofs, most of which are way beyond your ability to comprehend.

A silly little shadow beat you Cliff. A shadow.

And all you can say is NO, it can't be, I say so...

All the while light and shadow destroy you.

Take it elsewhere cliff.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[John Costella]

It's possible that Lifton has been scamming us -- or someone scammed him -- and his scans have been altered to cover up how black they originally were.

But I still don't understand: if they fabricated an entire film, why would "paintwork" even be considered?

You just have to look at the "crater" to realise that the President after 313 is just a fabricated set of images.

I simply don't understand this fixation on a "lower-tech" version of alteration. Perhaps it's because it's something that even those who believe the Z film to be authentic might considered possible (i.e. that someone painted over it). If that's on the table, then just examine the damn "camera original' and look for the paint!

J

No, John, you should know better than to think that I would want you to "take sides". That is not in me. I

am taken aback that, in this frame from Lifton's treasure trove, there is so little of value. I must conclude

that some versions of the film make certain forms of fakery more conspicuous. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT

THIS BLOW-OUT WAS CRUDELY PAINTED OVER IN BLACK. I don't know why this frame doesn't show it.

And I must admit that your remarks about the passengers being thrown forward commits a blunder. It is

occurring at a time when THE LIMOUSINE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ACCELERATING. What is the probability

that ONE of the passengers would be THROWN FORWARD when they should be being PULLED BACK?

And in this case there are SEVERAL. I don't know why, mate, but I fault you because you are wrong.

In fact, unless I have missed something, I don't see where you have even acknowledge that the blow out

has been patched, when that is OBVIOUS. So I have several difficulties with you in this exchange, none

of which have to do with any presumptions about "taking sides". My inference is that we have reached

the limits of your competence and that the Hollywood experts, Pat and the Director, simply know more.

And scientific reasoning is based upon observation, measurement, and experiment--but all considered

within the framework known as "inference to the best explanation". Given your agreement with me on

(1), (2), and (3), it should already be apparent that the blow-out was patched. The oddity, as I see it, is

that the Lifton frame does not make it show up better and that you seem reluctant to admit the obvious.

So if your position is that you were simply reflecting on the relative lack of strong contrast in Lifton's

frame, then I reiterate my question: why should a feature that LEAPED OUT TO THE FILM EXPERTS

be so muted in the case of Lifton's frame? Something is wrong here, where I see no indication that you

are providing any explanation. That rather bothers me, but perhaps the others can explain it for me.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

This is a terrific find! Tink has previously graciously conceded that Forrest Sorrel's testimony about Chaney's motoring forward is inconsistent with his position that that had taken place AFTER the limo had passed the Triple Underpass. Here you have Chaney not only reporting motoring forward but also stating that the president "slumped" into Jackie's lap. There is nothing about "back-and-to-the-left" motion. PLUS he confirms that the limo STOPPED. So I think this is a very valuable contribution. Thanks for posting it. There are a couple of oddities, such as the remark about, "It was like you hit him in the face with a tomato", which might refer to the skull flap blowing open. That his brains were blown out to the left/rear is not clear from what he has to say, but from his perspective--unlike that of Officer Hargis, who was riding to the left/rear and was hit with the debris--seeing it was probably obfuscated by Jack and Jackie. I would like to believe there is no more room for doubt about Chaney's motoring forward, which should also appear in the film, but that would be extremely naive on my part. John Costella was the first to notice, where I published about it in "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", OpEdNews (5 February 2008).

Jim

Thanks, Chris, for your reply. You understand that my posted close-up came from the LIFE transparencies and these were made in the LIFE photolab directly from the originl. The more I look at these, the more it seems to me that I got the focus a tad wrong.

Question: Did you post a story from the Houston Chronicle for 11/22/63 giving the results of a press interview with Officer James Chaney?

JT

Tink, Chris posted the article for me (Thanks again, Chris!) and I immediately typed it up and added it into my database of witness statements. In recent days, I have come to realize that Chaney had spoken to KLIF radio well before he spoke to WFAA, apparently within minutes of the shooting. I have added his statements to KLIF as well.

Here's my updated list of James Chaney's earliest statements.

James Chaney rode to the right and rear of the President. Although he was the closest witness behind the President at the time of the shooting and had a private conversation with Jack Ruby the next day, Chaney was never questioned by the Warren Commission. (11-22-63 interview on KLIF radio, reportedly around 12:45 PM, as transcribed by Harold Weisberg from the KLIF album The Fateful Hours) "On the first shot we thought it was a motorcycle backfire. I looked to my left and so did President Kennedy, looking back over his left shoulder, and when the second shot struck him in the face then we knew someone was shooting at the President... He slumped forward in the car. He fell forward in the seat there." (Note: some sources have it that Chaney mentioned “a third shot that was fired that (he) did not see hit the President” and that he did see “Governor Connally’s shirt erupt in blood..” in one of his first interviews, but I can not find a primary source for these quotes.) (11-22-63 interview with Bill Lord on WFAA television, apparently in the early evening) “I was riding on the right rear fender... We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15-20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we're gonna have to move out." (When asked if he saw the person who fired on the President) "No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.” (11-24-63 article in the Houston Chronicle, posted online by Chris Davidson) "A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin's first shot missed entirely. The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President's car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve. The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building about 50 feet or less behind the President's car. From the sixth floor to the President, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated. Chaney was an infantryman in Europe during World War II, with experience in sharpshooting. 'When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,' Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder. A second or two after the first shot, the second shot hit him. 'It was like you hit him in the face with a tomato. Blood went all over the car. There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled 'Let's get out of here!'' Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out. A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building. 'I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area. I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,' Chaney said. 'A piece of his skull was lying on the floor of the car,' Chaney said."

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You are indulging in too much "coulda, woulda, shoulda" speculation, mate! THAT IS HOW IT WAS DONE.

You might as well ponder why they planted a Mannlicher-Carcano with a muzzle velocity of only 2,000 fps

on Oswald, which means it is not high-velocity, when the Warren Commission, the death certificates, and

even articles in JAMA declared he had been killed by high-velocity bullets, which means that Oswald can-

not have killed him. Sometimes the temptation to RULE OUT something because IT DOESN"T SEEM RIGHT

can be almost irresistible. They had some kind of assembly-line operation with a limited time-frame, as Pat

has explained, and the guy who was "touching up" missed frame 317. That makes sense of why it came

out as it did. As for Lifton's frames, I certainly expected something spectacular. It was disappointing to

see that the frames from his source are CLEARLY INFERIOR to the film in possession of Sydney's group,

which, once again, reinforces the conclusion that their film is the closest that we have to the archived film.

It's possible that Lifton has been scamming us -- or someone scammed him -- and his scans have been altered to cover up how black they originally were.

But I still don't understand: if they fabricated an entire film, why would "paintwork" even be considered?

You just have to look at the "crater" to realise that the President after 313 is just a fabricated set of images.

I simply don't understand this fixation on a "lower-tech" version of alteration. Perhaps it's because it's something that even those who believe the Z film to be authentic might considered possible (i.e. that someone painted over it). If that's on the table, then just examine the damn "camera original' and look for the paint!

J

No, John, you should know better than to think that I would want you to "take sides". That is not in me. I

am taken aback that, in this frame from Lifton's treasure trove, there is so little of value. I must conclude

that some versions of the film make certain forms of fakery more conspicuous. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT

THIS BLOW-OUT WAS CRUDELY PAINTED OVER IN BLACK. I don't know why this frame doesn't show it.

And I must admit that your remarks about the passengers being thrown forward commits a blunder. It is

occurring at a time when THE LIMOUSINE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ACCELERATING. What is the probability

that ONE of the passengers would be THROWN FORWARD when they should be being PULLED BACK?

And in this case there are SEVERAL. I don't know why, mate, but I fault you because you are wrong.

In fact, unless I have missed something, I don't see where you have even acknowledge that the blow out

has been patched, when that is OBVIOUS. So I have several difficulties with you in this exchange, none

of which have to do with any presumptions about "taking sides". My inference is that we have reached

the limits of your competence and that the Hollywood experts, Pat and the Director, simply know more.

And scientific reasoning is based upon observation, measurement, and experiment--but all considered

within the framework known as "inference to the best explanation". Given your agreement with me on

(1), (2), and (3), it should already be apparent that the blow-out was patched. The oddity, as I see it, is

that the Lifton frame does not make it show up better and that you seem reluctant to admit the obvious.

So if your position is that you were simply reflecting on the relative lack of strong contrast in Lifton's

frame, then I reiterate my question: why should a feature that LEAPED OUT TO THE FILM EXPERTS

be so muted in the case of Lifton's frame? Something is wrong here, where I see no indication that you

are providing any explanation. That rather bothers me, but perhaps the others can explain it for me.

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Chris Davidson]

Thanks, Chris, for your reply. You understand that my posted close-up came from the LIFE transparencies and these were made in the LIFE photolab directly from the originl. The more I look at these, the more it seems to me that I got the focus a tad wrong.

Question: Did you post a story from the Houston Chronicle for 11/22/63 giving the results of a press interview with Officer James Chaney?

JT

Josiah,

Thank you for explaining the origin of your material.

Yes, I did post the article.

It was from the Houston Chronicle dated 11-24-1963.

The link if needed:

http://24.152.179.96:8400/D1E14/Chaney.png

chris

[Cliff Varnell]

My dad is a union liberal. My sister is a dedicated liberal. I love them to pieces. My favorite neice and nephew who I love like a son and daughter are liberal. Heck I just voted for a DEMOCRAT in our local election in November. And did I tell you that I also voted for Clinton. [/color]

I stand corrected! All apple polly lodges, Mr. Lamson!

I guess I got the wrong idea when you called me "comrade" that time. When a conservative starts with that stuff with me it's GAME ON.

Glad we have that cleared up.

Now can we have an actual normal conversation about the evidence?

Shessh CLiff, CROFT shows you everything you ask for at least as far as the jacket is concerned, because we can't see the shirt inside of it.

We see the shirt above the jacket collar. That's a normal amount of shirt collar showing in this lateral view.

The jacket collar is in a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck. You can reach back right now and touch the bottom of your collar at the nape of your neck and you'll notice that the bony C7 is right below (or right at, as I think was the case with JFK) the bottom of the collar.

How could 3+ inches of jacket and 3+ inches of shirt fabric bunch up entirely above a C7 inshoot without displacing the jacket collar?

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.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

Why are you wasting time over this? We know that the holes in the shirt and the jacket align with the wound as it is marked on Boswell's autopsy diagram, the Sibert diagram, the death certificate prepared by Admiral Burkley, the reenactment photographs, and the mortician's report about the wounds, where this was 5-6" below the shoulder. So what's the point of beating a VERY dead horse? Even if Lamson were right about the bunching--which seems preposterous, since JFK wore custom tailored shirts and jackets--he was hit 5.5 inches below the collar and to the right of the spinal column by a shallow shot at a downward angle. Which means that the wound to his throat, the two wounds to his head and the wounds in Connally must be accounted for on the basis of other shots and other shooters. What is the point of extending a pointless discussion?

Jim

My dad is a union liberal. My sister is a dedicated liberal. I love them to pieces. My favorite neice and nephew who I love like a son and daughter are liberal. Heck I just voted for a DEMOCRAT in our local election in November. And did I tell you that I also voted for Clinton. [/color]

I stand corrected! All apple polly lodges, Mr. Lamson!

I guess I got the wrong idea when you called me "comrade" that time. When a conservative starts with that stuff with me it's GAME ON.

Glad we have that cleared up.

Now can we have an actual normal conversation about the evidence?

Shessh CLiff, CROFT shows you everything you ask for at least as far as the jacket is concerned, because we can't see the shirt inside of it.

We see the shirt above the jacket collar. That's a normal amount of shirt collar showing in this lateral view.

The jacket collar is in a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck. You can reach back right now and touch the bottom of your collar at the nape of your neck and you'll notice that the bony C7 is right below (or right at, as I think was the case with JFK) the bottom of the collar.

How could 3+ inches of jacket and 3+ inches of shirt fabric bunch up entirely above a C7 inshoot without displacing the jacket collar?

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.

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Why are you wasting time over this?

I don't find it a waste of time at all.

It's THE prima facie case. Physical evidence trumps all.;

The Croft photo -- along with the holes in the clothes -- is one set of irrefutable evidence establishing conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy.

It is the best evidence -- simple, elegant, definitive.

It shows JFK's jacket collar in a normal position at the base of his neck mere seconds before he was shot in the throat.

Even a five year old understands that a wad of clothing cannot push up above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar.

No other single piece of evidence so efficiently demolishes the lone assassin scenario. That's been my opinion of the clothing evidence since Fonzi wrote it up in The Last Investigation.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

David Lifton,

Could you send me your e-mail? I haven't been able to get back to you thru Forum channels -- operator error no doubt.

[David Lifton]

Thanks, Chris, for your reply. You understand that my posted close-up came from the LIFE transparencies and these were made in the LIFE photolab directly from the originl. The more I look at these, the more it seems to me that I got the focus a tad wrong.

Question: Did you post a story from the Houston Chronicle for 11/22/63 giving the results of a press interview with Officer James Chaney?

JT

Josiah,

Thank you for explaining the origin of your material.

Yes, I did post the article.

It was from the Houston Chronicle dated 11-24-1963.

The link if needed:

http://24.152.179.96:8400/D1E14/Chaney.png

chris

I just took a careful look at this particular interview, which I don't remember seeing before. In any event, just giving it a "close reading" (a term James Angleton might have used) makes me realize the terrible opportunity lost to history, because the WC attorneys either were told to "lay off," or simply did not realize the importance of aggressively pursuing the early accounts of the motorcycle patrolmen who flanked the car in this affair.

Let me state, at the outset, my bias. Almost certainly, you cannot have a "motorcade assassination" (and that's what this was) without the motorcycle escort being complicit--at the very least, they had to be paid off, and instructed to "hang back," "do nothing," "go slow" etc.

Take a close look at this particular interview, apparently conducted on 11/23, and there are many avenues which would have been ripe for further questioning.

Immediately below is the interview, with my interjections.

Below that, for those who are interested, is an unblemished typed version.

OK. . here's the one with my interjections:

FIRST SHOT

WAS A MISS,

OFFICER SAYS

Dallas-A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin’s first shot missed entirely.

DSL COMMENT: How the heck does Chaney know that the "first shot missed entirely." What is the source of that idea?

The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve.

DSL COMMENT: Chaney was not "in front" - - - why did he say he was??

The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building

DSL Comment: How does Chaney know that??

. . . about 50 feet or less behind the President’s car.

DSL Comment: . . And how does Chaney know that, on 11/23, when this interview supposedly took place?

. . . From the sixth floor to the president, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated.

Chaney was an infantryman in Europe in World War II with experience with sharpshooting.

“When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,” Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder.

DSL INTERJECTION: This is nonsense. And similar to Roy Kellerman's false statement that JFK reached behind his shoulder with his right hand--an action not shown on the Z film, and which obviously did not take place. Chaney's report about JFK "looking back over his left shoulder" raises a similar issue. These bozo's did't realize there would be enough of a filmed record to establish that JFK did no such thing.

A second or two after the first shot, the second shot him.

“It was like you hit someone in the face with a tomato.

DSL COMMENT: Highly original. . but no one reports any such thing.

Blood went all over the car.

“There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled, “Let’s get out of here.’”

DSL Comment: As a matter of fact, that's not quite the statement reported by others. But more important, AP Reporter Jack Bell says that Kellerman actually stuood up in the car, and motioned the lead car to move ahead --again, something not visible on the Z film, and something not reported by Chaney.

Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out.

DSL COMMENT: Well, this is interesting. So Chaney is, basically, a "car-stop witness."

A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building

DSL Comment: Its not clear which officer this would be. Almost certainly, not Officer Baker, who would have been well behind Chaney. So who is this "other" officer who, says Chaney, "ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building." Is this a made-up fiction, or exaggeration? Or are we dealing with another event that has been erased from the film? In any event, it should have been the basis for serious questioning.

“I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area.

DSL comment: Well, at least he says he did that--which (as I recall) is confirmed by Chief Curry, and Sorrels, the issue being exactly when it occurred.

“I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,” Chaney said.

“A piece of his skull bone was lying on the floor board of the car,” Chaney said.

DSL Interjection: Was this at Parkland? If so, not according to Clint Hill, who said it was in the rear seat. So. . is this another Chaney exaggeration? Or false statement? Or was there in fact a piece of skull bone actually lying on the floor of the car? Unfortunately, we'll probably never know. Chaney died long ago, and , more important, the WC attorney didn't realize the importance of calling him as a witness, and questioning him closely, with a record of his prior statements (such as this one) sitting in front of them.

Too bad.

HERE IS THE WHOLE INTERVIEW, RETYPED, and without my interjections:

FIRST SHOT

WAS A MISS,

OFFICER SAYS

Dallas-A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin’s first shot missed entirely.

The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve.

The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building about 50 feet or less behind the President’s car. From the sixth floor to the president, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated.

Chaney was an infantryman in Europe in World War II with experience with sharpshooting.

“When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,” Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder. A second or two after the first shot, the second shot him.

“It was like you hit someone in the face with a tomato. Blood went all over the car.

“There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled, “Let’s get out of here.’”

Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out.

A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building

“I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area.

“I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,” Chaney said.

“A piece of his skull bone was lying on the floor board of the car,” Chaney said.

* * *

http://24.152.179.96...1E14/Chaney.png

Edited January 13, 2012 by David Lifton

[Cliff Varnell]

No other single piece of evidence so efficiently demolishes the lone assassin scenario. That's been my opinion of the clothing evidence since Fonzi wrote it up in The Last Investigation.

Besides, I'm trying to hold Craig to the same standards of evidence he's holding you to, Jim.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

No other single piece of evidence so efficiently demolishes the lone assassin scenario. That's been my opinion of the clothing evidence since Fonzi wrote it up in The Last Investigation.

The high-watermark of the case for conspiracy...in 1966!

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

Researchers have been bouncing the rubble ever since.

[David Lifton]

No other single piece of evidence so efficiently demolishes the lone assassin scenario. That's been my opinion of the clothing evidence since Fonzi wrote it up in The Last Investigation.

The high-watermark of the case for conspiracy...in 1966!

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

Researchers have been bouncing the rubble ever since.

Over the years, I have come around to the view that Arlen Specter was "talked to," in connection with his role in the WC investigation, and that explains his behavior--at the time, and ever since. Unfortunately, I can't prove it. But Gaeton Fonzi certainly picked up on the fact that Specter couldn't possibly believe the conclusions he played such a major role in constructing.

I knew someone who knew Specter quite well, and that person almost "spilled the beans" but then held back.

More significantly, remember what Specter said when Liebeler called him up on 10/24/66, having just learned (from me) that the Sibert -O'Neill report said there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." He had some sort of serious discussion --with Specter--behind closed doors and when he emerged from the private office, and I asked him what Specter said, he wouldn't tell me. But what he did say was: "Specter hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." (See B.E., Chapter 9, "10/24/66: A Confrontation with Liebeler").

When I say Specter was "talked to," what I mean is that I think he had some kind of conversation with "higher authority" and the message was similar to what was delivered to Earl Warren by LBJ--i.e., the "World War 3" cover story. Personally, I do not believe the other WC attorneys had to be "talked to," although I don't rule out one or two "selected" conversations. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that the primary people who were "talked to" (beaides Specter) were Earl Warren, Rankin, Rankin, and possibly Norman Redlich. Another person on my "short list" would be Howard Willens (husband of Diane Siemer, the DOD lawyer who tried to prevent the lifting of the order permitting the autopsy witnesses to talk). This is all highly speculative, of course. I am fairly confident that most of the rest of the WC attorneys operated pretty much as ordinary attorneys, and did not need to be "talked to."

Again, this is just my opinion as a consequence of having studied the office files of the staff, and learning more about them as individuals.

Of one thing I am certain: Joe Ball and David Belin were definitely "true believers" (when it came to the lone nut hypothesis); and I don't believe anyone attempted to "talk to" Burt Griffin or Leon Hubert (of the Ruby team). Nor did anyone "talk to" Alfred Goldberg, the Pentagon (and Rand Corp) historian, who famously wrote: "Conspiracies are like the elves. You have to believe in them to know that they are there."

DSL

1/13/12; 4 AM

Los Angeles, CA

[Craig Lamson]

My dad is a union liberal. My sister is a dedicated liberal. I love them to pieces. My favorite neice and nephew who I love like a son and daughter are liberal. Heck I just voted for a DEMOCRAT in our local election in November. And did I tell you that I also voted for Clinton. [/color]

I stand corrected! All apple polly lodges, Mr. Lamson!

I guess I got the wrong idea when you called me "comrade" that time. When a conservative starts with that stuff with me it's GAME ON.

Glad we have that cleared up.

Now can we have an actual normal conversation about the evidence?

Shessh CLiff, CROFT shows you everything you ask for at least as far as the jacket is concerned, because we can't see the shirt inside of it.

We see the shirt above the jacket collar. That's a normal amount of shirt collar showing in this lateral view.

The jacket collar is in a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck. You can reach back right now and touch the bottom of your collar at the nape of your neck and you'll notice that the bony C7 is right below (or right at, as I think was the case with JFK) the bottom of the collar.

How could 3+ inches of jacket and 3+ inches of shirt fabric bunch up entirely above a C7 inshoot without displacing the jacket collar?

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.

The proofs are all available on the other thread cliff, why don't you open it up and I destroy you once again, there.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

No other single piece of evidence so efficiently demolishes the lone assassin scenario. That's been my opinion of the clothing evidence since Fonzi wrote it up in The Last Investigation.

Besides, I'm trying to hold Craig to the same standards of evidence he's holding you to, Jim.

I hold my self to the same standards I set for others which is why I have provided large amounts of work to support my claim. The problem is Cliff can't find a way to refute it.

Lets cut to the chase Cliff. Where is the shadow from JFK's neck that MUST fall over his shirt collar and jacket collar near the rear center of his neck. It MUST be visible if 3"+ fold of fabric we see in BOTH Towner and Croft is not present in Betzner.

That's the "game over moment".

Show us your proof that his shadow exists or you lose. It's as simple as that.

Have at it Cliff.

Your extraordinary claim is that the Croft/Towner fold disappeared by Betzner. The only way to prove it is to show us this neck shadow which exists in Croft.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson