Jump to content
The Education Forum

Cliff Varnell proves there is no 3" fold in Betzner


Craig Lamson
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Easy to prove

There is no way that a 3+ inch fold happened in the 1 second (or less) between the time Croft and Betzner were taken

And Craig there is no way you can say that you see a 3+ inch fold in Croft, you know and I know and everybody knows that Croft shows nothing even close to a 3+ inch fold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and here we go again...

the fold that somehow does not change the fact that the bullet holes, in the jacket, shirt and body.... still line up..

that the shot did not pass thru JFK... the SBT still does not work...

but that FOLD thing sure remains important to CL... don't it?

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go Cliff. Show us your PROOF of your version of the arrangement of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner.

This photo shows a normal amount of shirt fabric showing at the back of JFK's neck.

The jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck, or else the shirt collar would have been occluded.

This normal position of the clothing shows even better in a non-close-up.

Betzner_Large.jpg

Is JFK's jacket "bunched" in the back? Of course it is -- it's bunched up a fraction of an inch.

When fabric "eases" -- the term of art in clothing design for this "bunching" phenomenon -- some of the fabric indents and some of it bulges. Indented fabric tends to be filled with SHADOW. Bulging fabric is more likely to be high-lighted, obviously.

In the following graphic the blue line points to the shirt collar, the red line points to the same bulge we see in every Dealey Plaza photo taken after JFK finished chatting with Nellie C on Houston St.

betznerFinal.jpg

The shadow above and below the bulge was caused by the normal indentation of bunched fabric.

The visible shirt collar PROVES that the collar was in a normal posiiton at the base of JFK's neck, and utterly DISPROVES the notion that there was a half-foot wad of shirt/jacket fabric bunched up above the base of the neck.

If Craig Lamson wants to insist such an event occurred -- the burden of PROOF is on Craig Lamson. Let's see how you bunch up a half-foot of clothing fabric entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

Show us, Craig, with an actual suit coat and tucked-in custom-made dress shirt.

Until such proof is forth-coming -- I have Craig Lamson on "ignore."

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry cliff, you miss the most important discovery in relation to this issue. That is the shadow from JFK's neck that MUST fall over the shirt and jacket collar at the rear center of his neck. The laws of light and shadow and angle of incidence DEMAND a shadow be created by JFK's neck and that it MUST fall be at this location. THIS IS UNIMPEACHABLE.

You claim a certain arrangement of fabric is present in Betzner. It is incumbent you to show this arrangement meets is physically possible in relation to the sun and its angle f incidence and that it can eliminate the shadow at the rear center of JFK's neck that is DEMANDED by the suns position in relation to JFK in Betzner.

Show us how that works in the real world cliff, and not inside your feverish brain.

I have repeatedly met my burden of proof that fold similar to what is seen in both Croft and Towner can obscure the demanded neck shadow and create a shadow pattern that mimics what is seen in Betzner.

You however simply WAVE YOUR HANDS as seen it your last post. You tell us, I see it, just believe me. Sorry cliff, if that the best you can do, you just lose.

How or when the fold materialized on JFK'S jacket is meaningless as it pertains to the missing neck shadow. Something must happen to cause a shadow that is DEMANDED by the position of the sun and JFK's body in Betzner to go missing. The fold I have indicated and tested does just that. You can't refute this and all you can offer in rebuttal is, I see it, just believe me". Sorry Cliff, given your extensive history of "overselling" You cannot just be "believed.

Show us the shadow Cliff or an arrangement of fabric you can PROVE works given the specific positions of the sun and JFK's body.

Or you just lose And from past experience we KNOW you can't do either.

And as has been the case for some time now, you have lost...again and again and again.

This argument has moved past your ability to comprehend. Your decade long fantasy has been debunked and YOU can't even understand why.

croftlight.jpg

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy to prove

There is no way that a 3+ inch fold happened in the 1 second (or less) between the time Croft and Betzner were taken

And Craig there is no way you can say that you see a 3+ inch fold in Croft, you know and I know and everybody knows that Croft shows nothing even close to a 3+ inch fold

We can argue over how much of a fold there is in Croft until the cows come home Dean, I can show you the fold is as tall as the jacket collar IS a 3+" fold. You can claim that is not true. So what, that's not the argument at hand.

That is NOT what proves the fold is 3" inches in Betzner. It is the fact that the shadow from JFK's neck as seen in Croft is MISSING in Betzner. Cliff wants to tell you that the jacket collar at the REAR CENTER of JFK's neck in somehow indented ( yea right, he says it is sitting correctly yet it is somehow "indented") and that causes the shadow to be "missing. WHICH OF COURSE IS PURE NONSENSE. He can't begin to prove this.

A fold of fabric, (like WE see in both Croft and Towner) BETWEEN the CAMERA and the jacket collar can and WOULD obscure the demanded shadow that MUST fall over the shirt and jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner. I have shown WHERE THIS SHADOW IS in Croft and MUST BE in Betzner and confirmed its location by plotting the positing of the shadow in relations to the sun and JFK's body position in both photos. I have also confirmed via empirical, experimental photography that ta similar fold would produce a shadow shape that MIMICS what is seen in Betzner.

Your objection is simply not valid since it does not deal directly with the subject at hand...the NECK SHADOW. I invite you to show us a arrangement of fabric that works in the same lighting conditions as found in Betzner that can eliminate the demanded heck shadow. Cliff has tried and failed time and time again.

Thanks for playing and please try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and here we go again...

the fold that somehow does not change the fact that the bullet holes, in the jacket, shirt and body.... still line up..

that the shot did not pass thru JFK... the SBT still does not work...

but that FOLD thing sure remains important to CL... don't it?

:blink:

Yes there you go again, telling us that something is this way or that but yet it is still a major point of contention all these years later.

Typical for you David.

I'll let you speculate, be my guest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the following graphic the blue line points to the shirt collar, the red line points to the same bulge we see in every Dealey Plaza photo taken after JFK finished chatting with Nellie C on Houston St.

betznerFinal.jpg

The shadow above and below the bulge was caused by the normal indentation of bunched fabric.

The visible shirt collar PROVES that the collar was in a normal posiiton at the base of JFK's neck, and utterly DISPROVES the notion that there was a half-foot wad of shirt/jacket fabric bunched up above the base of the neck.

WHERE is the demanded shadow Cliff? You are telling us the jacket collar you say is properly located is now INDENTED at the rear center of JFK's neck. That is absurd.

shadow1.jpg

Poof, thats yet another silly varnellian claim blowing up in his face.

The varnell theme song...

Run, run, run, run, runaway.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I noted upthread, "bunched" fabric involves indentations and bulges -- shadow naturally fills indentations, and the bulges are highlighted. This involves fraction of an inch movements of fabric.

Here's an excellent analysis prepared by Miles Scull and used with his permission.

Thank you, Miles!

lastscdg.jpg

The "raised fold ridge" appears in every photo taken after JFK finished chatting with Nellie. His jacket collar fell to a normal position at the base of his neck at that time, but a slight amount of fabric remained elevated.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I noted upthread, "bunched" fabric involves indentations and bulges -- shadow naturally fills indentations, and the bulges are highlighted. This involves fraction of an inch movements of fabric.

Here's an excellent analysis prepared by Miles Scull and used with his permission.

Thank you, Miles!

The "raised fold ridge" appears in every photo taken after JFK finished chatting with Nellie. His jacket collar fell to a normal position at the base of his neck at that time, but a slight amount of fabric remained elevated.

So now you place the entire left side if the jacket collar in full shadow? ROFLMAO! You should have quite BEFORE you went to Sculls silly work. You are now forever tarred with it too.

Wrong again. This attempt places the entire back center of the jacket collar in deep shadow which is IMPOSSIBLE given the angle of incidence of the sun in relations to JFK's body.

croftlight.jpg

And of course the shadow from JKF's neck that MUST fall over the shirt and jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck is still unaccounted for.

study1.jpg

Poof, This is yet another silly varnellian theory blown to bits.

You lose again Cliff.

WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lastscdg.jpg

A photo taken on Main St. about two minutes earlier in the shows a similar crease in the jacket.

tkoapmainst.jpg

In both photos JFK was looking to the right while waving his right arm. The major difference is that on Main St the jacket rode up into his hairline, while on Elm St the jacket had obviously dropped to reveal a normal amount of shirt collar at the back of his neck.

PS

I'd like to thank the Forum for allowing us an "ignore member" function. It makes participation in this thread much more pleasant. ;)

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opps, Varnell still can't show us the shadow that must be visible at the rear center of JKF'S NECK in Betzner if his silly theory is correct. And he still can't show us how the left side of JFK's jacket collar can that is in FULL SUN and be in an "expected shadow". ROFLMAO!

More silly varnellian logic on display.

And yet another epic Varnell fail.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take another look at images taken less than a minute before the shooting.

weaver.jpg

The fold at the right shoulder is an INDENTATION. Even the jacket collar had a crease in it. The "floor" of the indentation is smooth and flat against JFK's shirt, proving that the shirt wasn't bunched up at all.

Craig Lamson in the past has claimed that this photo shows a massive asymmetrical bulge that extended up toward JFK's right ear.

Who do you believe -- our resident "photo expert" or your own lyin' eyes? :P

Here's a close-up of the Altgens 5 photo, taken a few seconds later.

ikefinal.jpg

The jacket was smooth across the back, but the shirt collar was occluded by the jacket collar. The jacket collar didn't ride up into the hairline, however, indicating the jacket was only elevated about 3/4".

Craig contends that a massive asymmetrical clothing bulge is also visible in this photo, but apparently it requires special Lamson-Vision glasses to see it. ;)

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...