Craig Lamson Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 Varnell has now co-oped Miles Scull's work as his own. So now VArnell must live by Scull's mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) A few seconds after the Altgens photo JFK leaned forward to chat with Nellie Connally. Here's a frame from the Nix film that captures that moment. Note that the jacket collar continued to occlude the shirt collar. In the very next frame JFK had leaned back and the jacket collar dropped to reveal the shirt collar. Edited January 16, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 Varnell theory dies the death of a thousand cuts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Even MORE cuts... A proof of concept test, in lighting that mimics the lighting seen in both Croft and Betzner, shows a cupped fold like seen in Croft creates the same shadow pattern seen in Betzner, and one that can hide the neck shadow that MUST fall over the jacket collar in Betzner. Its game over for Varnell. Edited January 16, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) The next two photos taken as the limo drove down Houston St were the Betzner 1 photo and Jim Towner's photo. The Towner photo is the best view of the small, fraction of an inch jacket fold. It's right next to JFK's 1.25" jacket collar, allowing anyone not afflicted with Nutter's Disease to see how insignificant the fabric fold was. Edited January 16, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 Varnell tries in vain to link other images. Sadly that is an EPIC fail. The argument has passed beyond Varnell and his "I see it, just believe me" arguments. The question before is us one that is based on the simple laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. JFK is in the same position relative to the sun in both Croft and Betzner. JFK's neck creates a shadow in Croft that falls over both the jacket and shirt collar at the rear center of his neck. This is proven by simply plotting the suns positions in relation to JFK. That that that the shadow is there is UNIMPEACHABLE. This shadow is MISSING in Betzner and something must account for that. Varnell has tried and failed to show us ANY arrangement of fabric OTHER than a 3"+ fold that can obscure this shadow. Varnell loses. Again. It BETZNER Cliff, and if you can't show us you lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) The Towner photo is the best view of the small, fraction of an inch jacket fold. It's right next to JFK's 1.25" jacket collar, allowing anyone not afflicted with Nutter's Disease to see how insignificant the fabric fold was. Ah yes, I LOVE Towner, as it shows the fold is as TALL as the jacket collar, making it a 3"+ fold. Thanks Cliff you LOSE again. Notice how the fold in both Towner and Croft extent to the height of the collar. And the the 3"+fold in Towner nad Croff matches the 3"+ fold of fabric seen int Betzner. Poof, BuBye Cliff. Edited January 16, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Two photos taken on Elm St. show the normal amount of shirt collar and the same fraction of an inch jacket fold we see in the Towner photo -- Willis 4 and Croft 3. In the Croft photo the fold was bowed OUT. Bowed out is not the same things as bunched up, although Nutters would like to believe it is. How could any rational human being conclude that there was a half-foot of shirt/jacket fabric wadded up above the base of JFK's neck in any of these photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Two photos taken on Elm St. show the normal amount of shirt collar and the same fraction of an inch jacket fold we see in the Towner photo -- Willis 4 and Croft 3. How could any rational human being conclude that there was a half-foot of shirt/jacket fabric wadded up above the base of JFK's neck in any of these photos? Notice the SHADOW from JFK's neck in Croft and the fact that the FOLD extends to the top of the jacket collar, meaning the fold is 3'+. We can play I see this much of a fold, no I see a DIFFERENT amount all day long with no definitive results. HOWEVER the argument takes a new TWIST with the introduction of CROFT by VARNELL. NOW we can see how the Left side shirt and jacket collar to the rear center of JFK's neck is illuminated. Since JFK in both Croft and Betzner is in the same position in relation to the sun The jacket collars MUST LOOK THE SAME IN BOTH PHOTOS. The entire left side to the rear center of the neck is in FULL and unobstructed sun in Croft. The entire jacket collar to the rear center of his neck is in FULL UNOBSTRUCTED sun. It MUST be the same in Betzner. Croft shows a shadow from JFK's neck falling over the shirt and jacket collar and down into the bottom of the fold. If Croft were viewed from directly behind like in Betzner, the shadow would be OBSCURED by the fold. And that's exactly what happens when we get to Betzner, the shadow that MUST BE CAST by the full sun hitting the left side of JFK's head and neck and falling over the jacket collar shirt collar. We don't SEE it because it is obscured by the 3"+ fold of fabric we see in both Towner and Croft. Where is the SHADOW CLIFF? Edited January 16, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The words all Lone Nutters live by... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 The words all Lone Nutters live by... Uh No...That would be the varnellian chant... Where is the neck shadow in Betzner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 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 Dean, it would be helpful if Craig could show us what a 3+" jacket fold and 3+" simultaneous shirt fold looked like. But he can't, so he makes specious claims about the "laws of light and shadow" all the while denying NEWTON'S FIRST LAW OF MOTION (emphasis added): An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. We know from the Jefferies film that JFK jacket was elevated into his hairline on Main St. roughly 90 seconds before the shooting started. Was there an "unbalanced force" which caused this elevated fabric to move? Yes! The Weaver photo captures the moment at the corner of Main and Houston when JFK reached behind his head with his right hand. The "unbalanced force" of this movement clearly caused the jacket fabric to drop into an indentation across his right shoulder. The Altgens photo taken a few seconds later shows no bunching of the jacket, although it was still elevated enough to occlude the shirt collar. The Nix frames shown in post #17 capture the moment when JFK leaned back from his exchange with Nellie and the jacket collar dropped. A fraction of an inch of jacket fabric "stayed at rest" right below the collar. What "unbalanced force" cause both the shirt and jacket fabric to ride up 3+ inches? Can Craig point this out and replicate his claims? No. Never. He pounds his chest and blows smoke and expects people to take his word for "the laws of light and shadow." He pretends that neither Newton's First Law nor the Law of Gravity applied to JFK's clothing. This is a matter of unsinkable faith on the part of Craig Lamson and all "high back wound" advocates like Pat Speer. Their claims have nothing to do with evidence in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Poor Cliff, trapped in his make believe world where he and he alone can create and define the "forces' that can move a jacket. Of course he can't know one way or the other why the jacket did what it did. He can only speculate. Sadly for Cliff that argument will no longer hold water. He can't "wave his hand" and claim this or that happened to the jacket. Why? Because we can plot and test what the SUN and SHADOW does in relation the position of JFK's body in both Croft and Betzner. Cliff is at a loss when the argument turns technical. Cliff is woefully ignorant in this regard. You see Cliff can't understand how the SUN works. Thus he hems and haws and points us to the fantasy posting of of his and Miles Scull which show us a jacket collar in FULL SHADOW when the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence demands it be in full sun. And if course this is why cliff 'oversells'. He can't UNDERSTAND the argument let alone REFUTE IT. The argument has moved past him. Varnell and his 10 years or so if pure BS has come to an end. Light, shadow and angle of incidence proves beyond a doubt that a 3"+fold of fabric is present on JFK's back in Betzner. Cliff simply lacks the skills and knowledge to understand WHY. Unlike Cliff and his hand waving my work is easily tested and confirmed. All the data is there for ANYONE who wants to check the results. And UNLIKE Varnell I actually encourage people to check my work in detail. Unlike Varnell I don't ask anyone to "just believe me". It's game over and lights out for Varnell. Poof. Edited January 17, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Now let's check out Craig's stew of spew, just for shoots and goggles. I'll go burgundy Poor Cliff, trapped in his make believe world where he and he alone can create and define the "forces' that can move a jacket. This has nothing to do with me. Newton's First Law of Motion is clear -- an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. In this case the "unbalanced force" was JFK's posture changes which caused the jacket to DROP. At the corner of Houston and Main this posture change involved brushing the back of his head with his right hand. The INDENTATION of the fabric is obvious -- and the opposite of the bulge Craig insists was there. A little further down Houston St. JFK leaned forward and back to chat with Nellie and the jacket collar fell to reveal the shirt collar. The burden of proof on Craig is to show us what "unbalanced force" caused JFK's shirt and jacket to elevate 3 inches in a matter of seconds. Did JFK reach back and pull his clothing up? Did Jackie reach over and give his clothing a mighty tug? Can Craig offer any explanation for this event he can't replicate? No. He proclaims himself an expert on light and shadow and blathers endlessly. Of course he can't know one way or the other why the jacket did what it did. He can only speculate. There's nothing speculative about Newton's First Law. Craig requires an "unbalanced force" to push up on the fabric of both the shirt and jacket, but this "unbalanced force" had no impact on the jacket collar?? How could that be? The burden of proof is on Craig to demonstrate this. It is a burden he can't lift off the ground, much less carry. Sadly for Cliff that argument will no longer hold water. He can't "wave his hand" and claim this or that happened to the jacket. Why? Because we can plot and test what the SUN and SHADOW does in relation the position of JFK's body in both Croft and Betzner. Factually incorrect. Craig ignores the impact of "bunched" fabric on the patterns of light and shadow. "Bunched fabric" involves slight indentations, which fill with shadow, and slight bulges, which are high-lighted. Since Craig has no knowledge of, or interest in, how clothing moves in the real world he pretends it doesn't make a difference in the patterns of light and shadow we see in the photos. Cliff is at a loss when the argument turns technical. Cliff is woefully ignorant in this regard. You see Cliff can't understand how the SUN works. We all know how Craig Lamson works. For two years he said nothing about "how the sun works". Here is the graphic he presented back in '08, which shows clothing movement entirely on the right side. Notice how Craig entirely ignored the fold artifact on the left side -- drew his blue line right over it as if it didn't exist. It took over two years for Craig to fabricate his current rationale. Thus he hems and haws and points us to the fantasy posting of of his and Miles Scull which show us a jacket collar in FULL SHADOW when the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence demands it be in full sun. Factually incorrect. The photo is not only a very blurry lo-res enlargement of a small background figure, but Craig also denies the effect of halation on the shirt collar. Craig would have you believe that he's the only one to arbitrate the "unbending laws of light," but it's a con game that took him two years to figure out. If it was so obvious he would have said so from the beginning. And if course this is why cliff 'oversells'. Of course Craig will claim he merely made a "mistake" for two years, but the fact is he makes things up as he goes along and finally he had to settle for the worst view of the back of JFK's jacket to make his specious claims. He can't UNDERSTAND the argument let alone REFUTE IT. The argument has moved past him. There is no "argument." There are only endlessly repeated claims that obviously run contrary to Newton's First Law and the Law of Gravity. The fact is Craig can't replicate any of this, so he repeats his claims over and over (and over and over...) Edited January 18, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Let's re-cap while Craig struggles to make up more rationales for his failed claims. What do we see in Betzner? 1) Low resolution image which does not allow us to see any distinction between the back of the jacket and the jacket collar. 2) The impact of halation on the shirt collar. Halation: "a blurred effect around the edges of highlight areas in a photographic image caused by reflection and scattering of light through the emulsion from the back surface of the film support or plate." 3) Bunched fabric generally involves INDENTATION and shadow naturally fills indentations of fabric. Unlike Craig, I can point to specific body movements by JFK which caused specific movements of his jacket. Craig can't replicate his claims or explain how they occurred. Edited January 18, 2012 by Cliff Varnell 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