Jump to content
The Education Forum

Cliff Varnell proves there is no 3" fold in Betzner


Recommended Posts

Now let's check out Craig's stew of spew, just for shoots and goggles.

And lets destroy Varnell in GREEN..

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?

I have ZERO burden of proof as to how clothing moves or not, my claim is based on SHADOW EVIDENCE which Varnell can't understand. Which is WHY he is attempting, and failing to change the subject back to the argument of the PAST which is meaningless now. The question that Varnell can't answer and runs away from as fast as he can?

WHERE IS THE SHADOW FROM JFK'S NECK THAT MUST FALL OVER THE REAR CENTER JACKET COLLAR IN BETZNER?

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.

No NEED to explain how or WHY the jacket moves. It's completely irrelevant to my argument. The light and shadow argument is STILL remains intact. YOU can't refute it.

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.

What a joke.

My argument is quite simple. There is a shadow from JFK's neck that falls over his jacket collar in Croft. This shadow is missing in Betzner. The unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence DEMAND it be there in Betzner. It is not. These properties of light, shadow and angle of incidence are well documented and proven. You can't refute them.

SOMETHING must obscure the neck shadow in Betzner. A large fold similar to the one seen in both Croft and Towner will do just that. In fact if we were able to view the Croft image from behind JFK the shadow would be obscured there as well. You cannot refute this.

Empirical, experimental testing CONFIRMS that a large fold can produce the shadow shape seen in both Croft and Betzner.

Finally, given that the jacket collar that is obscured in Betzner is 1.25 inches tall, the fold that obscures it MUST be 3"+.

How the fold got there is irrelevant. All that matters and what can be proven is that it IS THERE.

You can't tell us one way other the other without a massive wave of your hand exactly WHAT forces acted upon JFK's jacket. Your attempt to do so is beyond comical.

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."

I ignore nothing, in fact I HAVE TESTED IT. What have you done Cliff, asides form look at a few photos and then make your "proclamation". You are a card dealer. What qualifications do you have that makes your statements about how fabric moves or light interacts valid? Show us your experiments that prove your claims as they pertain the the exact relationship of JFK's body and the sunlight as seen in Betzner. Cliff is all hat and no cattle.

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.

Either you can show us the shadow in Betzner or show us an arraignment of fabric that can produce what we see in Betzner and obey the strict demands of light, shadow and angle of incidence as seen in Betzner, or you lose.

Its as simple as that.

Your unproven claims of how fabric may or may not move no longer have relevance. And of course that scares you to death.

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.

No Cliff it took two years to SEE and understand what it was I saw and then to TEST IT. That's how things work Cliff. And the wonder of this new find is that it eliminated all of the crap you have been peddling for years. it took the argument to a new, and TESTABLE level. A level that is way beyond your limited ability to comprehend. Which is why you look so silly trying to ignore it.

And I find this quite ironic that Cliff Varnell, who spent YEARS not telling the truth about the amount of slack in a custom dress shirt, would need to offer a major concession just in the last year. Even then he tried to wrap this in the term "overselling". Talk about "fabrication"....sheesh.

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.

[/b]

If the photo so so blurry than Varnell would have trouble showing us his claims. He has no trouble.

Halation...LOL! Now that is funny. Perhaps Varnell, who just took a tour of Google, can tell us how this so called halation can cause a jacket collar in FULL SUN to be rendered as in FULL SHADOW like he claims. And even better perhaps Varnell can prove how this halation can cause a shadow to be missing in the REAR CENTER of JFK.s neck in Betzner. This is yet another superb example of Varnell's complete ignorance of all things photographic. And why the current argument is WAY beyond his limited skill set.

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.[/b]

Discovery is a wonderful thing. It's what happens when you look at things with an open mind and eyes. Discovering the shadow evidence took time. HOWEVER IT IS SIMPLY SUPERB EVIDENCE, AND YOU CAN'T BEAT IT!

How long do YOU make your "mistake" about the slack in a custom shirt Varnell? Talk about making things up!

You can try and refute my argument at any time. I have laid it all out carefully and I expect the work to be fully checked. Have at it. Prove me wrong. The ball is in your court as it has been for some time now. You just don't know how to play.

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...)

LOL! It's the SHADOW VARNELL. And it has beaten you to a pulp!

croftlight.jpg

study1.jpg

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have ZERO burden of proof as to how clothing moves or not, my claim is based on SHADOW EVIDENCE which Varnell can't understand.

Of course you have a burden of proof! You are claiming clothing movements that were impossible.

You are bluffing with this shadow nonsense because you can't meet this burden of proof.

If what you say were true you would have come up with this 4 years ago. But you didn't.

You're running a snow job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have ZERO burden of proof as to how clothing moves or not, my claim is based on SHADOW EVIDENCE which Varnell can't understand.

Of course you have a burden of proof! You are claiming clothing movements that were impossible.

You are bluffing with this shadow nonsense because you can't meet this burden of proof.

If what you say were true you would have come up with this 4 years ago. But you didn't.

You're running a snow job.

No. learn to read. I DON'T CARE HOW THE FOLD GOT THERE. It would be impossible to prove on way or the other. Clearly YOU can't PROVE anything. All you offer is your card dealers claptrap.

If you think it is a snow job then prove me wrong. Show us the shadow SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE in Betzner. Show us a arrangement of fabric that meets the exacting demands of light and angle of incidence as seen in Betzner that can OBSCURE the shadow.

The fact remains that it IS THERE as my shadow proof proves.

When I found the proof is when I found the proof. TIMING can not change its existence and YOU can't refute it.

ITS THE SHADOW CLIFF and it has you beaten.

Time for you to man up and admit your failure.

croftlight.jpg

study1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's re-cap while Craig struggles to make up more rationales for his failed claims.

Lets destroy Cliff in Green again. ( is your ignore button broke?")

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.

Baloney. How do we know? We can look elsewhere Betzner. AS usual Varnell is "overselling" a common trait for him. Seeing the shadow falling over he jacket collar requires no 'distinction" between the jacket and the jacket collar. It is POSITION DEPENDENT. Varnell as usual ignorantly spews without actually having the first clue.

shadow1.jpg

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."

Sadly for VArnell the shadow that must fall over the jacket collar is NOT located at the side of JFK's neck. It is LOCATED AT THE REAR CENTER. There is no reflection of the shirt collar where the shadow is MISSING!

study1.jpg

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.

Wrong again. Varnell can only SPECULATE about how the fabric moved. And he bases his speculation on a very limited understanding of how light and shadow works in photography. He fails for example near Zero Phase Angle and its effects on shadow detail.

On the other hand I have gone to great lengths to test various fabric arrangements in lighting that mimics what is seen in Betzner, and I encourage others to check my work.

All Varnell can do is bluster. He is a card dealer. I on the other hand have spent more than three decades creating photographs with highly crafted lighting setups. My work DEMANDS constant attention to to the effects of light and shadow as it plays on surfaces. I study lighting both in nature and in photography DAILY. Its my JOB!

Varnell deals cards.

I've invited Varnell to prove me wrong time and time again. And he can't. He loses.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have ZERO burden of proof as to how clothing moves or not, my claim is based on SHADOW EVIDENCE which Varnell can't understand.

Of course you have a burden of proof! You are claiming clothing movements that were impossible.

You are bluffing with this shadow nonsense because you can't meet this burden of proof.

If what you say were true you would have come up with this 4 years ago. But you didn't.

You're running a snow job.

No. learn to read. I DON'T CARE HOW THE FOLD GOT THERE.

No, learn to observe how clothing moves IN THE REAL WORLD. I can describe how the jacket dropped because the burden of proof requires it. You cannot describe or demonstrate how this gross movement occurred because it was impossible.

I can demonstrate in the real world how clothing actually moves. You hide behind your photographic expertise to blow smoke.

But you have a similar burden of proof whether you care to acknowledge it or not. You MUST explain how the fold got there.

There is no mystery about clothing movement. Every fold in a piece of clothing can be explained by the corresponding movement of the body.

That is the basis of clothing design. Casual movements of the body -- "normal movement" in the vernacular of clothing designers -- causes "normal ease" in the clothing fabric.

"Normal ease" invariably involves fractions of an inch of clothing movement. Anyone can verify this themselves by simple observation.

Your arcane assertions are trumped by these easily observed facts.

It took you 4 years to fabricate this current line of BS, and if any of it were true you would have come out with it on Day One.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

You cannot provide a shred of proof in the real world for any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, learn to observe how clothing moves IN THE REAL WORLD. I can describe how the jacket dropped because the burden of proof requires it. You cannot describe or demonstrate how this gross movement occurred because it was impossible.

I can demonstrate in the real world how clothing actually moves. You hide behind your photographic expertise to blow smoke.

Like you did with your "oversold" slack? ROFLMAO!

You can't PROVE a thing Cliff, all you can do is tell us "I see it, just believe me". I on the other hand explain HOW the sun angle reacts with JFK in both Croft and Betzner and then PROVE empirically a that a similar fold in similar lighting produces the very same result. And THAT'S WHY YOU LOSE.

But you have a similar burden of proof whether you care to acknowledge it or not. You MUST explain how the fold got there.

There is a large fold in BOTH CROFT and TOWNER, as tall as the top of the jacket collar. You admit it is there, we just disagree on the size. NEITHER of us can prove beyond a doubt how big it is. I CAN however prove it is ALSO in BETZNER and also prove it is 3"+ because it obscures the jacket collar. HOW it got there is if no concern and you have NOT even begun to prove the fold is impossible. In fact you have proven NOTHING about the fold. You just tell us "I see it, just believe me." Thinking people DON'T believe you Cliff.

There is no mystery about clothing movement. Every fold in a piece of clothing can be explained by the corresponding movement of the body.

That is the basis of clothing design. Casual movements of the body -- "normal movement" in the vernacular of clothing designers -- causes "normal ease" in the clothing fabric.

"Normal ease" invariably involves fractions of an inch of clothing movement. Anyone can verify this themselves by simple observation.

Your arcane assertions are trumped by these easily observed facts.

THEN prove to us you can create a arrangement of fabric that can create what is seen in Betzner, obscure the neck shadow that MUST be there and will obey the strict demands of the lighting in Betzner.

Ball is in YOUR court Cliff.

It took you 4 years to fabricate this current line of BS, and if any of it were true you would have come out with it on Day One.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

You cannot provide a shred of proof in the real world for any of it.

What childish logic once again from Varnell. If I don't see it the first second it is suspect. How silly can you get Varnell.

The truth has defeated you Cliff. Real, tangable, provable truth. There MUST be a shadow from JFK"S neck that falls over the rear center of the jacket collar in Betzner. IT IS OBSCURED BY A 3'+ FOLD OF FABRIC.

YOU ARE DONE!

ITS THE SHADOW...that destroyed Cliff Varnell and his decades long overselling.

comp1.jpg

comp2.jpg

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 years of trying and Caig can't produce ONE photograph of what a 3+ inch jacket fold looks like in the real world.

That fact blows your snow job out of the water, Craig.

CROFT, TOWNER, BETZNER.

My opinion is a good as yours as to the size of the fold in these images.

OF COURSE you STILL can't deal with the shadow, and that's game, set and match and Varnell loses.

Man up Cliff and admit you have lost.

It will make you feel better, you won't have to "oversell" anymore.

ITS THE SHADOW CLIFF.

ITS THE SHADOW CLIFF.

A tiny SHADOW destroys you.

ROFLMAO! The day I found it I knew it would simply drive you nuts. What a wonderful day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 years of trying and Caig can't produce ONE photograph of what a 3+ inch jacket fold looks like in the real world.

That fact blows your snow job out of the water, Craig.

CROFT, TOWNER, BETZNER.

My opinion is a good as yours as to the size of the fold in these images.

Opinion!

I'm glad you admit it's only an opinion!

Thank you!

Now, I can test my "opinion" in the real world. I can demonstrate how casual movements of the body create fraction of an inch movements of clothing exclusively. Casual movements of the body CANNOT create multiple inch movements of clothing.

Anyone can test this hypothesis simply.

I invite the gentle reader to pay close attention to how their clothing moves when they casually raise their right arm to wave.

You, however, have utterly failed to demonstrate anything with an actual suit coat and shirt.

You MUST back up your "opinion" with a REAL WORLD demonstration -- show us how you bunch a half-foot of shirt/jacket fabric entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at base of neck.

Spare us the elaborate, ever-evolving blather -- show us with a REAL WORLD demo.

OF COURSE you STILL can't deal with the shadow, and that's game, set and match and Varnell loses.

There's nothing to deal with. It's only your "opinion" that you've proven anything. Since you can't replicate your "opinion" in the REAL WORLD -- as I can -- your "opinion" certainly doesn't trump Newton's First Law.

Man up Cliff and admit you have lost.

It will make you feel better, you won't have to "oversell" anymore.

ITS THE SHADOW CLIFF.

ITS THE SHADOW CLIFF.

A tiny SHADOW destroys you.

ROFLMAO! The day I found it I knew it would simply drive you nuts. What a wonderful day!

And it took you two years to figure it out? After two years of admitted failure you finally found something to form an "opinion" about -- congratulations.

Now demonstrate it with actual clothing, otherwise it's obvious to everyone that Newton trumps Lamson.

Give us more than your "opinion" about murky shadows. Prove it in the REAL WORLD with actual custom-made clothing.

Why are you so frightened of doing this? Your reluctance is palpable.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tiny SHADOW destroys you.

No, tiny shadows are consistent with tiny folds. Your own characterization of it destroys this "opinion" you've been peddling without success for 4 years.

But thanks for your "opinion" on the matter! Now favor us with an actual demonstration using custom-clothes.

What are you so terrified of, Craig? Afraid of showing that your "opinion" doesn't count for squat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tiny SHADOW destroys you.

No, tiny shadows are consistent with tiny folds. Your own characterization of it destroys this "opinion" you've been peddling without success for 4 years.

But thanks for your "opinion" on the matter! Now favor us with an actual demonstration using custom-clothes.

What are you so terrified of, Craig? Afraid of showing that your "opinion" doesn't count for squat?

ROFLMAO!

The NECK SHADOW is NOT from a fold. The shadow is cast by JFK's neck.

Earth to Cliff, if you can't even get this very BASIC fact correct your have shown you lack even the most basic of knowledge required to even understand the argument let alone refute it.

YOU are not qualified to comment any further.

I've got cold, hard fact. You have empty opinion. And that is why you have lost.

Well that and the fact you are not intellectually equipped to even understand the argument.

rock on cliff. It was a real pleasure to destroy your decades old fantasy.

study1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 years of trying and Caig can't produce ONE photograph of what a 3+ inch jacket fold looks like in the real world.

That fact blows your snow job out of the water, Craig.

CROFT, TOWNER, BETZNER.

My opinion is a good as yours as to the size of the fold in these images.

Opinion!

I'm glad you admit it's only an opinion!

Thank you!

Now, I can test my "opinion" in the real world. I can demonstrate how casual movements of the body create fraction of an inch movements of clothing exclusively. Casual movements of the body CANNOT create multiple inch movements of clothing.

Sure the size if the fold in Croft and Towner is an opinion. Just like your claim of this size of this fold.

And that's WHY the shadow argument so powerful. It is based on fact, unlike your silly clothing claims.

Anyone can test this hypothesis simply.

I invite the gentle reader to pay close attention to how their clothing moves when they casually raise their right arm to wave.

You, however, have utterly failed to demonstrate anything with an actual suit coat and shirt.

You MUST back up your "opinion" with a REAL WORLD demonstration -- show us how you bunch a half-foot of shirt/jacket fabric entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at base of neck.

Spare us the elaborate, ever-evolving blather -- show us with a REAL WORLD demo.

The problem for you and your "testing" is you can't recreate the world as it existed back on the day of the assassination. You can't be JFK, you can't wear the same clothing or the same back brace. You can't sit it the same seat, the way JFK did and you can't make hre exact same combination of body movement he did. In short you can't tell us if your so called "opinions are really correct as it pertains to JFK"S exact situation.

In other words your work is an utter failure..

OF COURSE you STILL can't deal with the shadow, and that's game, set and match and Varnell loses.

There's nothing to deal with. It's only your "opinion" that you've proven anything. Since you can't replicate your "opinion" in the REAL WORLD -- as I can -- your "opinion" certainly doesn't trump Newton's First Law.

And again you fail.

The position of the sun is not opinion, it is FACT.

The existence of the neck shadow in Croft is not opinion it is FACT.

That the suns position has not changed from Croft to Betzner is not opinion, it is FACT.

That the required neck shadow is missing from Betzner is not opinion, it is FACT.

Which of course brings us to the Cliff beater....

WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER.

And for you cliff, that is the end of the road.

Man up Cliff and admit you have lost.

It will make you feel better, you won't have to "oversell" anymore.

ITS THE SHADOW CLIFF.

ITS THE SHADOW CLIFF.

A tiny SHADOW destroys you.

ROFLMAO! The day I found it I knew it would simply drive you nuts. What a wonderful day!

And it took you two years to figure it out? After two years of admitted failure you finally found something to form an "opinion" about -- congratulations.

Now demonstrate it with actual clothing, otherwise it's obvious to everyone that Newton trumps Lamson.

Give us more than your "opinion" about murky shadows. Prove it in the REAL WORLD with actual custom-made clothing.

Why are you so frightened of doing this? Your reluctance is palpable.

LOL! I don't NEED to prove how or why a fold may or may not have formed. You can't prove a thing in this regard either. And that has been your entire argument for 10 years. Varnellian logic at work. "if you can't replicate it, I cannot have existed". Never mind this logic is fatally flawed. You pushed it anyways and everyone, including me fell into the trap of playing along.

And of course playing that line of argumentation is un-winnable for both sides since it is IMPOSSIBLE to recreate the events and conditions related JFK's clothing.

It was simply a Varnellian pissing match. And of course YOU still don't have anything concrete to back up your position.

And then I found the neck shadow in Croft.

Yea it took me awhile, I was stuck on stupid playing the varnellian opinion game of my fold is bigger than your fold. I must admit you had the game down pat. You could not prove a thing but neither could your opponents. Most of them simply quit. I don't like to quit.

But now I had found the neck shadow in Croft and I figured out what it actually meant in relation to Betzner. And that was the beginning of the end for Cliff Varnell and his decades long fantasy.

Of course Varnell can't deal with this direct proof of a large fold that can be proven without his impossible to do 'recreation".

The sun angles are a fact.

The neck shadow in Croft is a fact.

That neck shadow in Croft is consistent with the sun angle is a fact.

That the neck shadow in Croft falls over the jacket collar IN FRONT OF THE JACKET FOLD in Croft is a fact

That this shadow that MUST fall over the jacket collar in Betzner is missing, that too is a fact.

Facts Cliff, cold hard FACTS. Now I know you stock in trade is FANTASY, but if you want to play this is reality. FACTS.

The pissing match about how the fold may or may not have been formed is over. It no longer matters. The continued parade of images by you has been rendered meaningless. Your OPINIONS ON HOW THE JACKET MOVED...NO LONGER MATTER.

LET ME REPEAT...

Your OPINIONS ON HOW THE JACKET MOVED...NO LONGER MATTER.

Its REALITY TIME CLIFF...

Where is the neck shadow that MUST pass over the jacket collar in Betzner?

study1.jpg

Welcome to the REAL world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tiny SHADOW destroys you.

No, tiny shadows are consistent with tiny folds. Your own characterization of it destroys this "opinion" you've been peddling without success for 4 years.

But thanks for your "opinion" on the matter! Now favor us with an actual demonstration using custom-clothes.

What are you so terrified of, Craig? Afraid of showing that your "opinion" doesn't count for squat?

ROFLMAO!

The NECK SHADOW is NOT from a fold. The shadow is cast by JFK's neck.

You obviously haven't studied the Towner photo. The "tiny shadow" in the cup of the fold indicates just how small and insignificant the fold is.

townerjim.jpg

Anyone can compare fold with the 1.25" jacket collar. You claim that the fold is more than 2.5 times the size of the jacket collar -- I dare say any rational person would find such an "opinion" laughable.

In the graphic below the blue lines point to the jacket collar clearly above the jacket fold (salmon line).

study2.jpg

There is no massive half-foot wad of clothing in either of those photos, Craig.

You continue to "out" yourself as a Lone Nut fanatic.

Keep it up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOUR IGNORANCE IS SHOWING.

How does the LEFT side jacket collar in Betzner which in is FULL SUN become full shadow in your silly opinion drawing? ROFLMAO! Varnell does not even know how the sun works!

SO WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER CLIFF? IT MUST BE THERE.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOUR IGNORANCE IS SHOWING.

Your desperation is showing. In Towner, Croft and Betzner the jacket collar was ABOVE the fold. Clearly.

How does the LEFT side jacket collar in Betzner which in is FULL SUN become full shadow in your silly opinion drawing? ROFLMAO! Varnell does not even know how the sun works!

I've already covered this. Halation, indentation, lo-resolution.

You can't look at the Croft photo and see that the jacket collar is ABOVE the fold?

Open your eyes Craig, all three photos you cite show the fold below the collar.

Btw, when are you going to show us what a half-foot wad of clothing looks like?

Rhetorical question -- your scenario is impossible.

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

×
×
  • Create New...