Cliff Varnell proves there is no 3" fold in Betzner

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

All the Elm St photos show the same thing -- the fold below the jacket collar. Here's Willis 4:

How could any rational person claim that that stubby little fold was above the jacket collar? How could any rational person claim that that stubby little fold was a half-foot wad of clothing?

The S&%# Lone Nut fanatics say!

Edited January 18, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

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.

First who cares how large YOU think the fold is in Croft and Betzner. It no longer matters. ITS THE NECK SHADOW CLIFF.

Opps, what you cite is your incompetence. A REFLECTION cannot make something go BLACK.

SHOW us how to INDENT the jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck and so that this "indentation' extend onto the TOP of his shoulder...and still is out of the suns rays. ROFLMAO!

You point to a jacket collar that is shown as full shadow when it is in FULL SUN!

A reflection from a a shirt collar/side of the face cannot make this area go BLACK. SOMETHING MUST BLOCK IT FROM THE SUN. A REFLECTION cannot do that.

Can you be any more ignorant?

WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER CLIFF?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

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.

All the Elm St photos show the same thing -- the fold below the jacket collar. Here's Willis 4:

How could any rational person claim that that stubby little fold was above the jacket collar? How could any rational person claim that that stubby little fold was a half-foot wad of clothing?

The S&%# Lone Nut fanatics say!

No longer matters ....your OPINION is meaningless.

WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER CLIFF?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

It no longer matters. ITS THE NECK SHADOW CLIFF.

That you can't identify an actual fold artifact in Betzner -- and a massive one at that! -- no longer matters?

That's just another one of your Lone Nut fevered "opinions" you can't back up in the real world.

Opps, what you cite is your incompetence. A REFLECTION cannot make something go BLACK.

No, it makes it go white. And because it's a blurry lo-res blow-up of a small background figure the jacket collar is a blurry gray immediately below the shirt collar. Miles graphic shows this.

SHOW us how to INDENT the jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck and so that this "indentation' extend onto the TOP of his shoulder...and still is out of the suns rays. ROFLMAO!

Yes, the indentation extends to the top of the shoulder. We can see that in both the Adolphus/Main St. photo and in the Weaver photo.

http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k564/cliffvarnell55/tkoapmainst.jpg

http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k564/cliffvarnell55/weaver.jpg

Now, the burden of proof is on you to show us how you bunch up a half-foot wad of shirt/jacket fabric entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

What is it about demonstrating your claims that scares you so?

You point to a jacket collar that is shown as full shadow when it is in FULL SUN!

We see the jacket collar in full sun above the fabric fold in Croft. Obviously.

But in Betzner -- due to the effect of halation, indentation of the fabric, and low-resolution of a blurry background blow-up -- the jacket collar can't be distinguished from the back of the jacket.

You know, for a so-called photo expert the most obvious things elude you, Craig.

Why is that?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

What is it about demonstrating your claims that scares you so?

It may be that Craig Lamson suffers from "vestiphobia" -- fear of clothing.

http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/fear-of-clothes/

Cases of fear of clothes are usually (although not always) caused by an intense negative experience from the past. But your mind can also create that fear seemingly without basis. The key is digging down to the source and replacing negative associations with positive ones. Those at greatest risk include:

• People with a general tendency towards fear and anxiety

• People characterized as ‘high strung’

• People suffering from adrenal insufficiency

High strung. That's you all over, Craig. You might want to consult a mental health professional.

[Craig Lamson]

It no longer matters. ITS THE NECK SHADOW CLIFF.

That you can't identify an actual fold artifact in Betzner -- and a massive one at that! -- no longer matters?

That's just another one of your Lone Nut fevered "opinions" you can't back up in the real world.

There you go again MAKING THINGS UP FROM THIN AIR...I've presented my evidence many times in this thread. And you STILL can't refute it.

Opps, what you cite is your incompetence. A REFLECTION cannot make something go BLACK.

No, it makes it go white. And because it's a blurry lo-res blow-up of a small background figure the jacket collar is a blurry gray immediately below the shirt collar. Miles graphic shows this.

You LOSE again. Please explain that as it pertains to the REAR CENTER OF THE NECK. Oh wait , YOU can't

SHOW us how to INDENT the jacket collar at the rear center of JFK's neck and so that this "indentation' extend onto the TOP of his shoulder...and still is out of the suns rays. ROFLMAO!

Yes, the indentation extends to the top of the shoulder. We can see that in both the Adolphus/Main St. photo and in the Weaver photo.

Sorry we are talking about BETZNER, your other attempts to change the subject are not valid.

Now, the burden of proof in on you to show us how you bunch up a half-foot wad of shirt/jacket fabric entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

What is it about demonstrating your claims that scares you so?

No the burden is now upon YOU to show that you can create an arrangement of fabric that does all the things you say it can do and work in the very strict confines of light, shadow and angle of incidence found in Betzner. BETZNER.

You point to a jacket collar that is shown as full shadow when it is in FULL SUN!

We see the jacket collar in full sun above the fabric fold in Croft. Obviously.

We are talking about BETZNER ...BETZNER your attempt at bait and switch fails.

But in Betzner -- due to the effect of halation, indentation of the fabric, and low-resolution of a blurry background blow-up -- the jacket collar can't be distinguished from the back of the jacket.

Great, then PROVE your point with something other than a wave of your hands and a trip to google. The burden of proof for this extraordinary claim is YOURS.

You know, for a so-called photo expert the most obvious things elude you, Craig.

Why is that?

For one you have not PROVEN these things even exist. And of course you can't.

Lets review the facts and evidence you MUST overcome. We know you don't have the intelligence but what the heck...

BTW, please notice the side profile drawing showing the sun angle. Please show us your "indentation" that can create the blackness you call the jacket collar in Betzner that can work given this PROVEN angle of incidence.

Game on Varnelll. Put up or shut up....

[Craig Lamson]

What is it about demonstrating your claims that scares you so?

ROFLMAO!

WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER?

[Cliff Varnell]

There you go again MAKING THINGS UP FROM THIN AIR...I've presented my evidence many times in this thread. And you STILL can't refute it.

You refute yourself, Craig. You show a fold below the jacket collar in Croft and Towner, but above the jacket collar in Betzner.

And that photo of the towel you pulled up on is a complete non sequitur.

Since you can photograph towels, why can't you photograph suit jackets and shirts all bunched up above the based of the neck while the jacket collar rests in a normal position at the base of the neck?

You know -- actual real world proof.

Anyone can look at the following and see that your blue line fold top in Towner and Croft are in a different location than in Betzner.

Towner blue line -- below the jacket collar

Croft blue line -- below the jacket collar.

Betzner blue line -- above the jacket collar

You're your own worst enemy, Craig. The cognitive dissonance makes you tense and cranky and given to all-cap screaming. I'd have that checked out, if I were you.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

LOL! Your inability to analyze photographs is shown to be worse every time you post.

You inability to understand simple PERSPECTIVE and even HOW THE SUN WORKS is legend. You are intellectually challenged. And that is being kind. I'd have that checked out, if I were you.

Not that it matters.

THERE MUST BE A SHADOW FROM JFK'S NECK THAT MUST FALL OVER THE JACKET COLLAR IN BETZNER.

It is missing.

You can't show us WHY. I can.

You can't refute it. You are at a loss. No wonder, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW THE SUN WORKS! roflmao!

WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

LOL! Your inability to analyze photographs is shown to be worse every time you post.

If that were true you could hold a calm discussion. But you're in all-cap full screaming mode, indicating your ox is getting badly gored.

Anyone can look at the graphic you prepared and see that you've correctly pointed out the location of the fold in Croft and Towner -- below the jacket collar -- and then you place your imaginary fold in Betzner above the collar.

But it even gets worse. A couple of discussion ago you acknowledged that such a massive fold would have a high-lighted "return" with visible upper and lower margins.

I pointed out the fold artifact below the collar any rational person can see. I challenged you to show us with arrows both the upper margin of the return, and its lower margin.

You prepared this:

Wow. You moved the fold up to the top of the shirt collar, evidently!

That's 3 different locations for your imaginary fold in 4 years.

You're obviously making this up as you go along, Craig. And the fact that so many of your sentences are in all-caps doesn't speak well for your state of mind, frankly.

THERE MUST BE A SHADOW FROM JFK'S NECK THAT MUST FALL OVER THE JACKET COLLAR IN BETZNER.

WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER?

On the right side, just like Croft. We can't see a clean demarcation of the shadow line because of halation from the shirt collar, indentation of the left side jacket crease which extends up to the top of his shoulder, and the fact it is a lo-res image.

It's time for you to show us what all this looks like on a real suit jacket and shirt.

Or is the vestiphobia you suffer just too intense?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

You just might want to revisit your words Cliff, And I'll give you that chance prior to showing you are "OVERSELLING" once again.

Take advantage of this opportunity. You looked pretty bad when it was shown you had not been telling the real story for YEARS about the slack in a dress shirt. Consider yourself forewarned.

You say:

On the right side, just like Croft. We can't see a clean demarcation of the shadow line because of halation from the shirt collar, indentation of the left side jacket crease which extends up to the top of his shoulder, and the fact it is a lo-res image.

Sadly for you, this is just pure bunk.

The so called "halation is NO WHERE near the rear center of the back of JFK's neck, where the neck shadow MUST be located in Betzner (and exactly where we see it in Croft) Halation would case a highlight to exceed its natural boundries. This is photo 101 Cliff and you just failed. The result of a halation effect ( which you have yet to prove even exists)would be a LIGHTENING of the area outside the highlight boundary.

This does NOT exist at the rear center of JFK's neck in Betzner. The OPPOSITE occurs. The the area that SHOULD BE HIGHLIHTED ( the part of the jacket collar that should be in full sun at the rear of JFK's neck in Betzner) is rendered as BLACK.

Strike one.

You so called "indentation". Please show us HOW you can indent JFK's NECK. Your claim requires it. AND YOU CAN'T!

Strike two.

Finally and this is the best one..

You claim the image is too low rez. But YOU claim enough resolution to see the crease between the shoulder fabric and the coat collar, the coat collar itself and a raised fold ridge. All on the left side of JFK.

You can see all of this and you can't see a sharp transition from black to light gray? ROFLMAO! Silly you. You just made a claim based on just that type of transition. Like I said earlier, your photo analysis skills and childish. You are a complete joke.

AND THAT WOULD BE STRIKE THREE FOR YOUR VERY LAME AND COMPLETELY IGNORANT ATTEMPT TO REFUTE THE SIMPLE FACT THAT A 3"+ FOLD OF FABRIC OBSCURES THE JACKET COLLAR IN BETZNER.

But of course don't take my word for it, do the work yourself.

WHERE Oh WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER?

(varnell fails again)

Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

You just might want to revisit your words Cliff, And I'll give you that chance prior to showing you are "OVERSELLING" once again.

Take advantage of this opportunity. You looked pretty bad when it was shown you had not been telling the truth for YEARS about the slack in a dress shirt. Consider yourself forewarned.

There are two different ways to gather slack from a shirt. You can pull the slack fabric out, or you can cause the fabric to "ease" (bunch). Stretching fabric and pushing fabric together are opposite movements.

Here's a shot of how all the available slack in a custom-made shirt is pulled to the side, 3-4" of fabric in the back.

Normal, casual movements of the body will cause fractions of an inch of fabric to ease in any particular location. That's what I was referring to. It is a mistake to say that there is only a fraction of an inch of available slack in the entire shirt, but in any one location normal movement will not cause more than a fraction of an inch of fabric to move.

How much slack is available at the nape of the neck for normal fabric "ease" -- a fraction of an inch.

Anyone can verify this by simply observing the movement of their shirt when they move around.

These multiple inch movements of clothing never happen -- or else Craig Lamson would demonstrate such, but he can't.

According to you, Craig, almost all of the available slack in JFK's shirt was mysteriously gathered at the base of the neck, an event you can only achieve by pulling up on the fabric.

So who pulled JFK's shirt up around his neck, Craig? How did that occur? The burden of proof is on you to show it.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

You just might want to revisit your words Cliff, And I'll give you that chance prior to showing you are "OVERSELLING" once again.

Take advantage of this opportunity. You looked pretty bad when it was shown you had not been telling the truth for YEARS about the slack in a dress shirt. Consider yourself forewarned.

There are two different ways to gather slack from a shirt. You can pull the slack fabric out, or you can cause the fabric to "ease" (bunch). Stretching fabric and pushing fabric together are opposite movements.

Normal, casual movements of the body will cause fractions of an inch of fabric to ease in any particular location. That's what I was referring to. It is a mistake to say that there is only a fraction of an inch of available slack in the entire shirt, but in any one location normal movement will not cause more than a fraction of an inch of fabric to move.

How much slack is available at the nape of the neck for normal fabric "ease" -- a fraction of an inch.

Anyone can verify this by simply observing the movement of their shirt when they move around.

These multiple inch movements of clothing never happen -- or else Craig Lamson would demonstrate such, but he can't.

According to you, Craig, almost all of the available slack in JFK's shirt was mysteriously gathered at the base of the neck, an event you can only achieve by pulling up on the fabric.

So who pulled JFK's shirt up around his neck, Craig? How did that occur? The burden of proof is on you to show it.

Trying to evade once again I see Cliff. Truth...well lets just say... you are not on good terms with it.

What was it you said about 3/4 of an inch and custom made dress shirts?

Now for your other whopper from the other post...what you choose to do about it is your choice.

[Cliff Varnell]

Trying to evade once again I see Cliff. Truth...well lets just say... you are not on good terms with it.

Funny comment coming from a guy who took two years to invent a rationale for his Lone Nuttery and then spent another two years moving an imaginary fold around.

What was it you said about 3/4 of an inch and custom made dress shirts?

You want to inventory each other's mistakes? Fine. Good idea.

I made a mistake referring to the available slack in the entire shirt, when the comment by the tailor I spoke to referred to available slack in any particular location, such as the nape of the neck.

If you can get a custom-made shirt to move more than a fraction of an inch at the nape of the neck -- prove it.

Now, why don't you repeat that whopper of yours concerning the enormous bulge of jacket and shirt fabric you insist are visible in these photos on Houston St?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

I made a mistake referring to the available slack in the entire shirt, when the comment by the tailor I spoke to referred to available slack in any particular location, such as the nape of the neck.

If you can get a custom-made shirt to move more than a fraction of an inch at the nape of the neck -- prove it.

You got caught one on this and yet you STILL fudge it. Its not about mistakes, I have NO problem with anyone making a mistake. Its about TRUTH and those who willfully not tell it.

Until I posted something that refuted your 3/4 inch claim, it was 3/4 for custom shirts. Now you want us to believe that suddenly you FIGURED OUT that Mr. Shirt was talking about something else and it just DAWNED on your when you got caught?

Is THAT the whopper you want us to believe Cliff? After now many years of making your BOGUS claim?