Cliff Varnell Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 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. You shouldn't. You make them all the time. I admitted my mistake immediately. You seize on it to cover for the string of whoppers you've been telling about the photo evidence for 4 years. None of the photos show anything like what you claim they do. You repeat this "3+" whopper over and over. You have to in order to maintain your Lone Nuttery. Its about TRUTH and those who willfully not tell it. When are you going to tell the truth about your failed shirt/jacket experiments? When are you going to tell the truth about what the Dealey Plazas photos actually show? The answer is never. 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? That's what's called "admitting a mistake." Mr. Shirt wasn't referring to all the available slack, he was referring to the amount of fabric that bunches up in any particular location. I mis-spoke, then I corrected myself. When are you going to demonstrate some honesty and admit you can't get more than a fraction of an inch of your shirt to bunch up at the base of your neck? Tell us the truth about your own experiences, Craig. For once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) 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. It was not a "mistake"and you know it. How did you find out you made this mistake? Did you call the tailor again? What exactly did you do? Yo made this claim for years. Until I found something that refuted it. THEN and only then do you find you were "mistaken". And again HOW DID YOU FIND OUT? 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. Another one of your long running claims is that JFK wore fine clothing...CUSTOM clothing... There is a solid 3+"+ fold.... 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. You shouldn't. You make them all the time. I admitted my mistake immediately. You seize on it to cover for the string of whoppers you've been telling about the photo evidence for 4 years. No I'm going to show you "oversell" willingly and often. None of the photos show anything like what you claim they do. You repeat this "3+" whopper over and over. You have to in order to maintain your Lone Nuttery. Its about TRUTH and those who willfully not tell it. When are you going to tell the truth about your failed shirt/jacket experiments? What shirt/jacket experiments would those be? When are you going to tell the truth about what the Dealey Plazas photos actually show? The answer is never. LOL! You don't KNOW truth Cliff... 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? That's what's called "admitting a mistake." Mr. Shirt wasn't referring to all the available slack, he was referring to the amount of fabric that bunches up in any particular location. How did you find that out all these years later? Or did you just make up this new silly claim from thin as as is your history? I mis-spoke, then I corrected myself. No you told a whopper for YEARS and only "corrected" yourself when it was shown you got caught foisting bogus information. You created a spin job as damage control. Funny that you figured out Mr. Shirt was telling you something different at the EXACT TIME it was shown your years long claim was bogus. It would not surprise me that you would STILL be telling this whopper today if you had not gotten caught. When are you going to demonstrate some honesty and admit you can't get more than a fraction of an inch of your shirt to bunch up at the base of your neck? YOU already did. Tell us the truth about your own experiences, Craig. For once. What experiences? My 30+ years of being a professional advertising photographer. We an contrast my experience with your years as a punk rocker and card dealer...and see who is more competent to discuss the finer points of photography as it pertains to the JFK case. Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) It was not a "mistake"and you know it. How did you find out you made this mistake? Did you call the tailor again? What exactly did you do? I recalled the conversation right after you posted the photo showing 3-4" of pulled shirt slack to see where I went wrong: I went into Mr. Shirt's shop and asked him if custom-made dress shirts bunch up at the base of the neck. He said "Yes!" emphatically. He went over to a mannequin and demonstrated. "How much do they bunch up?" I asked. "Three-quarters of an inch," he said. I was mistaken to assume he meant that there was only three-quarters of an inch of slack in the entire shirt. When you posted the photos of the shirt slack being pulled I realized that Mr. Shirt was clearly referring to "bunched fabric" at the location I pointed out, not the entire amount of available in the back of the shirt. I made a mistake, which I immediately acknowledged. I recognized my error. I stand corrected. See how easy that is, Craig? 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. Another one of your long running claims is that JFK wore fine clothing...CUSTOM clothing... So you're denying that JFK wore fine custom clothing? Another major Lamson whopper! In the following photo JFK was on an airplane, the hair sticking out at the back of his head indicates he was resting. Slumping down in a seat can readily cause shirt fabric to become untucked and ride up, but it is not considered a casual, normal movement. JFK didn't slump down in his seat in the Dallas motorcade, Craig. Show us a similar fold in the Dealey Plaza photos. And spare us your whoppers about Betzner. There is a solid 3+"+ fold.... You bet there is! And the fold is almost entirely above the bottom of the shirt collar. You have admitted, Craig, in a fleeting moment of honesty, that the jacket collar rested at a normal position at the base of JFK's neck. How did the 3+ inch shirt fold and the 3+ inch jacket fold occupy the same physical space just above the base of the neck with the jacket collar? Show us, at long last. No I'm going to show you "oversell" willingly and often. What you've shown us so far is that you will claim anything to rationalize your Lone Nut fanaticism. When are you going to tell the truth about your failed shirt/jacket experiments? What shirt/jacket experiments would those be? Every time you raise your arms while wearing clothing. Are you telling us you've never observed the movement of your clothing when you casually raise your arms --- even after 4 years of my challenging you to do so? You wear clothing everyday, don't you? You've never once paid attention to how your clothing moves? That's hard to believe, but if it's true don't you think it's time you paid attention to how clothing moves in the real world? Or are you so identified with your fantasies that you're not capable of such? Edited January 19, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 Lets review the latest example of Varnell's WILLFUL "overselling" Upthread Varnell said: 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! Varnell tells a WHOPPER! He originally asked for the upper and lower margins of the shirt collar and the upper and lower margins of the fold return. His actual words: Where does the graphic you produce point to the four horizontal features: the upper/lower margins of the shirt collar and the upper/lower margins the lip of the Elm St. fold? This transparent falsehood of your orange dot marks your utter intellectual corruption. Clearly Varnell has "oversold' again. He had access to the correct wording as I did, yet he chose to tell yet another whopper instead. In addition this is a wonderful illustration of Varnell's utter failure as a photo analyst. In the graphic below, Varnell sees an orange dot and then says it moves the fold "to the top of the shirt collar" Nothing could be farther from the truth. The graphic clearly points out the four margins he had originally requested. The top and bottom edge of hte orange dot define hte upper nad lower nmargins of hte shirt collar as he requested. The top and bottom edge of the YELLOW DOT define the upper and lower margins of the return. Varnell has once again proven he tells WHOPPERS all the time and is a lousy photo analyst. Unbelievable! Now back to the subject at hand... WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER CLIFF? roflmao! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The Weaver photo taken on the corner of Main and Houston shows an extensive indentation of the jacket against the back of JFK's shirt. The "floor" of this indentation was smooth, proving that there was no bunched up shirt fabric underneath at all. Craig Lamson likes to tell whoppers about this photo showing a massive fabric bulge. A bulge is a convex curvature. An indentation is a concave curvature. The fabric fold above is clearly an indentation, although Craig insists otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 It was not a "mistake"and you know it. How did you find out you made this mistake? Did you call the tailor again? What exactly did you do? I recalled the conversation right after you posted the photo showing 3-4" of pulled shirt slack to see where I went wrong: I went into Mr. Shirt's shop and asked him if custom-made dress shirts bunch up at the base of the neck. He said "Yes!" emphatically. He went over to a mannequin and demonstrated. "How much do they bunch up?" I asked. "Three-quarters of an inch," he said. I was mistaken to assume he meant that there was only three-quarters of an inch of slack in the entire shirt. When you posted the photos of the shirt slack being pulled I realized that Mr. Shirt was clearly referring to "bunched fabric" at the location I pointed out, not the entire amount of available in the back of the shirt. I made a mistake, which I immediately acknowledged. I recognized my error. I stand corrected. See how easy that is, Craig? Right... After YEARS of telling people the 3/4 applied to the entire slack of all custom shirts and quoting books on clothing design, you had this "recall" only after it was shown you were wrong? ROFLMAO! YET AMOTHER WHOPPER???? How long is your nose getting? 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. Another one of your long running claims is that JFK wore fine clothing...CUSTOM clothing... So you're denying that JFK wore fine custom clothing? Another major Lamson whopper! Not at all. In the following photo JFK was on an airplane, the hair sticking out at the back of his head indicates he was resting. Slumping down in a seat can readily cause shirt fabric to become untucked and ride up, but it is not considered a casual, normal movement. And moving aronnd while sitting in a car seat will not? Please prove it. Besides you did not ask for "casual movement" You asked: 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. Your attempt to deflect fails. And YOU DID IT YOURSELF! The photos is from your photobucket page. CLEARLY you KNEW it was possible yet you told another whopper. Is there anything you don't "oversell". JFK didn't slump down in his seat in the Dallas motorcade, Craig. How would you know? Were you there and in the car? If not its yet another whopper. Show us a similar fold in the Dealey Plaza photos. And spare us your whoppers about Betzner. Show us a photo in Dealey plaza that shows his shirt without the jacket..... There is a solid 3+"+ fold.... You bet there is! And the fold is almost entirely above the bottom of the shirt collar. You have admitted, Craig, in a fleeting moment of honesty, that the jacket collar rested at a normal position at the base of JFK's neck. How did the 3+ inch shirt fold and the 3+ inch jacket fold occupy the same physical space just above the base of the neck with the jacket collar? Show us, at long last. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD EVER SUGGEST THE JACKET COLLAR AND THE FOLD OCCUPIED THE SAME PHYSICAL SPACE? IT WOULD TAKE A LUNATIC TO SUGGEST SUCH A THING. OH WAIT IT WAS VARNELL. LUNATIC? No I'm going to show you "oversell" willingly and often. What you've shown us so far is that you will claim anything to rationalize your Lone Nut fanaticism. Nope. I've just shown exactly HOW and way the shadow MUST be in BETZNER and proven WHY it is missing using solid and well proven principles of photography, light, shadow and angle of incidence. And you STILL cant refute it. When are you going to tell the truth about your failed shirt/jacket experiments? What shirt/jacket experiments would those be? Every time you raise your arms while wearing clothing. Are you telling us you've never observed the movement of your clothing when you casually raise your arms --- even after 4 years of my challenging you to do so? You wear clothing everyday, don't you? You've never once paid attention to how your clothing moves? That's hard to believe, but if it's true don't you think it's time you paid attention to how clothing moves in the real world? Oh I watch clothing all the time, but I'm not silly enough to think I can replicate the conditions present the day JFK was shot. It makes no sense to "experiment in this regard. In fact it was interesting to see NEWT destroy Juan Williams at the debate he other night. Imagine how cool it was to see a 3+" fold of jacket fabric surrounding the collar of his jacket as Williams sat in his chair. Would that be casual movement Cliff? ROFLMAO! Or are you so identified with your fantasies that you're not capable of such? You are the fantasy master Cliff. Sheesh you see an indentation INTO THE SIDE OF JFK'S NECK! LOL! Please keep it up, the material is priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) The Weaver photo taken on the corner of Main and Houston shows an extensive indentation of the jacket against the back of JFK's shirt. The "floor" of this indentation was smooth, proving that there was no bunched up shirt fabric underneath at all. ROFLMAO! Now in addition to his unbelievable fantasies VARNELL now claims he has X-RAY VISION! ROFLMAO! It just keeps getting better and better! OH the WHOPPERS Varnell must tell to try and keep the Varnell Magic Theory alive! Craig Lamson likes to tell whoppers about this photo showing a massive fabric bulge. A bulge is a convex curvature. An indentation is a concave curvature. The fabric fold above is clearly an indentation, although Craig insists otherwise. It's just a FOLD CLiff. A simple FOLD. In the above example it is BOTH concave and convex...a FOLD. The Varnell fantasy continues. Priceless! Enough of the Varnell sideshow... WHERE IS HE HECK SHADOW IN BETZNER CLIFF? Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Lets review the latest example of Varnell's WILLFUL "overselling" What ever you do, Craig, don't defend your habitual moving around of your imaginary Betzner fold. And please don't actually demonstrate with actual shirts and jackets these claims of yours. We'd probably kneel over from the shock. Upthread Varnell said: 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! Varnell tells a WHOPPER! He originally asked for the upper and lower margins of the shirt collar and the upper and lower margins of the fold return. How is that a whopper? Yes, I asked you to use arrows to point out both the upper and lower margins of the fold return and the shirt collar. So? I'm pointing out that you keep moving the fold around. You point out folds in Towner and Croft that are below the jacket collar; you point to a "fold" in Betzner that is at the level of the top of the jacket collar; then you prepare this cock-eyed orange dot to indicate that the fold is -- "evidently" -- up around the top of the shirt collar. "Oh the webs he weaves when Lamson struggles to deceive." His actual words: Where does the graphic you produce point to the four horizontal features: the upper/lower margins of the shirt collar and the upper/lower margins the lip of the Elm St. fold? This transparent falsehood of your orange dot marks your utter intellectual corruption. Clearly Varnell has "oversold' again. He had access to the correct wording as I did, yet he chose to tell yet another whopper instead. How do you figure that? I asked you to show us the upper and lower margins of your imaginary fold return-- the lip of the fold. So what if I also asked you to show the upper/lower margins of shirt collar? In addition this is a wonderful illustration of Varnell's utter failure as a photo analyst. In the graphic below, Varnell sees an orange dot and then says it moves the fold "to the top of the shirt collar" Nothing could be farther from the truth. The graphic clearly points out the four margins he had originally requested. The top and bottom edge of hte orange dot define hte upper nad lower nmargins of hte shirt collar as he requested. The top and bottom edge of the YELLOW DOT define the upper and lower margins of the return. There appears to be a tiny yellow dot in the big orange dot. Otherwise, what the hell are you talking about? I asked you to use red arrows to point out the upper and lower margins of the lip of the fold, the fold "return." And this is what you produce? A small yellow dot inside an orange dot that's clearly above the top of the jacket collar? Not only do you move this imaginary fold around, but you can't even conjure a coherent rationale for it. Unbelievable! Edited January 19, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) What ever you do, Craig, don't defend your habitual moving around of your imaginary Betzner fold. And please don't actually demonstrate with actual shirts and jackets these claims of yours. We'd probably kneel over from the shock. Why should I? My proof does not require it. That's why it has made you self-combust. Upthread Varnell said: 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! Varnell tells a WHOPPER! He originally asked for the upper and lower margins of the shirt collar and the upper and lower margins of the fold return. How is that a whopper? Yes, I asked you to use arrows to point out both the upper and lower margins of the fold return and the shirt collar. So? I'm pointing out that you keep moving the fold around. You point out folds in Towner and Croft that are below the jacket collar; you point to a "fold" in Betzner that is at the level of the top of the jacket collar; then you prepare this cock-eyed orange dot to indicate that the fold is -- "evidently" -- up around the top of the shirt collar. The fold in Croft and Towner reach the top of the jacket collar. You are simply mistaken. I can't help it your ability to read the contents of a image are so poor. I showed you the four points you requested via an orange and yellow dot. Your failings are YOUR problem and the whopper is saying I was moving the fold to the top of the shirt collar. You simple made that up from thin air, ans is your normal practice. Kind of like "remembering" your conversation with Mr. Shirt. "Oh the webs he weaves when Lamson struggles to deceive." Oh the fantasy Varnell will believe... His actual words: Where does the graphic you produce point to the four horizontal features: the upper/lower margins of the shirt collar and the upper/lower margins the lip of the Elm St. fold? This transparent falsehood of your orange dot marks your utter intellectual corruption. Clearly Varnell has "oversold' again. He had access to the correct wording as I did, yet he chose to tell yet another whopper instead. How do you figure that? I asked you to show us the upper and lower margins of your imaginary fold return-- the lip of the fold. So what if I also asked you to show the upper/lower margins of shirt collar? Then why did you omit it and then try..and fail..to claim something else? Oh yea..You just told another whopper. In addition this is a wonderful illustration of Varnell's utter failure as a photo analyst. In the graphic below, Varnell sees an orange dot and then says it moves the fold "to the top of the shirt collar" Nothing could be farther from the truth. The graphic clearly points out the four margins he had originally requested. The top and bottom edge of the orange dot define the upper and lower margins of the shirt collar as he requested. The top and bottom edge of the YELLOW DOT define the upper and lower margins of the return. There appears to be a tiny yellow dot in the big orange dot. Otherwise, what the hell are you talking about? I asked you to use red arrows to point out the upper and lower margins of the lip of the fold, the fold "return." Did you? Why arrows and why do I need to make my graphics conform to your silly wants? The graphic shows everything you requested with to simple graphic elements. That you lack the ability to understand what is clearly visible is YOUR problem ( and not a good sign considering your claims) And this is what you produce? A small yellow dot inside an orange dot that's clearly above the top of the jacket collar? What, you can clearly see the top jacket collar? Opps, there goes your "too low rez claim" LMAO! You are your own worst enemy! The yellow dot marks the upper and lower margins of the lip (highlight)on the return. Which is what you requested. Not only do you move this imaginary fold around, but you can't even conjure a coherent rationale for it. Unbelievable! The fold is the fold...3"+ that obscures the neck shadow the MUST fall over the rear center jacket collar in Betzner. Your one and only attempt to refute it is in tatters on the floor. We are back to the beginning. And you have lost. WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER CLIFF? Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The volume on a typical snow-blower tops out at "10". The snow-blower Craig Lamson goes to "11". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Well we can see Varnell has run out of gas and answers. WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER? Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Just for the record (and with absolutely no sarcasm intended but more or less to be mindful of what this topic may uncover or attempt to prove) why is this fold issue relevant? Thanks guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Just for the record (and with absolutely no sarcasm intended but more or less to be mindful of what this topic may uncover or attempt to prove) why is this fold issue relevant? Thanks guys. B.A., The clothing evidence is the prima facie case for conspiracy. The location of the holes in the clothes are at least 3 inches below the SBT in-shoot at, or above, the base of the neck. It doesn't require any "expert" input to understand that the SBT doesn't work -- just look at the location of the holes in the clothes. Once Craig acknowledged that JFK's jacket collar rested in a normal position at the base of his neck in these photos, he no longer had anything to argue but his own self-professed expertise. It's physically impossible to elevate 3+ inches of shirt and 3+ inches of jacket entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar at the base of the neck. A five year old could readily grasp this fact. As a proven Lone Nut fanatic, Craig Lamson fights tooth and nail for an impossible movement of JFK's clothes because it's his calling to dispute such evidence. This has led him to produce comically conflicted graphics such as these, which place this impossible-to-replicate imaginary fold in three different locations -- below the jacket collar, up at the top of the jacket collar, and above the top of the jacket collar. For two years Craig insisted the fold was in yet another location on JFK's back entirely. http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k564/cliffvarnell55/bulge.jpg There's a word for this kind of product: fraud. I enjoy exposing fraud like this. 'Nuf said. Edited January 19, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) There's a word for this kind of product: fraud. I enjoy exposing fraud like this. 'Nuf said. Fraud? This from the guy who tells whoppers through his teeth. Lets watch Cliff cough up yet another whopper... WHERE IS THE NECK SHADOW IN BETZNER CLIFF? Edited January 19, 2012 by Craig Lamson 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