Cliff Varnell Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) If I'm wrong on this it's simple enough to prove it. Uh, no cliffy, you made this stupid claim, how about YOU proving it is true. That means you need to show us every shirt ever worn by every man raising his arm and waving in all of recorded history. No, all I need to show is that it happens with Craig Lamson every time. If it didn't occur with your shirt, Craig, you'd show us otherwise. There you go again cliffy, telling tale tales once again. I refer you to our previous threads where my claim is made perfectly clear, and is NOT the falsehood you just spewed. You prove once again you simply are incapable of telling the truth. Your claim has never been replicated. Not by you. Not by anyone. Please reproduce your experiments with tucked in dress shirt and jacket. But you won't, since your experiments with shirt and jacket haven't panned out for you. Without a replication with shirt and jacket you've produced nothing, Craig. Here's the REAL whopper: The trough of the indentation in Weaver photo shows the smooth surface under JFK's jacket. The fold in Weaver was below the bottom of the jacket collar; the fold in the airplane photo is above the bottom of the collar. Actually the fold in the Weaver coat is at the bottom of the jacket collar, cliffy as the SHADOW proves. You fail how the sun works 101 AGAIN! The top of the indentation is at the bottom of the jacket collar --very good, Craig! But the trough of the indentation is clearly below the bottom of the jacket collar, as anyone gifted with sight can clearly see. Craig, you claim that there was a massive shadow below the fold a la Betzner (according to you.) I wonder -- do Paul Baker and Jim DiEugenio agree? Edited January 21, 2013 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) No cliffy the jacket is clearly FOLDED at the base of the jacket collar. The SUN proves it. Yes Craig, the fabric is folded --folded down That's what an indentation is. Indentation is what happens when fabric eases (the term of art for bunch). You know, like every time you try it. Best of luck trying to refute how the SUN works. Yes, Craig, please note that the shadow is at the upper margin of the trough. According to your Betzner claims the shadow is below the fold. Anyone can see you're wrong. But I'm sure you will create yet another falsehood as you try. Its all you have left, and it is your reputation now. The rhetoric of an increasingly desperate man. Why else would he remove the photographs from his post? Edited January 21, 2013 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) No cliffy the jacket is clearly FOLDED at the base of the jacket collar. The SUN proves it. Yes Craig, the fabric is folded --folded down That's what an indentation is. Indentation is what happens when fabric eases (the term of art for bunch). You know, like every time you try it. Nope, folded UP as the shadow tells us it MUST be. You don;t know this because you don't understand how the SUN works. Best of luck trying to refute how the SUN works. Yes, Craig, please note that the shadow is at the upper margin of the trough. According to your Betzner claims the shadow is below the fold. Anyone can see you're wrong. Wrong again cliffy. The shadow is the back side of the UPWARD fold, as anyone who understands how the sun works knows. That of course leaves you out of the mix. But I'm sure you will create yet another falsehood as you try. Its all you have left, and it is your reputation now. The rhetoric of an increasingly desperate man. Why else would he remove the photographs from his post? LOL, simply because they have been posted more than once? Your simple mind unable to processs that concept? I'm not desperate because once again I have it correct and you get it wrong as usual. Get back to me when you figure out the sun works 'overseller' Edited January 21, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) No cliffy the jacket is clearly FOLDED at the base of the jacket collar. The SUN proves it. Yes Craig, the fabric is folded --folded down That's what an indentation is. Indentation is what happens when fabric eases (the term of art for bunch). You know, like every time you try it. Nope, folded UP as the shadow tells us it MUST be. You don;t know this because you don't understand how the SUN works. In Weaver the shadow is at the upper margin of the fold, consistent with an indentation. In Betzner you claim the shadow is below the fold. In Weaver the trough of the fold is below the bottom of the collar -- in Betzner you claim the fold was above the bottom of the collar. Oh the webs Craig weaves... Best of luck trying to refute how the SUN works. Yes, Craig, please note that the shadow is at the upper margin of the trough. According to your Betzner claims the shadow is below the fold. Anyone can see you're wrong. Wrong again cliffy. The shadow is the back side of the UPWARD fold, Again, you have the shadow in a different location in Betzner. Anyone can tell that the fold is an indentation, Craig. Edited January 21, 2013 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) Again, you have the shadow in a different location in Betzner. Anyone can tell that the fold is an indentation, Craig. Nope the shadow is in the same place and defines the same shape in both images, an upward fold from the base of the jacket collar. Welcome to reality. Get back to me when you can figure out how the sun works....its very clear you simply have NO clue. Edited January 21, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) Again, you have the shadow in a different location in Betzner. Anyone can tell that the fold is an indentation, Craig. Nope the shadow is in the same place and defines the same shape in both images, an upward fold from the base of the jacket collar. Welcome to reality. Get back to me when you can figure out how the sun works....its very clear you simply have NO clue. A photo analysis without any photos! I'm sure Jim D is impressed. How is a fold above the bottom of the collar the same as a fold below the collar? How is a shadow at the upper margin of a fold the same as a shadow below the fold? Where is the lower shadow you insist must be in Weaver, Craig? Even the jacket collar itself is indented, and thus the shadow in the trough of that fold. Edited January 21, 2013 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) A photo analysis without any photos! I'm sure Jim D is impressed. How is a fold above the bottom of the collar the same as a fold below the collar? How is a shadow at the upper margin of a fold the same as a shadow below the fold? Where is the lower shadow you insist must be in Weaver, Craig? The photos tell the entire story and have been posted numerous times cliffy. The same upward fold exists in the very same location in Weaver and Betzner. Both of which destroy your claims. Why, BECAUSE THE SHADOWS SHOW IT. UNIMPEACHABLE You however can't understand now the SUN works. Deal with it. You lost. Maybe when you show you have even a childish understanding of how the sun works then maybe we will have something to talk about again. Edited January 21, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 A photo analysis without any photos! I'm sure Jim D is impressed. How is a fold above the bottom of the collar the same as a fold below the collar? How is a shadow at the upper margin of a fold the same as a shadow below the fold? Where is the lower shadow you insist must be in Weaver, Craig? The photos tell the entire story and have been posted numerous times cliffy. Craig, you've claimed for years that there was a huge fabric fold above the bottom of the collar with a massive lower shadow. Weaver clearly shows a fabric indentation below the bottom of the collar. How you can deny this is amazing... Too much howling at the sun, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Attn Jim DiEugenio: Before Craig posts his photo analyses he pro-actively removes the photos he's analyzing. IOW, he has nothing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Given the location of the holes in the clothes -- a child could verify the impossibility of the SBT trajectory. It takes someone with an advanced degree to verify the efficacy of the NAA. Jim, by what alchemy of logic do you conclude that the NAA trumps the clothing evidence? http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html Cliff: If you don't understand all that I did in that exchange, and what just happened to you after it, then you are so far out there with this shirt tail stuff that you have lost your critical distance. Please Jim, tell us what happened in that exchange? You lost your temper, sir. I point out the prima facie case and both Lamson and Baker revert instantly to insults. Does Lamson's breast-beating impress you that much, Jim? The NAA in bullet lead analysis is a rabbit hole? Whew. Repeat, whew. Yes. One of the most pernicious rabbit holes in the case. The SBT fails on its trajectory, Jim, the NAA is irrelevant. Paul Baker is happy to discuss it with you all day long. He has nothing of substance to say in rebuttal to the clothing evidence. Nothing. None of them do. Neither do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) With books on the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations bact to back, O'Reilly is now the Jim Bishop of our generation, a schlockmeister par excellence. Its all too much! You sit back and look at O'Reilly's progress, compare it to the Jim Bishop playbook of the 1950s-1960s (The Day Lincoln Was Shot; The Day Kennedy Was Shot), and then you discover that somebody at a publishing house made a marketing decision to follow through in the Jim Bishop mold! "Bill O'Reilly's Next Book will be About the Death of Jesus Christ." http://www.salon.com...f_jesus_christ/ “O’Reilly will recount the seismic political and historical events that made [Jesus'] death inevitable" - Why couldn't he do this for JFK? Edited February 23, 2013 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 O'Reilly's Book (on JFK) has been green-lighted to be a movie realized by the Walt Disney Studios... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Wengler Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 O'Reilly next book is on Jesus guess what it is being called Killing Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony DeFiore Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 This really says a lot about how the hope that cable TV once held has been dashed to smithereens. Everyone who has read this book, or my review of it, has to know it is horrible. What on earth is Ridley Scott doing involved in this crap? All I can say is to write, fax, or e mail both National Geographic and Scott Free productions. Send them my review if you want. But gad, between this, DI Caprio, and Hanks, it does not look good at all for the50th. LOL! Cable is dying. You can watch anything from your phone now. These bozos on cable: Military Channel, Discovery, H / H2, National Geo ~ really think they can wipe out the conspiracy or push it away from the CIA. My God such idiocy. Then someone plays "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and they're in P.T. Barnum soup again ~ there is no such thing as bad publicity here..! Every time these fools (Decaprio, Hanks, O'Reilly, etc.) try to deflect the truth; they just bring it back into the public mind. Then Mr. DiEugenio, they google an article of yours or Lisa's on the net and the house of the "single bullet fraud" gets destroyed....again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 JFKCountercoup2: Bill O'Reilly KK Excerpt 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