Eject! Eject! Eject!

[Charles Drago]

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the murder of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

There is no morally acceptable course of action other than to disengage from this inane, destructive dialogue.

Good luck with the rubes.

Charles

Edited April 18, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Craig Lamson]

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the murder of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

There is no morally acceptable course of action other than to disengage from this inane, destructive dialogue.

Good luck with the rubes.

Charles

Nice shuck and jive there Charles.

You sound like a Fetzer clone, or at least you read WAY too much of him.

And of course with all of this evidence you have proven this case in a court of law, beyond a shodow of a doubt...where?

Man you just keep making the authors case over and over again.

Now WHEN are you planning on discussing the MEAT of the article?

Oh you're not? Imagine that.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

LAUGH OUT LOUD !! .. Talk about comedic entertainment ... Lamson has supplied it yet again !!

Imagine that , indeed ! ... ROFLMAO !!!

You obviously know as little about the JFK conspiracy as you do about the Apollo one ... In other words , you are completely clueless on both subjects .

[Sid Walker]

LAUGH OUT LOUD !! .. Talk about comedic entertainment ... Lamson has supplied it yet again !!

Imagine that , indeed ! ... ROFLMAO !!!

You obviously know as little about the JFK conspiracy as you do about the Apollo one ... In other words , you are completely clueless on both subjects .

"The technique of infamy is to start two lies at once. and set people arguing which one is true"

[Craig Lamson]

LAUGH OUT LOUD !! .. Talk about comedic entertainment ... Lamson has supplied it yet again !!

Imagine that , indeed ! ... ROFLMAO !!!

You obviously know as little about the JFK conspiracy as you do about the Apollo one ... In other words , you are completely clueless on both subjects .

I'm so happy you enjoyed the show. Yet another perfect example of the mindset described in the original posting joins the fray.

You are correct I don't care to know much about the JFK case OTHER than the attempts to impeach the photographic evidence. On that score I'm well versed. And the same goes for Apollo, I'm quite ignorant about many of the science aspects of the Apollo missions, but rest assured I am very well equipped to deal with the photographic evidence.

Are you suggesting we should believe you are in any way equipped to argue either?

Of course the original article is not really about JFK, Apollo, or 9/11. Its about the mindset and worldview of those who believe in these CT's. No one other than John D has addressed it. How about you?

Edited April 19, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Mark Stapleton]

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the murder of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

There is no morally acceptable course of action other than to disengage from this inane, destructive dialogue.

Good luck with the rubes.

Charles

Well said, Charles.

Good luck with the fun and games, Craig. As long as you stay well clear of the lone nut theory your antics are fine with me, and I won't have to sort you out again.

[Evan Burton]

That's an interesting post, Craig. I'll read through the whole of it later (I dislike long posts) but a friend recently did a talk on Conspiracy Theories, and came up with 10 tests to apply. I think it is relevant to this thread so I'll post it here:

This makes no sense unless you define what a conspiracy theory is? Is seems that your friend defines it as anything he disagrees with.

John,

Not quite. The paper was written in regard to the Apollo Hoax, but it is meant to help people ask pertinent questions. As he said, if the answer is YES to most of the questions, then it should be seriously considered and may well be correct. Some of the comments may indicate the bias of the author, but they are still worthwhile tests to apply.

Is what is being said factual?

Is it relevant?

If correct, what implications does it have?

Is it consistent with the rest of the theory (e.g. is this argument and other arguments mutually exclusive?)

Is this supported by relevant experts? (In a sense linked to point 1, but necessary for some arguments)

Is it just an opinion?

Does it have supporting evidence?

Is it the only alternative explanation? (Quite relevant for some theories)

Can the theory discount other explanations?

Can you demonstrate claims for yourself?

If something is merely an argument rather than an alternative theory then all tests would not apply - but some will allow you to evaluate the significance and credibility / value of argument.

[John Simkin]

That's an interesting post, Craig. I'll read through the whole of it later (I dislike long posts) but a friend recently did a talk on Conspiracy Theories, and came up with 10 tests to apply. I think it is relevant to this thread so I'll post it here:

This makes no sense unless you define what a conspiracy theory is? Is seems that your friend defines it as anything he disagrees with.

John,

Not quite. The paper was written in regard to the Apollo Hoax, but it is meant to help people ask pertinent questions. As he said, if the answer is YES to most of the questions, then it should be seriously considered and may well be correct. Some of the comments may indicate the bias of the author, but they are still worthwhile tests to apply.

Is what is being said factual?

Is it relevant?

If correct, what implications does it have?

Is it consistent with the rest of the theory (e.g. is this argument and other arguments mutually exclusive?)

Is this supported by relevant experts? (In a sense linked to point 1, but necessary for some arguments)

Is it just an opinion?

Does it have supporting evidence?

Is it the only alternative explanation? (Quite relevant for some theories)

Can the theory discount other explanations?

Can you demonstrate claims for yourself?

If something is merely an argument rather than an alternative theory then all tests would not apply - but some will allow you to evaluate the significance and credibility / value of argument.

But you used the term "conspiracy theory". Your friend did not say these are 10 points to test the Apollo Hoax theory. This is a typical tactic of those who wish to defend the status quo to try and smear critics with the label "conspiracy theorists". Unless you can accurately define it, the term is meaningless and should not be used.

[Evan Burton]

Point taken - I'll relay that on to him for his consideration.

[Duane Daman]

But you used the term "conspiracy theory". Your friend did not say these are 10 points to test the Apollo Hoax theory. This is a typical tactic of those who wish to defend the status quo to try and smear critics with the label "conspiracy theorists". Unless you can accurately define it, the term is meaningless and should not be used.

I couldn't agree more .... but it's better to be called a "conspiracy theorist " than it is some of the other delightful names used by those who defend the status quo .

[Cliff Varnell]

Here is is another interesting point of view....

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html

SEEING THE UNSEEN, Part 2

(This is the long-overdue second part of an examination of the value of critical thinking. Part 1 is here. The final installment will deal with the issue of Global Warming)

Occam’s Razor is the idea that when confronted with competing theories that explain certain data equally well, the simplest one is usually correct.

This clown wouldn't know Occam's Razor from the butter knife his Mom uses

for his pb&j.

The first place you utilize Occam's Razor is YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, to rigorously

eliminate the "assumptions" that may be contained within. This takes a degree

of intellectual honesty unavailable to Proteus, who doesn't appear to have

ever looked outside the box of his own incredibly gullible belief system.

It’s called Occam’s Razor, and not Occam’s Hypothesis, or Occam’s Theorem, or Occam’s Bit of Useful Advice, because it is a razor – it cuts cleanly and with great efficiency.

And though it pains me to say so, this culture is in desperate need of a shave.

IT’S A CONSPIRACY!

To make the knee-jerk claim -- "Conspiracy!" -- to explain every event is just

as formulaic as making knee-jerk denials of conspiracy.

Every case has to be evaluated on its own facts. To lump Moon Hoax or Chemtrails

with the JFK assassination or 9/11 is formulaic thinking at its worst -- the assumption

that all investigations into official malfeasance derive from the same "mindset."

Isn't it amazing that criminal conspiracies exist at all levels of society -- except, if you

buy what Proteus is pimping, at the very top?

Is Proteus so enamored of Authority Figures that he cannot imagine any of

them conspiring to commit crimes?

I want to forgo the niceties of the hot towel and go straight for the jugular on this one. My goal here is not to bust any of these four conspiracy theories; that has all been done much more effectively elsewhere.

Oh yes, those writers who conform to Proteus' prejudices do a great job of

"busting" conspiracy theories.

As far as JFK goes, any actual critical thinking shows otherwise.

Take Posner. According to Proteus' hero the recently released Jefferies film

shows JFK's jacket "precisely" in the position required by the Single Bullet

Theory to align the holes in the clothes with an inshoot at the base of the

neck.

At four inches below the clothing collars, the bullet defects in JFK's shirt

and jacket are at least 2 inches below the in-shoot level of the SBT.

http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv

Hey Craig, you're the photo analysis expert -- care to note the fact that JFK's

shirt collar wasn't visible at the back of his neck in this film, taken 90 seconds

before the shooting?

Now please follow JFK as he turned the corner onto Elm St. in the Towner film:

http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg

Can you see JFK's shirt collar at the back of his neck on Elm St, taken within

4 or 5 seconds of the shooting?

Nothing "theoretical" here. It is a readily observed FACT that JFK's shirt

collar was NOT visible at the back of his neck in footage taken on Main St.,

but the shirt collar WAS VISIBLE in the footage taken on Elm St.

Hmmmm...gee...what could possibly explain that phenomenon?

Hey Craig -- did JFK's jacket collar turn magically transparent?

No, of course not, that's silly.

Did the shirt hike up his neck a couple of inches?

No, because he was shot in the throat below the adams apple and there

are no bullet holes in the front of the shirt.

Besides, a shirt collar is held in place with a button and a knotted tie,

while a jacket collar obviously is not.

Could it be that... JFK's jacket collar actually DROPPED?

Yes, the Houston St. segment of the Nix film shows exactly that.

So Posner's claim in "Case Closed" -- that JFK's clothing was "bunched up"

in Dealey Plaza -- is debunked by the motorcade films and photos that

show just the opposite occuring.

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

But Proteus couldn't bother with the most basic facts of the case.

Puts him in company with a surprising number of "CTs."

What I am trying to do here is to build a chain of evidence to show a progressively deteriorating epidemic of world-wide insanity, of truly diseased thinking -- not just a misunderstanding or difference of opinion but real, diagnosable mental illness.

But all Proteus succeeds in doing is displaying his own ignorance of the basic

facts of the JFK case, and an astonishing gullibility in general.

[snip disingenuous conflating of Moon Hoax with JFK, 9/11]

But these denialists – the Moon Hoaxers and the 9/11 “Truthers” – these are a different breed.

Unfortunately, Proteus is part of the same old breed of suckers who buy at face

value any specious "argument" coming from any figure of "Authority."

First is was Lifton, then it was Posner.

And because it is so much simpler to lump all these disparate events into one

easily disposable bag, he doesn't have to make any effort at research in order

to claim he's a superior "critical thinker."

And they are cut from precisely the same cloth. That is to say, they suffer from the same disease: an unwillingness to face reality and its consequences.

Pure psychological projection. Because he is unwilling to face the basic facts

of the JFK case, or 9/11, Proteus is free of the burden of making an actual

argument.

[snip Moon Hoax irrelevancies]

As I was leaving Joe’s, he said something I’m sure he thought was very funny. He said, “Man, I’ll bet a guy like you thinks Lee Harvey Oswald really shot JFK.”

Of course he shot JFK, Joe. Who do you think did it? The American Beef Council?

Joe looked at me the way I had been looking at him. That is to say, he simply could not process that I could hold such a belief in my head.

You’re serious?

I’m dead serious. I recommended Case Closed, by Gerald Posner – without question the best piece of critical reasoning, research and logic I have ever read, bar none.

Right. The bullet holes in the clothes are 2+ inches below the

SBT in-shoot, and the Dealey Plaza films and photos clearly show

the jacket dropped.

And yet due to Posner's "critical analysis" Proteus will buy the lie that

the jacket was "bunched up" multiple inches, despite all evidence to

the contrary.

P.T. Barnum made a fortune off of guys like this.

I suspect he did not follow my advice. Books like that are bad for his business.

Man, you’re out there, said Joe.

You know, the sad thing is, I’m starting to believe he is right.

A quick aside…

Back around 1989 or so, I had just moved to LA and was working the night shift as a limousine driver. I had a miserable little apartment in North Hollywood. I had heard of a book that had published the autopsy pictures of President Kennedy, and how it contained compelling evidence of a conspiracy. It was called Best Evidence and I bought it.

It doesn’t rain often in Los Angeles, but it rained the night I read that book. Its author, David Lifton, claimed that Kennedy was shot from the front, but then the body was secretly taken from Air Force One to Walter Reed Army Hospital where extensive surgery “reversed” the trajectory of the wounds to make it look like poor patsy Oswald was the real assassin.

When I finally got to the payoff a shot of electricity went through me. I realized that I was now in possession of such history-changing information that I distinctly recall getting up, opening the door and peering out into the rain to see if I was being watched. I felt, truly, for one half-hour that my life might be in danger. I wish I could say I am making this up.

That sense of uncovering deep layers of ancient cover-ups is what drove the sales of The DaVinci Code. There, too, a web of truths, half-truths and outright fabrication spun a story that left the reader with a palpable sense of awe. It made you feel important, like you knew something absolutely essential that very few others ever were privileged to know.

Now most normal people do not look at life from within a pit of failure and despair. Our lives are measured by small successes -- like raising children, serving in the military, doing volunteer work at your church – or just doing the right thing in a thousand small but important ways, like returning money if someone makes you too much change.

These are simply the small, ordinary milestones of a life of value. They give you a sense of identity.

But if I didn’t have that sense of identity rooted in my own small achievements, I wonder how likely it would have been for me to grab onto that sense of sudden empowerment, of being an initiate in some arcane club of hidden wisdom. I wonder what might have happened to me if being the Holder of Secret Knowledge had been my only source of self-esteem… the one redeeming landmark in a life of isolation and failure. Indeed, I wonder what power such a worldview would have over me if I could believe that behind the scenes lurked vast and unknowable dark forces – forces that could topple a president and perhaps even explain why a person of my deep, vast and bountiful talents was not doing a whole lot better in life?

I wonder what might have happened to me then.

Because I did not need to believe in Giant Wheels of Conspiracy grinding John F. Kennedy to dust, I was relieved and not a little embarrassed when I finally read Case Closed. It was – quite vividly – like opening a window in a musty, cluttered, book-filled room and feeling the cool breeze of reason and logic air out the mind.

It appears that Proteus needs authority figures to tell him it's all "okay."

This is not the place for me to debate whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin that day. That would take an entire book, exhaustively researched, with extensive footnoting and reference to primary sources.

Egregious bullxxxx. A four year old could watch the Jefferies, Nix and Towner

films and see that the jacket dropped.

The holes in the clothes are too low.

The SBT is a lie. And those who repeat this lie, like Proteus, simply cannot

summon the intellectual honesty required to overcome the power of their

prejudices.

There is such a book, it is called Case Closed, and as I said, it performs its function better than any book I have ever read.

I am more interested in the psychology of someone who believes in these conspiracy theories. I exempt people who have only heard one side of the story, as I did. Sadly, skepticism doesn’t sell as well as hysteria. With regards to The View, ABC and Disney would rather count their ad money than waste potential revenues placing the truth for sale. If this offends you as much as it does me, you may make your purchases and plan your vacations accordingly.

Intellectually honest people, people without a deep, vested emotional need to believe the worst, are usually relieved to hear the facts that demolish superstitions like the Bermuda Triangle and the Loch Ness Monster. While there may be disappointment at the loss of an unseen world, people who have chosen to live in reality find comfort in the fact that reality is, in fact, made up of the real and not the wished for.

No, what fascinates me is the emotional motive of people who, presented with overwhelming evidence that the events that transpired on November 22nd, 1963 or September 11th, 2001 really happened exactly the way it appeared, continue to spin ever more elaborate webs in order to get to a place they need to be emotionally. Who are you going to believe: them or your own lying eyes?

A Posner devotee citing "intellectual honesty"!

I love it.

It is SO entertaining to watch these blow-hards make fools of themselves.

Proteus is emotionally incapable of believing what his own eyes would show if

he bothered to open them and look at the Dealey Plaza films and photos -- the

jacket dropped.

The holes in the clothes are well below the throat wound. If the jacket was

"precisely" in the position required by the SBT in the Jefferies film, as per the Poz,

it sure as hell wasn't in that position on Elm St.

Anyone with functioning eyeballs can see the difference.

Proteus' precious LNT is demolished by the analysis of his own hero, Posner!

The universe has a wicked sense of humor, wot?

[Craig Lamson]

Nice post there Cliff...shall I pass you some window cleaner and a towel so you can clean the spittle from your keyboard and monitor?

Thanks so much for making the author of the Eject articles point so perfectly. I can't imagine how much it must suck to live in a fantasy world where you must invent a imaginary shooter to keep your ideology and worldview alive. Maybe you can tell us.....

Anyway, lets cut to the chase. I’ve watched with great amusement as you have prattled on incessantly about your holy grail...the jacket collar. Entertaining stuff...misguided and quite the assumption but entertaining.

Cliff sez that the jacket is shown to have DROPPED and as such all bets are off for the SBT. Cliff even sez a 4 year old could see that the jacket has dropped. Man I love it when a CT makes such exact claims because they will most certainly be shown to be wrong, making the said CT look quite silly in the process. And you Cliff are about to look quite silly.

Lets look at your claim. You make it based and the fact that the shirt collar changes its relationship to the jacket collar and as such you state in no uncertain terms that this means the jack has dropped. BEEP BEEP BEEP! Back up the bus there Cliff. Are there ANY OTHER REASONS WHY THE SHIRT COLLAR/JACKET COLLAR MIGHT CHANGE POSITIONS? Why sure there are.

1. The shirt collar acts independently of the jacket collar. Tilting the head slightly forward or backwards can increase or decrease the amount of white shirt collar showing above the jacket.

2. The Jacket collar can move independently of the bunched fabric of the jacket and move without the entire jacket dropping.

3. Some combination of the above.

Interestingly, as a professional photographer I have made quite a few executive portraits, many with the exec seat behind his desk with an arm resting on the desk...not unlike JFK in these limo. These guys don't like bulging jackets and puckered collars .... and you would be surprised what it takes to make these things go away. They simply do not "DROP" with out taking some sort of action. As long as the arm is raised the jacket will buckle...fact of life. Also as the subject leans back into his chair the fabric gets trapped in the up position. You need to move the subject away from the seatback and PULL the fabric down. Then you need quite a few pieces of gaffer tape and other sundry devices to keep the bunched jacket manageable. Did JKF use gaffer tape to “drop” his jacket? I think not.

So tell me Cliff. Did you apply the RAZOR to your argument? Looks like the intellectually honest answer would be NO!

Why don’t we apply it now? What we know…the collar of the jacket and the collar of the shirt change positions relative to each other. Was it caused by:

The jacket dropping?

The head moving slightly?

The jacket collar moving while the bunched fabric remains in the same position?

Or a combination of all the above?

Your argument requires a second , as of yet imaginary, shooter…two wounds that are entrance only, and a jacket, “pinned in place” by a raised arm and a body against a seatback to “DROP”

The other possibilities listed only require the bunched fabric of the jacket and shirt to not move beyond what is requires for the SBT.

It seems to me that the RAZOR slices and dices your argument to pieces.

Of course understanding this requires you summon the intellectual honesty required to overcome the power of yourprejudices.

[Cliff Varnell]

Nice post there Cliff...shall I pass you some window cleaner and a towel so you can clean the spittle from your keyboard and monitor?

Nice insult, Craig...Take long to think it up?

Your insult would have more punch, btw, if you quoted me directly.

Since it takes intellectual courage to make a point by point rebuttal of what

your opponent actually wrote, you're safer not quoting me directly at all.

Thanks so much for making the author of the Eject articles point so perfectly.

I can't imagine how much it must suck to live in a fantasy world where you must invent a imaginary shooter to keep your ideology and worldview alive. Maybe you can tell us.....Anyway, lets cut to the chase. I’ve watched with great amusement as you have prattled on incessantly about your holy grail...the jacket collar.

Then why don't you quote me directly?

After all, I love directly quoting the amusing prattle of you and Proteus.

Ricidule carries no bite, otherwise.

Btw, you don't seem to have fully processed the fact that the bullet holes

in the shirt and jacket are 4 inches and 4 & 1/8 inches respectively below

the bottom of the collars.

The Single Bullet Theory requires an in-tandem elevation of the shirt

and jacket more than two inches, more like three inches if the results

of the "Unsolved History" Australian SBT Team are taken into account

(chest exit suggests SBT inshoot higher than C7/T1).

The near identical location of the holes in the clothes is the core issue, Craig.

Entertaining stuff...misguided and quite the assumption but entertaining.

Cliff sez that the jacket is shown to have DROPPED and as such all bets are off for the SBT.

It ain't what *I* sez -- it's what the films show. JFK had the same posture in both

of these films as the limo passed the camera.

http://video.jfk.org/George_Jefferies_film.wmv

http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg

On Main St. his jacket collar rode up to his hairline, about an inch above

the top of the shirt collar.

On Elm St. the jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck.

Occam's Razor -- the jacket fell.

Out of one side of your mouth you describe jackets and shirts moving independently,

while out of the other side of your mouth you claim JFK's shirt and jacket moved

in tandem multiple inches.

Highly entertaining, this "critical thinking" of yours.

Cliff even sez a 4 year old could see that the jacket has dropped. Man I love it when a CT makes such exact claims because they will most certainly be shown to be wrong, making the said CT look quite silly in the process. And you Cliff are about to look quite silly.

Let's look at your claim.

Your contentless dismissals aside, I make no claims.

I cite the easily observed fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

You make it based and the fact that the shirt collar changes its relationship to the

jacket collar and as such you state in no uncertain terms that this means the jack

has dropped.

I make it based on what?

The shirt collar was occluded on Main St., visible on Elm St.

How is this phenomenon explained?

That is the issue at hand.

BEEP BEEP BEEP! Back up the bus there Cliff. Are there ANY OTHER REASONS WHY THE SHIRT COLLAR/JACKET COLLAR MIGHT CHANGE POSITIONS?

More precision in framing the argument, please.

What are the reasons for the shirt collar being occluded on Main St. but

visible on Elm St.?

Why sure there are.

1. The shirt collar acts independently of the jacket collar.

Correct! Thank you for making this key point, Craig.

Your observation is contrary to the requirements of the Single Bullet Theory,

which assumes the shirt and jacket elevated 2+ inches IN TANDEM.

You stipulate to the fact that the collars moved independently; care to

reconcile that fact with your SBT, which requires the shirt and jacket

below the collars to have moved multi-inches in tandem?

Facts:

The jacket has padded shoulders, the shirt does not.

The jacket has an addition layer of lining, the shirt is a single layer of thin cotton.

The shirt was tucked into belted trousers -- the jacket was not.

The shirt was buttoned to the neck -- the jacket was not.

The shirt collar was held in place with a knotted tie -- the jacket collar

was not.

Shirts and jackets don't move the same -- the SBT assumes that JFK's did.

Your observation goes a long way to demolishing that assumption.

(Don't shake your head right now, Craig -- it might fall off.)

Tilting the head slightly forward or backwards can increase or decrease the amount of

white shirt collar showing above the jacket.

Correct! Excellent observation, Craig.

Key word: "slightly"

Slight, casual movements of the body cause slight movements of the clothing,

measured in millimeters.

The SBT posits a multi-inch movement of the jacket and shirt.

Pointing out "slight" movements is inconsistent with your SBT, Craig.

Here is an excellent example of what you describe, a fact consistent

with my argument.

This is JFK in Fort Worth with his head tilted slightly up...

Normally, the amount of exposed shirt collar at the nape of JFK's

neck would be 1/2", but in that photo it was a few millimeters less.

This is a fact, not an assumption, as follows:

Distance of the lower margin of JFK's jacket collar to it's upper margin: 1.25"

at the nape of the neck.

Distance of the lower margin of JFK's shirt collar to it's upper margin 1.75"

at the nape of the neck.

1/2" = 12.5mm.

Craig Lamson, you are on record defending the theory that JFK's shirt and

jacket elevated in tandem some 50 - 75mm, but you cite millimeter movements

of clothing that can be accurately measured in single digits.

Slight, casual movements cause slight movements of clothing.

Thank you for making this key point, Craig.

The SBT doesn't posit "slight" movements of clothing. You need

2+ inchs of clothing elevation, Craig -- where in the Dealey Plaza

photos can you identify more than a fraction of an inch of jacket

elevation?

Thrill us with your photo-analytic abilities, Craig.

Tell us, on what basis are we to buy the claim that JFK's shirt

and jacket were both elevated 2" to 3" in this photo, taken on Houston:

The jacket was flat on his back, no bulge -- the jacket collar rode

above the top of the shirt collar but not all the way into the hairline.

Amount of jacket elevation?

About an inch, give or take a few millimeters.

The Towner film shows a normal amount of exposed shirt

collar. The jacket collar dropped an inch, but the back of

the jacket below the collar remained elevated a fraction of an

inch.

A fraction of an inch is not the same thing as multiple inches.

But you'll shamelessly pimp this non sequitur until your last breath:

1) The Single Bullet Theory requires 2 to 3 inches of shirt and

jacket elevation in tandem, entirely above the SBT inshoot at

the base of the neck.

2) JFK's jacket was "bunched" in the Croft photo (Z161).

3) Therefore, JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2 to 3 inches

entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of the neck.

(Yes Craig, that is your foot you just shot off. But you've got plenty

of ammo and plenty of toes and yer nose left.)

2. The Jacket collar can move independently of the bunched fabric of the jacket and move without the entire jacket dropping.

"Without the entire jacket dropping."

So, your argument that JFK's jacket was bunched up significantly, 2 - 3 inches, is the

observation that the jacket moved "without the entire jacket dropping"?

How does the entire jacket not dropping equal the jacket bunching up

multiple inches?

A fraction of an inch of jacket elevation is ALL you can honestly identify, Craig.

HOW COULD the jacket collar drop to a normal position at the base of

his neck if there were 2+" of jacket and 2+" of shirt bunched up entirely

above the in-shoot at the base of his neck?

How do disparate, solid objects occupy the same physical space at the

same time?

The burden of proof is on you to show where in these photos the

shirt and jacket were elevated the 2" to 3" your theory requires.

3. Some combination of the above.

Interestingly, as a professional photographer I have made quite a few executive portraits, many with the exec seat behind his desk with an arm resting on the desk...not unlike JFK in these limo. These guys don't like bulging jackets and puckered collars .... and you would be surprised what it takes to make these things go away.

Same with the shirt, right?

Are you claiming here that the shirts of your clients gave you the same trouble

as their suit jackets?

Did the fabric around the shoulders of the shirt move just like the

fabric around the shoulders of the jacket?

No, if you claim it did you'd be lying.

The reasons you get bulging jackets and puckered collars is because

the jacket isn't tucked into the pants, and the jacket has thicker shoulders.

The shirt is tucked into the pants, the shirt doesn't have padded shoulders

Btw, you couldn't replicate the movement of clothing required by the SBT

even if you reached over and yanked. Don't pull a muscle trying to replicate

your theory, Craig.

So yes, you are correct to argue that the jacket moves independently of the shirt,

which would be the intellectually honest conclusion to draw.

But you draw the opposite conclusion when you cite the SBT, Craig.

Intellectually indefensible.

Craig:

(quote on)

They simply do not "DROP" with out taking some sort of action.

(quote off)

Like when JFK leaned forward to chat with Nellie, as captured in the Nix.

(Coming soon -- "Six From the Nix")

Craig:

(quote on)

As long as the arm is raised the jacket will buckle...fact of life.

Also as the subject leans back into his chair the fabric gets trapped in the up position.

You need to move the subject away from the seatback and PULL the fabric down.

Then you need quite a few pieces of gaffer tape and other sundry devices to keep

the bunched jacket manageable. Did JKF use gaffer tape to “drop” his jacket? I think

not.

(quote off)

Please show us where in this photo JFK's jacket "buckled."

And please tell us if you use gaffer tape to keep the shirt from riding up.

Did you find that the shirt moved JUST LIKE the jacket, and you had

a hard time with that too, Craig?

Is that what you're going to claim?

No, the jacket moved independently of the shirt. The shirt was tucked in, etc.

How does this bolster your argument that JFK's shirt and jacket were

elevated 2 - 3 inches in tandem?

Craig:

(quote on)

So tell me Cliff. Did you apply the RAZOR to your argument?

Looks like the intellectually honest answer would be NO!

(quote off)

You haven't quoted me making any assumptions.

As soon as you directly quote me making a statement that assumes

anything, we can argue the point.

Craig:

(quote on)

Why don’t we apply it now? What we know…the collar of the jacket and

the collar of the shirt change positions relative to each other.

(quote off)

Your lack of specificity is inartful, to say the least.

What we know: that on Main St. JFK's jacket's bunched up

into his hairline, but on Elm St. the jacket collar rode in a

normal position at the base of his neck.

Craig comes in for the kill:

(quote on)

Was it caused by:

The jacket dropping?

The head moving slightly?

(quote off)

Where have you established that a slight movement of the body

will result in anything more than a slight movement of the clothing?

That is a key fallacious assumption of yours. Just because there

is a slight movement or bunch of the clothing you absurdly assume it

involves 2" to 3" of elevated fabric.

Craig:

(quote on)

The jacket collar moving while the bunched fabric remains in the same position?

Or a combination of all the above?

(quote off)

Let's go over them again.

1) The jacket drops. Self-explanatory.

2) The head moved slightly. This involves a slight movement of the clothing.

3) The jacket collar drops but some of the back of the jacket doesn't drop.

How does a fraction of an inch of remaining jacket elevation translate into 2" to 3"

of elevation of both the shirt and the jacket?

Craig:

(quote on)

Your argument requires a second , as of yet imaginary, shooter…two wounds

that are entrance only, and a jacket, “pinned in place” by a raised arm and a

body against a seatback to “DROP”

(quote off)

When you put quotations around words you imply they are mine.

I never spoke of a jacket pinned in place.

I just track its movements in the motorcade films and photos.

Out of one side of your mouth you sanctimoniously invoke "intellectual honesty"

while out of the other side of your mouth you carny-bark non-sequitur, as follows.

(quote on)

The other possibilities listed only require the bunched fabric of the jacket and

shirt to not move beyond what is requires for the SBT.

(quote off)

Where have you established that the clothing moved the multiple inches

required by the SBT?

Why can't you apply your analysis to specific motorcade photos?

What is required by the SBT is multiple inches of shirt and jacket moving in

tandem without pushing up on the jacket collar.

You can't identify anything like that in the Dealey Plaza films and photos.

(Craig concludes with this amazing expression of self-delusion):

(quote on)

It seems to me that the RAZOR slices and dices your argument to pieces.

Of course understanding this requires you summon the intellectual honesty

required to overcome the power of yourprejudices.

(quote off)

Before you can take the RAZOR to my argument you have to quote me

directly and in full.

Until then, you're just blowing smoke absent anything but the same old

dreary lies.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Cliff sez…

Since it takes intellectual courage to make a point by point rebuttal…prattle, prattle prattle….

No Cliff, all it takes is the ability to cut and paste. But if it makes you feel better please continue. Not that it helps your failed argument to post a 9 page reply. Of course ANYONE who is interested can check back to see your EXACT words if they so desire.

Cliff sez…

prattle, prattle, prattle,….The near identical location of the holes in the clothes is the core issue, Craig.

No Cliff, the core issue is how well your assumption that JFK’s jacket fell before he was shot holds up to the RAZOR….

Cliff sez…

It ain't what *I* sez -- it's what the films show. …prattle, prattle, prattle

On Main St. his jacket collar rode up to his hairline, about an inch above

the top of the shirt collar.

On Elm St. the jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck.

Occam's Razor -- the jacket fell.

Sorry Cliff but that’s not what the films show at all. Maybe you can’t really see what is there because you are blinded by your worldview or perhaps its because the characters in the films are not dressed in King, Queen and Jacks costumes. In any case you simply have no skill at analyzing the JFK films. Did you attend the Jack White School for Photographic Interpretation?

But let’s cut to the chase…

Jeffries shows JFK in profile as he passes and it is CLEAR that his jacket collar is BELOW the top of his shirt collar AND shows as he comes out from behind Jackie that his jacket is bunched ( or whatever word of choice you desire) to the extent that it obscures the jacket and shirt collar when viewed from behind. In other words the jacket collar is down and the back of the jacket is greatly raised.

Next we have Altgens2, which Cliff sez…

Prattle, prattle, prattle…

The jacket was flat on his back, no bulge -- the jacket collar rode

above the top of the shirt collar but not all the way into the hairline.

Amount of jacket elevation?

About an inch, give or take a few millimeters.

Anyone who would make the claim you made concerning the Altgens would have to be very foolish because the image shows no such thing, at least not to any certanity. First there is NO indication of a jacket collar being visible. If it’s there, WHERE is the shadowline from the bottom of the collar? The correct answer is that there is NO shadowline because there is no jacket collar visible! What do we see in Altgens? We see the back of JFK’s jacket bunched up and obscuring his jacket collar and shirt collar. Given the low camera angle we cannot see over the bunch to the jacket and shirt collar. Also the sun angle is at near zero phase which means any shadows from the jacket bunch fall below and behind the top of the bunch, and thus are obscured from view.

We can also check to see if this assumption about what is seen in the Altgens is correct by viewing the next film …the Towner.

The Towner is of low quality ( at least what I have been able to find) and the excessive contrast makes detailed examinations of the highlights and shadow difficult. However we can determine a few things from the film. As the limo rounds the corner and heads down Elm, you can see the white of JFK’s collar above the collar of the jacket. You can also see the bunch in the as JFK passes in front of a spectator dressed in white clothing. Like in Jefferies we have a visible shirt collar AND a bunched jacket. This confirms the Altgens as well. In Towner we never see JFK from behind to the extent of Altgens or Jeffries and thus we never see the bunched jacket obscure the shirt and jacket collar.

Finally in Zapruder the bunched jacket is again seen over the right shoulder of JFK.

Four films all show the bunched jacket…on Main ST, On Houston St., on Elm before the back shot and on Elm AFTER to back shot.

What does all of this mean? Quite simply that there is ZERO evidence to support Cliffs theory that the JACKET DROPPED

So again we find that the RAZOR cuts Cliff to pieces.

He needs:

Something to support a “Jacket Drop”

A second shooter and a fourth shot ( which Cliff also claims is 100% certain…lord knows how…)

Two entrance wounds and no exit wounds ( which Cliff claims were caused by …”Blood soluble bullets LOL!)

Of course there is NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY OF THIS!

The SBT ( or at least the part connected to the back wound) need only to have evidence that the Jacket remained bunched. That it has.

Final score Razor1…Cliff Zero.

And BTW, I know I have not addressed the rest of your handwaving speculation, nor will I. It has NO BEARING. The Jacket was raised…period.

Speculate to your hearts desire Cliff. As I have come to find out, you will never change your stance regardless of the evidence. It’s perfectly clear you fail on the photographic evidence, and that’s all that matters for the RAZOR to slice you up.

Enjoy!

[Craig Lamson]

bump