Eject! Eject! Eject!

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig, you continue to pimp the same old non sequitur.

1) The SBT requires 2+" of JFK's jacket and 2+" of his shirt to have

elevated entirely above the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1.

2) The motorcade photos show JFK's jacket had folds in the upper back.

3) Therefore 2+" of his jacket and 2+" of his shirt were elevated entirely

above the SBT in-shoot at C7/T1.

Tell us, Craig, when are you going to outline your methodology for making

the determination that ANY of the motorcade photo images show a 2+"

elevation of the jacket?...Craig?

Or do you think if you repeat your conclusion over and over that alone will

establish it's credibility?

As to the fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, let's cut to the chase,

indeed...

The image below is from the Jefferies film, and shows the jacket riding

OVER the top of the shirt collar at the back of JFK's neck.

This is how Craig describes it:

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.

So, according to Craig's analysis, the shirt and jacket collars were already

in normal positions at the base of JFK's neck but the jacket elevation "obscures

the jacket and shirt collar when viewed from behind."

Here's a frame from the Towner film -- a view from behind.

JFK's shirt collar was clearly visible at the back of the neck and

his right shoulder-line was smooth.

JFK on Main St. -- shirt collar occluded, the "bunch" was above the

shoulder-line.

JFK on Elm St. -- shirt collar highly visible AT THE BACK OF THE NECK,

the right shoulder-line was smooth.

JFK's jacket CLEARLY dropped about an inch, going from a half-inch

or so above the top of the shirt collar to a half-inch or so below the top

of the shirt collar.

Craig, all you can describe with your "slight tilt" dodge are movements of

the collars measured in millimeters.

Then you turn around and assume that these "slight" millimeter changes

account for the multi-inch discrepancy between the bullet holes in the clothes

and the SBT inshoot at the base of the neck.

Your claim that a "slight tilt" of the head would account for the 1 inch-plus

difference between the position of the jacket on Main and the position

of the jacket on Elm St. is debunked by the photo on the left, taken on

Main St.

JFK's jacket rode up into his hairline, but his posture was similar to the posture

shown in the Towner frame -- head turned to the right, right arm waving.

Tell us Craig, where is the "tilt" of the head that explains why the shirt

collar was occluded on Main St. AT THE BACK OF THE NECK (a fact to which

you stipulate) but visible on Elm St. AT THE BACK OF THE NECK.

Gentle reader, take the RAZOR to Craig's claim thusly:

1) Put the tip of your forefinger at the bottom of your hairline

at the nape of your neck.

2) Lean your head back until your finger tip touches the top of your

shirt collar.

3) Find the Dealey Plaza photo that shows JFK in that position.

The first two you'll be able to do.

The third one you won't.

Enjoy!

[Craig Lamson]

Piss poor attempt at spin Cliff.

But thanks for making my point that you are worthless at photo analysis.

I've made my points Cliff and my photo analysis is spot on. You can choose to believe it or not because I really don't care what you think.

I've shown ( and I suggest that everyone check it for themself) that JFK's jacket was bunched on Main, Houston and Elm, before and after the shooting.

Note in Towner at 6-7 seconds you can CLEARLY see the bunch just as it is seen in Jefferies. Cliff shows you a MUCH later frame from Towner and the camera angle (very similar to Altgens2) shows the BUNCH of the jacket obscuring the top of the shirt collar. The jacket has not "dropped" as Cliff imagines.

You on the the other hand have shown NOTHING. Your attempt to show the "jacket dropped" is predicated on your assumption that if the jacket collar is below the top of the shirt collar the jacket must have dropped. Sorry CT'er but Jefferies proves that assumption to be false, and THAT ALONE blows you right out of the water.

No need to measure anything, No need to speculate about one inch or two, because NONE of it matters if the jacket is bunched! And bunched it is..a quite large bunch, in Jefferies, Altgens, Towner and Zapruder.

Now you can continue to prattle on as you please, which I'm sure you will given your long track record of beating this dead horse. I really don't care, because if you have actually read the posts in this thread you will know that I don't care who killed JFK...its old news.

Now why not go back to shuffling cards, because you suck at photo analysis.

Enjoy...and goodbye.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Piss poor attempt at spin Cliff.

But thanks for making my point that you are worthless at photo analysis.

Are you denying that the Towner film shows the shirt collar at the back

of the neck?

If you are, you're not telling the truth.

Any one can see it.

I've made my points Cliff and my photo analysis is spot on.

Fine. The jacket and shirt collars were in a normal position

at the base of the neck.

The jacket rode up over the top of the shirt and jacket collars

at the back of JFK's neck on Main St.

But the Towner film shows the shirt collar AT THE BACK OF THE

NECK.

Are you denying this?

Yes or no?

While you're at it, please share your methodology for making the determination

that the jacket was elevated more than one inch in Dealey Plaza.

You can choose to believe it or not because I really don't care what you think.

I've shown ( and I suggest that everyone check it for themself) that JFK's jacket was bunched on Main, Houston and Elm, before and after the shooting.

Sure. !.5" of "bunch" on Main St., 1" of "bunch" on Houston St., a fraction

of an inch of "bunch" on Elm St.

How does a fraction of an inch reconcile with the SBT, which needs 2+"?

Is this your idea of "clear thinking"-- pimping the same old non sequitur

ad nauseum ad infinitum?

You on the the other hand have shown NOTHING.

1 more time.

JFK on Main St., jacket over the top of the shirt collar AT THE BACK OF THE NECK:

JFK on Elm St, shirt collar visible AT THE BACK OF THE NECK

Are you denying that JFK's shirt collar was visible at the BACK OF HIS NECK

on Elm St?

Yes or no?

Your attempt to show the "jacket dropped" is predicated on your assumption that if the jacket collar is below the top of the shirt collar the jacket must have dropped.

What are you blathering about?

In my previous post I stipulated to YOUR description of Jefferies.

I then posted a frame from Jefferies that illustrated the points to which

you and I BOTH will (for the sake of argument) agree upon.

Do you need a re-run on this, too? Refresh your memory?

You wrote:

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.

Yes, the jacket was elevated "to the extent that it obscures the jacket and shirt

collar when viewed from behind."

I then posted a frame from the Towner film -- a view from behind -- that

clearly shows the shirt collar.

Why was the shirt collar "obscured" on Main St. but visible on Elm St.?

Because the jacket dropped. The jacket was no longer "elevated to the

extent" that was anywhere near what the SBT requires.

Obviously.

That nonsense about "slight tilting" hasn't made your last couple of posts.

Giving up on the "slight tilt" rationale, Craig?

Sorry CT'er but Jefferies proves that assumption to be false, and THAT ALONE blows

you right out of the water.

I stipulate to your analysis of Jefferies.

Any objective comparision of the Jefferies with Towner blows YOUR assumptions

right out of the water.

No need to measure anything,

Bingo!

Shoot yourself in both feet, blow off your nose, declare victory and depart the field.

Just repeat over and over like all the other intellectually dishonest LNers

that if there is "bunch" in a jacket -- that "bunch" is consistent with the

SBT no matter what.

You all do this. It's so much fun to watch!

[Craig Lamson]

Are you denying that the Towner film shows the shirt collar at the back

of the neck?

If you are, you're not telling the truth.

Any one can see it.

Where in Towner Cliff? In the frame you posted the back of the neck is obscured by the jacket bunch. Early in Towner (6-7 seconds) the jacket collar/shirt collar is just as it is in the Jefferies before JFK passes behind Jackie...Jacket collar below the top of the shirt collar...with the BUNCH behind. You simply can't see.

Fine. The jacket and shirt collars were in a normal position

at the base of the neck.

The jacket rode up over the top of the shirt and jacket collars

at the back of JFK's neck on Main St.

But the Towner film shows the shirt collar AT THE BACK OF THE

NECK.

Are you denying this?

Yes or no?

NO! You see the shirt collar at the SIDE of the neck. It is obscured at the back of the neck by the bunch!

While you're at it, please share your methodology for making the determination

that the jacket was elevated more than one inch in Dealey Plaza.

Why? I don't need to measure anything (or PRETEND to measure like you do) to shoot you down.

Sure. !.5" of "bunch" on Main St., 1" of "bunch" on Houston St., a fraction

of an inch of "bunch" on Elm St.

How does a fraction of an inch reconcile with the SBT, which needs 2+"?

Handwaving Cliff...worthless handwaving. And YOUR methodology is????? Why of course YOU HAVE NONE!

Is this your idea of "clear thinking"-- pimping the same old non sequitur

ad nauseum ad infinitum?

No Cliff the only "pimp" here is you...

1 more time.

JFK on Main St., jacket over the top of the shirt collar AT THE BACK OF THE NECK:

No Cliff...Jacket BUNCH obscures the jacket collar/shirt collar. Jacket collar is below the shirt collar top. (See the film BEFORE JFK slips behind Jackie)

JFK on Elm St, shirt collar visible AT THE BACK OF THE NECK

Are you denying that JFK's shirt collar was visible at the BACK OF HIS NECK

on Elm St?

Yes or no?

Where in Towner Cliff? In the frame you posted the back of the neck is obscured by the jacket bunch. Early in Towner (6-7 sseconds) the jacket collar/shirt collar is just as it is in the Jefferies before JFK passes behind Jackie...Jacket collar below the top of the shirt collar...with the BUNCH behind. You simply can't see.

Game, Set and Match...

You continue to beat a dead horse based on your inability to understand what is in the films. Sorry Cliff but your bluff has been called....you lose. Maybe you can find a sucker somewhere that thinks you have a case but not the intellectually honest.

We are done Cliff.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

Well !! ... You sure got him told off, didn't you Craig " ? .. You always have to have the final say and you dismiss other people's opinions as if they are not even worthy of your valuable time or attention .

Spoken like a true narcissistic sociopath .

[Craig Lamson]

Well !! ... You sure got him told off, didn't you Craig " ? .. You always have to have the final say and you dismiss other people's opinions as if they are not even worthy of your valuable time or attention .

Spoken like a true narcissistic sociopath .

Cliffs opinion is simply not grounded in fact, like most of what you post Duane.

[Evan Burton]

It seems that this thread now more properly belongs in the JFK section. Unless there are any serious objections, I'll move it over in a day or so.

[Craig Lamson]

It seems that this thread now more properly belongs in the JFK section. Unless there are any serious objections, I'll move it over in a day or so.

I'm done with it and it seems to have run its course Evan...but move it if you think best.

[Duane Daman]

Well !! ... You sure got him told off, didn't you Craig " ? .. You always have to have the final say and you dismiss other people's opinions as if they are not even worthy of your valuable time or attention .

Spoken like a true narcissistic sociopath .

Cliffs opinion is simply not grounded in fact, like most of what you post Duane.

Spoken once again like a true narcissist , like most of what you post Craig .

My opinions are grounded in fact ... It's a fact that Apollo was a hoax and that the Apollo photography is fradulent .

Just not in your fantasy photo world , Mr. Photo God !

[Cliff Varnell]

We are done Cliff.

You are done, yes, as in -- intellectually bankrupt.

Me, I'm just warming up.

Are you denying that the Towner film shows the shirt collar at the back

of the neck?

If you are, you're not telling the truth.

Any one can see it.

Where in Towner Cliff?

JFK is in the red box.

The green line points to the visible shirt collar AT THE BACK OF HIS NECK.

The frame was taken behind JFK, with his head turned to the right.

By turning his head to the right, the left side of his neck was turned away

from the camera.

To claim as you do, Craig, that the visible shirt collar in the Towner film is

entirely at the side of his neck betrays acute intellectual dishonesty.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Well !! ... You sure got him told off, didn't you Craig " ? .. You always have to have the final say and you dismiss other people's opinions as if they are not even worthy of your valuable time or attention .

Spoken like a true narcissistic sociopath .

Cliffs opinion is simply not grounded in fact, like most of what you post Duane.

The photo images speak for themselves.

JFK on Main St. with the jacket occluding the shirt collar at the BACK OF THE NECK

JFK on Elm St. with the shirt collar visible at the BACK OF THE NECK.

Craig, you think that repeating yourself over and over changes the fact

that the jacket dropped in Dealey.

The only person you're fooling is yourself.

[Cliff Varnell]

It seems that this thread now more properly belongs in the JFK section. Unless there are any serious objections, I'll move it over in a day or so.

By all means!

Perhaps Craig will explain how by turning his head to the right

JFK exposed the entire left side of his shirt collar to a camera

that was behind him.

[Cliff Varnell]

Two frames from the Houston St. segment of the Nix film.

The shirt collar wasn't visible in the earlier frames of the Nix.

And then the shirt collar was visible...

JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, the exact opposite of the "ride up" of

the shirt and jacket as required by the Single Bullet Theory

The SBT thus stands debunked.

[Cliff Varnell]

Let us continue at our leisurely pace, gentle reader, and apply Craig Lamson's

unfiltered observations to the Nix frames taken on Houston St.

Craig puffed out his chest and pronounced the following his "RAZOR" that was

to allegedly demolish my observation of JFK's jacket drop.

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

white shirt collar showing above the jacket.

True statement!

Here's an example of JFK with his head slightly tilted forward and an increased

amount of shirt collar was exposed at the back of his neck.

Here's JFK with his head slightly tilted back and a descreased amount of shirt

collar is visible.

But note in the Nix film when JFK is leaning forward his shirt collar was NOT visible.

A bare fraction of an second later he leaned back and the shirt collar WAS visible.

Lamson's analysis obviously doesn't apply.

[Charles Black]

Craig Lamson

I must return to your initial, near endless ramblings. If you are competing with Bugliosi's most recent contribution, which by the way is twice as long as The Warren Commission Report, I must admit that you exhibit similar reasoning and tactics to both he and the Commission.

I am not likely to waste any more time with your ramblings than would I today re-read the the W.C.

Odyssey, which a majority of scholars throughout the world, realize, and have for forty years "realized", is just that !

I want to briefly touch on just a couple of your ridiculous "non points". Just to counter one of these : what had George Washington accomplished by age 24? Or Abe Lincoln? Immediately prior to the Civil War, future General and U.S. President, Ulyses S.Grant, had been clerking in a hardware store, and General Sherman was diagnosed insane.

Or possibly what may have even JFK's accomplishments been; had he been born into different circumstances. I am not a totally unaccomplished person, but other than being educated for more years than Oswald, at the age of 24, no one was placing my name at the head of "Who's Who in America".

I would like to mention also, although I have no strong belief in either the existence or non existance of "aliens", Nessie, Big Foot or the authenticity of the Moon Landings.......how in the HELL do any of these topics relate to the Coup d' Etat that obviously, to all "moderately cognizant persons" world wide, occurred on Nov. 22, 1963 ? ?

Furthermore, your statements regarding the occurrances of 9 11, indicate to me, that you are no more than a neophyte, who is not even modestly prepared to discuss that issue.

Only "an absolute fool", would take it upon himself to engage in the process of "proving the negative".....which is that a Lone Nut did not in fact exist !

In my opinion, your "pointless effort" has proven only, that you must be both very bored and think that a majority of this forum's members are incapable of rational thought.

Why don't you find a "HOBBY" in which you are more adept, though how you waste your own time is of course a personal choice.

I regret how I have been foolish enough to have allowed you to waste mine !

Charles Black