+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Sean Murphy's research deserves more (/thread-11857.html)
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Albert Doyle - 05-10-2015
Sure,
He's cooked anyway. (To be honest with you Dawn I think I pushed Parker back further than anyone, which is a good thing)
The Mitchell Janney met was the one who was framing Crump in a CIA black op assassination. But that's another topic.
.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Ivan De Mey - 09-10-2015
Written by Stan Dane:
Prayer Man: Out of the Shadows and Into the Light
You can read a sample of it on AmazonRalph Yates calls it 'a waste of money', Bart Kamp gives it 5 stars.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Drew Phipps - 09-10-2015
Quote from the new book:
"Fourteen individuals identified themselves as being on the steps of the TSBD and: Seven were women, so all can be eliminated."
Great scholarship there. Given that this work appears to simply be a summation of a thread on The Education Forum, I agree that this work is "a waste of money." (You can go over there and read the thread yourself for free.)
I am happy that some of our contributors here at DPF, whose opinions I respect, are citied in the book. However, the willy-nilly elimination of seven likely candidates as "Prayer Man" bodes poorly for the quality of the rest of the work.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Albert Doyle - 09-10-2015
Parker is a make it up as he goes along Rube Goldberg 'researcher'. His methods should clue most people as to his lack of credibility. Most smart people can see somebody who starts with a premise he wants to prove and then ignores anything that conflicts with it. He then asks people to endure some pretty stretched, presumptuous bastardizations of the evidence to force his conclusions.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Michael Cross - 09-10-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:Parker is a make it up as he goes along Rube Goldberg 'researcher'. His methods should clue most people as to his lack of credibility. Most smart people can see somebody who starts with a premise he wants to prove and then ignores anything that conflicts with it. He then asks people to endure some pretty stretched, presumptuous bastardizations of the evidence to force his conclusions.
Which has what to do with the subject matter of this thread. Complete non-sequitur.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Drew Phipps - 09-10-2015
Michael Cross Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Parker is a make it up as he goes along Rube Goldberg 'researcher'. His methods should clue most people as to his lack of credibility. Most smart people can see somebody who starts with a premise he wants to prove and then ignores anything that conflicts with it. He then asks people to endure some pretty stretched, presumptuous bastardizations of the evidence to force his conclusions.
Which has what to do with the subject matter of this thread. Complete non-sequitur.
While I do not agree in general with the practice of slamming people here who post on other forums, in this case, Parker is a contributor (and wrote the foreward) to the above book praising Sean Murphy's work, so Doyle's remark is not merely a gratuitous sideswipe.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Michael Cross - 09-10-2015
Drew Phipps Wrote:Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize to Albert.Michael Cross Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Parker is a make it up as he goes along Rube Goldberg 'researcher'. His methods should clue most people as to his lack of credibility. Most smart people can see somebody who starts with a premise he wants to prove and then ignores anything that conflicts with it. He then asks people to endure some pretty stretched, presumptuous bastardizations of the evidence to force his conclusions.
Which has what to do with the subject matter of this thread. Complete non-sequitur.
While I do not agree in general with the practice of slamming people here who post on other forums, in this case, Parker is a contributor (and wrote the foreward) to the above book praising Sean Murphy's work, so Doyle's remark is not merely a gratuitous sideswipe.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Albert Doyle - 12-10-2015
Upon further consideration Drew's identification of the cat eye glasses frame on Prayer Man might actually have cracked the Prayer Man identity issue. I just realized that Prayer Man's coat might be tan and it appears dark because it is in the shade.
If somebody could identify the woman Duncan drew the arrows to in the doorway we could have the actual name of Prayer Man. This woman in the tan coat happens to also have the half-length white woman's sleeve seen on Prayer Man. She also has short coat sleeves like Prayer Man.
Although Duncan was the one to show the overall photographic evidence, it should be known that Drew Phipps and his sharp eye was the man who saw the conclusive proof in the form of the bright spot right where Tan Coat Woman has a conspicuous cat eye glasses frame. That's the smoking gun and Drew nailed it.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - Michael Cross - 12-10-2015
Albert Doyle Wrote:. . . identification of the cat eye glasses frame on Prayer Man might . . . who saw the conclusive proof in the form of the bright spot right where Tan Coat Woman has a conspicuous cat eye glasses frame. That's the smoking gun and Drew nailed it.
Sigh.
Sean Murphy's research deserves more - David Josephs - 12-10-2015
Michael Cross Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:. . . identification of the cat eye glasses frame on Prayer Man might . . . who saw the conclusive proof in the form of the bright spot right where Tan Coat Woman has a conspicuous cat eye glasses frame. That's the smoking gun and Drew nailed it.
Sigh.
No doubt Michael - this has taken squinty eyed speculation to a whole new level... "cat eye glasses" can be made out in that image.... yeah, right.
(did Badgeman have dirty fingernails as well - given this ability to make out detail?)
As for the Cat's eye glasses - dark rims, which everyone wore at the time, would have been easily seen against the white of the face...
Or can you point to the image Drew used to determine that PM is wearing glasses
thanks