+- 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: Challenge (/thread-14618.html)
Challenge - Drew Phipps - 06-04-2016
I think that using the word "idiot" is an inappropriate way to conduct a civilized discussion of ideas and ask you, Ray, to stop. I realize that you are simply following the example set by the US republican presidential candidates; however, we are better than that here.
Let's talk about ideas and leave the flaming trolling to others. Please.
Challenge - Ray Mitcham - 06-04-2016
Drew Phipps Wrote:I think that using the word "idiot" is an inappropriate way to conduct a civilized discussion of ideas and ask you, Ray, to stop. I realize that you are simply following the example set by the US republican presidential candidates; however, we are better than that here.i have now edited my contribution. I apologise if it is against forum rules.
Let's talk about ideas and leave the flaming trolling to others. Please.
Challenge - Ray Mitcham - 06-04-2016
Albert Doyle Wrote:Seems we've gone from warnings against ROKC proxying to open allowance of ROKC trolling.
Both height comparisons, to Frazier in Darnell, and Lovelady in Wiegman, prove Prayer Man is around 5 foot 5 and can't be Oswald. Ray and Alan are unable to disprove or even answer this.
There is no way you can judge the height of anybody in the Darnell photo with any certainty., to prove anything. For you to say that you judge PP to 5'5" is just your opinion, and, as such, is worth squat.
Now go away.
Challenge - Michael Cross - 06-04-2016
Ray Mitcham Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Seems we've gone from warnings against ROKC proxying to open allowance of ROKC trolling.
Both height comparisons, to Frazier in Darnell, and Lovelady in Wiegman, prove Prayer Man is around 5 foot 5 and can't be Oswald. Ray and Alan are unable to disprove or even answer this.
There is no way you can judge the height of anybody in the Darnell photo with any certainty., to prove anything. For you to say that you judge PP to 5'5" is just your opinion, and, as such, is worth squat.
Now go away.
Ray,
While you are absolutely correct, arguing with Brian/Albert is futile.
For you, and anyone else interested in this, post #137 in this thread at the EF has a nice approximation of a possible height comparison, and is a nice attempt at 3D rendering:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22616&page=10
However, we don't have PRECISE measurements of any architectural feature in the door way. We have estimates. Attempts at "geometry" etc are therefore estimates. The Darnell frame itself doesn't have three dimensions.
These are all guesses and estimates. Nothing can be proven from the extant data. Proposed? Yes. Hypothesized? Yes. Proven? NO.
Challenge - Albert Doyle - 06-04-2016
Michael Cross Wrote:Ray,
While you are absolutely correct, arguing with Brian/Albert is futile.
Michael can't answer the main arguments that are entirely credible as Gilbride stresses. Michael thinks there a consensus he can hide his inability to answer behind. Michael is a typical example of an ROKC proxy. Stay out of the main conversation of evidence and then show up and hand wave after scooting out from under having to respond to credible evidence.
The reason I am in here alone is because Drew is ignoring Alan's ROKC trolling.
Michael Cross Wrote:For you, and anyone else interested in this, post #137 in this thread at the EF has a nice approximation of a possible height comparison, and is a nice attempt at 3D rendering:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22616&page=10
It figures you would approve of ROKC member Stancak's computer graphics over on the Education Forum. This room used to have a high standard of rigor. One where Stancak's crap would not be automatically approved of without pointing out its fatal flaws.
"Nice attempt at 3D rendering". No, Stancak's graphics are complete crap. They are just jerry-built graphics being thrown up there and back-filled with pseudo science. It's sickening to see members like Larry Hancock praise Stancak's garbage as "impressive" just because he is capable of posting computer graphics and Hancock is ignorant of the issues. Unfortunately, a large load of manure is still a large load of manure even if it is wrapped in Tiffany wrapping paper. You can judge Stancak's offering just by flicking your eyes between his graphic and Darnell. You can see they are way off. There's too many mistakes to list. He's misdrawn the sun border as well as the height comparison line between Frazier and Prayer Man. His main flaw is he places Prayer Man on the first step down without any basis besides ROKC wishful thinking. Stancak places a prominent Coke bottle in Prayer Man's hand but anyone can look at the images and see there is no such bottle visible. Michael should inform the readers that Stancak has tried such graphics before on ROKC and was rejected by its members.
Our photo expert Michael Cross gives his full approval without catching any of these fatal flaws. One look at the Fratini Tie Man body proportion evidence shows without a doubt Prayer Man is standing on the landing. Stancak's reaction to this? He and Michael Cross ignore it.
When Gilbride asks Stancak for a forensic justification of this one step down positioning for Prayer Man Stancak offers a weird lecture on perspective and then caps it with "so you see the science leaves little room for anything other than Prayer Man being on the first step down". This folderol is what ROKC calls rigor. It never answers Gilbride's question. Unger agrees Prayer Man is on the landing. (As do the 2 gif's Stancak is ignoring).
Michael Cross Wrote:However, we don't have PRECISE measurements of any architectural feature in the door way. We have estimates. Attempts at "geometry" etc are therefore estimates. The Darnell frame itself doesn't have three dimensions.
Here is where Michael tries to wiggle out of the admitted flaws in his side's offerings. What is really happening here is our trigonometry is valid and does operate within acceptable parameters capable of ruling out certain possibilities, including Oswald being Prayer Man. Meanwhile the real failure in accuracy comes from ROKC and Stancak's jerry-built computer graphic pseudo-analysis, which is really just Stancak hoping he can get away with murder because people are impressed by his computer graphic skills.
Michael Cross violates science here. First off, the height argument relies mostly on a 2D comparison that is valid. But also, Cross is wrong about there being no 3D dimension in Darnell. Science requires that 3D dimension and it can be formulated by geometry as was done in my height argument that Michael ignored. This is a typical ROKC strawman that is being used to ignore the good science we offered. Just like Joseph's bogus lens perspective claim.
Michael Cross Wrote:These are all guesses and estimates. Nothing can be proven from the extant data. Proposed? Yes. Hypothesized? Yes. Proven? NO.
The 2 confirming sources of Prayer Man being 5 foot 5 in comparison to the known heights of others in the portal is reasonable proof that Prayer Man isn't Oswald. That's why Alan ignores it. The rest is just persons desperate to hold on to their now-debunked Murphy thesis.
Prayer Man is 7 inches shorter than the 6 foot tall Frazier in Darnell. That makes him 5 foot 5. Prayer Man is 2-3 inches shorter than 5 foot 8 Lovelady in Wiegman. That is a second confirming source for Prayer Man being 5 foot 5 and would fly in court.
Challenge - Albert Doyle - 06-04-2016
Ray Mitcham Wrote:Both height comparisons, to Frazier in Darnell, and Lovelady in Wiegman, prove Prayer Man is around 5 foot 5 and can't be Oswald. Ray and Alan are unable to disprove or even answer this.
There is no way you can judge the height of anybody in the Darnell photo with any certainty., to prove anything. For you to say that you judge PP to 5'5" is just your opinion, and, as such, is worth squat.
Now go away.
Keep in mind ROKC member Mitcham just gave full one-line approval to Stancak doing that very thing on the Education Forum.
Meanwhile we have 2 independent sources that peg Prayer Man at 5 foot 5 in comparison to the known heights of others.
Challenge - Albert Doyle - 06-04-2016
Because I am honorable and seeking the truth objectively, I might have made a mistake in my criticism of David Josephs' scale measurement of the portal. It could be 5 feet after all. I misread his highlighting as the scale bar. The WC scale he was highlighting does indeed say 5 feet. I was wrong. He was right on that one.
It makes no difference to my height argument.
Stancak assures us the portal landing is 3 foot 6 inches in width.
Larry Hancock: " This shows us what this forum is capable of ".
Challenge - Alan Ford - 06-04-2016
Ray,
While you are absolutely correct, arguing with Brian/Albert is futile.
For you, and anyone else interested in this, post #137 in this thread at the EF has a nice approximation of a possible height comparison, and is a nice attempt at 3D rendering:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22616&page=10
However, we don't have PRECISE measurements of any architectural feature in the door way. We have estimates. Attempts at "geometry" etc are therefore estimates. The Darnell frame itself doesn't have three dimensions.
These are all guesses and estimates. Nothing can be proven from the extant data. Proposed? Yes. Hypothesized? Yes. Proven? NO.[/QUOTE]
Well said, Mr. Cross. Your last sentence is spot on.
That is why some of us realize that given either the unreliability and/or potentially biased interpretation of guesses and estimates (as you so aptly stated) we need something with more substance, something like specifics culled from evidence based research comes to mind.
As we enter Day Nine (9) of this Challenge presented within this thread, we have only one entity to date who has actually provided specifics rather than guesses and estimates. There's a reason for that.
Prayer Man didn't guess where He was? He didn't guess who was out there with Him? Evidence based research didn't estimate where He was when initially encountered by Officer Baker, it gave a specific location, at the front entrance, before Mr. Baker even begin his stairway to heaven climb.
The day is still young, so moving forward let's determine if prayer woman, prayer person, prayer thing, prayer it, prayer ghost, prayer pick a spawn, etc. can offer some specifics. A specific name, and a credible explanation to explain away the "any strangers" litmus test would be suffice to start with. Until either of these entities do so, they will continue to remain at a combined total score of (0). There is a reason for that.
For anyone not interested in mere guesstimating, an in depth Q & A relative to Prayer Man is just a click away ----> http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq
*Credit Ace Card Researcher Mr. Murphy (Sean)
Challenge - Michael Cross - 06-04-2016
Albert Doyle Wrote:Michael Cross Wrote:However, we don't have PRECISE measurements of any architectural feature in the door way. We have estimates. Attempts at "geometry" etc are therefore estimates. The Darnell frame itself doesn't have three dimensions.
Here is where Michael tries to wiggle out of the admitted flaws in his side's offerings. What is really happening here is our trigonometry is valid and does operate within acceptable parameters capable of ruling out certain possibilities, including Oswald being Prayer Man. Meanwhile the real failure in accuracy comes from ROKC and Stancak's jerry-built computer graphic pseudo-analysis, which is really just Stancak hoping he can get away with murder because people are impressed by his computer graphic skills.
I'm not going to spend much time on you Brian, as your continued assertions based on vapor are laughable. Why you continue to be allowed to peddle this nonsense on a serious forum is baffling.
Your "trigonometry" is based, according to Drew, on the drawing David Joseph's presented in post #79 of the now locked thread "heads up" (a post in which you didn't even know the length of a measurement you were using for your "proof"). That drawing - which is attached - has a "scale in feet" guide, and features crudely drawn steps of varying width which are clearly not a representation of the actual steps. It is not precise. It is not a blueprint. It is not a survey of the site. It is crudely rendered and imprecise. Further IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POSITIONS OF ANY PERSON THAT WAS ON THE STEPS. ANY ASSIGNMENT OF POSITION IS A GUESS AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE USED TO FORMULATE PROOF. I don't know how else to say this, and with all due respect to Drew: NO OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE POSITIONS OF THE PEOPLE ON THE STEPS EXISTS. THEREFORE THERE CAN BE NO ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF THEIR POSITIONS ON THE STEPS AND RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. IT CANNOT BE DONE. DREW USED MATH TO PRODUCE CONJECTURE BASED ON THIS ESTIMATION OF POSITIONS.
I'm sorry that you don't understand mathematics (or photography). Math is PRECISE. It requires PRECISE measurements to produce an outcome. Everything you propose as proven is based on estimations AND IS COMPLETE HOGWASH. You are either ignorant or are willfully trying to mislead. Being combative does not lend credence to the inane tripe you continue to spout.
You continue to spew disinformation. Frankly, that you are allowed to continue this campaign taints what is otherwise an superb forum.
Challenge - Alan Ford - 06-04-2016
"In reading through the various witness testimony one subject that the FBI avoided was asking any of the witnesses if they had seen Oswald on the front steps of the Depository before and while the assassination was taking place." -- Harold Weisberg
There's a reason for that, Mr. Weisberg (RIP).
They would much rather ask a loaded question leading to a desired out come like, "Did you see any strangers?"
Of course, Not!, what stranger wanders in off the street, then wades through twenty or more people unknown to them to stand on property where he or she doesn't rightfully belong?!