Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Bob, you can see from Parker's responses why it is a mistake to feed his troll. By the way, he's quitting now that he's been backed in to the facts. Like all bullshitters Parker has a high bullshit to what he's trying to avoid ratio. His response to you was a good example of what happens when you allow him to escape the pertinent points and dwell in his evasive bs. If you see what he wrote he is simply unable to answer what is being written so he detours into his blowhard bs. Parker refuses to admit the obvious that Carolyn Arnold and Golz were well aware the shots happened at 12:30. So all Golz needed to get out of Carolyn Arnold is that she left the building at 12:25 like she said. The rest was understood. Parker has created a phony issue of doubt when the truth is simple and obvious. He is inserting false contingencies and demanding answers to them when the real scenario doesn't involve them at all. Strawmen in other words. He also tries to get away with ignoring that Pauline Sanders confirmed the 12:25 time. There's also no way Carolyn Arnold would say she left to go home at 12:25 if she was standing at the Depository entrance at 12:45.
Parker's cooked and it's good he's quitting.
Posts: 401
Threads: 6
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jun 2015
29-09-2015, 08:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 29-09-2015, 09:00 AM by Tom Scully.)
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:Oops! It's been pointed out that Greg Parker is no longer able to post on this forum. I knew that but, with all of the responses from Albert, I assumed Greg had been reinstated and was posting here again. My bad!
Albert Doyle Wrote:Bob, you can see from Parker's responses why it is a mistake to feed his troll. By the way, he's quitting now that he's been backed in to the facts. Like all bullshitters Parker has a high bullshit to what he's trying to avoid ratio. His response to you was a good example of what happens when you allow him to escape the pertinent points and dwell in his evasive bs. If you see what he wrote he is simply unable to answer what is being written so he detours into his blowhard bs. Parker refuses to admit the obvious that Carolyn Arnold and Golz were well aware the shots happened at 12:30. So all Golz needed to get out of Carolyn Arnold is that she left the building at 12:25 like she said. The rest was understood. Parker has created a phony issue of doubt when the truth is simple and obvious. He is inserting false contingencies and demanding answers to them when the real scenario doesn't involve them at all. Strawmen in other words. He also tries to get away with ignoring that Pauline Sanders confirmed the 12:25 time. There's also no way Carolyn Arnold would say she left to go home at 12:25 if she was standing at the Depository entrance at 12:45.
Parker's cooked and it's good he's quitting.
Bob makes a good point.... "Parker" is not participating here. Mr. Doyle has broadened "discussion" to include far away places.
I pray his sanctimony (advising what is, or is not "a mistake to feed") is not contagious. Why hold back? Let Parker have it, double team him, like you did to this guy!
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Our FBI defender doesn't like a fellow neo-con denier being refuted.
Drew deserves credit because he caught fine details I missed in the Prayer Man blow-up. He caught a white half length sleeve that can only be woman's fashion and now that I look he caught eyeglasses. Oswald didn't have eyeglasses. The sleeve was being mistaken as a masculine forearm.
The purpose of the Parker issue is that 'Oswald' was almost certainly in the lunch-room during the shooting.
Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
I REALLY do not want to flog this horse any further but I dislike being misquoted. I said it could be the end of a sleeve, or could be a purse, or could be the artifact of the processes used to enhance the image. I also warned people about jumping to conclusions from photographs that have been deliberately altered, for whatever reason. Let's take the "Badgeman" fiasco as an object lesson here.
That being said, I am pleased that my observations might have contributed in some small way to the understanding of the PM mystery. I just don't regard them as proof of any particular idea or proposition.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Drew Phipps Wrote:I REALLY do not want to flog this horse any further but I dislike being misquoted. I said it could be the end of a sleeve, or could be a purse, or could be the artifact of the processes used to enhance the image. I also warned people about jumping to conclusions from photographs that have been deliberately altered, for whatever reason. Let's take the "Badgeman" fiasco as an object lesson here.
That being said, I am pleased that my observations might have contributed in some small way to the understanding of the PM mystery. I just don't regard them as proof of any particular idea or proposition.
I don't think the photo was altered in any way that would fabricate the things I'm pointing out. There are legitimate uses for contrast enhancement in photo analysis and I think Duncan has made valid use of them.
You did detect and point out the things I cited, so however you want it interpreted you were reacting to something you saw. I personally can see the open sleeve end. And it does look like there's the upper end frame of eyeglasses on Prayer Man's left eyebrow.
Posts: 150
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:I don't think the photo was altered in any way that would fabricate the things I'm pointing out. There are legitimate uses for contrast enhancement in photo analysis and I think Duncan has made valid use of them. Sigh. But you don't KNOW. Your conclusions are based on supposition.
Now tell me how I'm wrong when I'm quoting YOU.
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Michael Cross Wrote:Sigh. But you don't KNOW. Your conclusions are based on supposition.
Now tell me how I'm wrong when I'm quoting YOU.
The original Darnell frame might show the exact same features as what Duncan is showing.
Nobody seems to want to give a straight answer to what the notch in the forearm is? It is clearly visible and isn't due to degraded images or pixels.
So, where is the evidence the photo was altered?
Posts: 290
Threads: 10
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Albert Doyle Wrote:Michael Cross Wrote:Sigh. But you don't KNOW. Your conclusions are based on supposition.
Now tell me how I'm wrong when I'm quoting YOU.
The original Darnell frame might show the exact same features as what Duncan is showing.
Nobody seems to want to give a straight answer to what the notch in the forearm is? It is clearly visible and isn't due to degraded images or pixels.
So, where is the evidence the photo was altered?
you gotta be kidding me? The frame image is crap, PERIOD! Lets see a histogram of the original frame. Then how many generations from the in-camera original frame is the frame you are currently studying? Tell us how long the in-camera original frame PM/PW arm is in pixels. Geez, and yet, within this degraded image you see clarity, a notch in the forearm at most 2-3 pixels in width...
Lets see, internet/forum-board imagery jpeg/gif regardless of image size, is 72dpi), then there's the compression issues and artifacts... We'll start there, the dimension of the image you're currently reviewing? And how many generations from the original frame? Feel free to have Dunc give you a hand (if he's not to busy starting another forum... 
Posts: 150
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
David Healy Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Michael Cross Wrote:Sigh. But you don't KNOW. Your conclusions are based on supposition.
Now tell me how I'm wrong when I'm quoting YOU.
The original Darnell frame might show the exact same features as what Duncan is showing.
Nobody seems to want to give a straight answer to what the notch in the forearm is? It is clearly visible and isn't due to degraded images or pixels.
So, where is the evidence the photo was altered?
you gotta be kidding me? The frame image is crap, PERIOD! Lets see a histogram of the original frame. Then how many generations from the in-camera original frame is the frame you are currently studying? Tell us how long the in-camera original frame PM/PW arm is in pixels. Geez, and yet, within this degraded image you see clarity, a notch in the forearm at most 2-3 pixels in width...
Lets see, internet/forum-board imagery jpeg/gif regardless of image size, is 72dpi), then there's the compression issues and artifacts... We'll start there, the dimension of the image you're currently reviewing? And how many generations from the original frame? Feel free to have Dunc give you a hand (if he's not to busy starting another forum...
Thank you David. Albert's objectivity has left the building.
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
David Healy Wrote:you gotta be kidding me? The frame image is crap, PERIOD! Lets see a histogram of the original frame. Then how many generations from the in-camera original frame is the frame you are currently studying? Tell us how long the in-camera original frame PM/PW arm is in pixels. Geez, and yet, within this degraded image you see clarity, a notch in the forearm at most 2-3 pixels in width...
Lets see, internet/forum-board imagery jpeg/gif regardless of image size, is 72dpi), then there's the compression issues and artifacts... We'll start there, the dimension of the image you're currently reviewing? And how many generations from the original frame? Feel free to have Dunc give you a hand (if he's not to busy starting another forum...
No, I disagree. Actually the photo Duncan presented was adequate enough that Drew actually caught some very fine features that I missed.
Mr Healy, I'm not a photo expert but I would gamble that your "histogram" would make no difference according to what is being shown. I would also point out that you are offering nothing different than what you did last time and are trying to obfuscate with photo tech talk instead of answering what was already clearly visible enough in the photo in question.
The notch is there and is visible. Enough that Drew clearly confirmed it. You still haven't answered it short of excuses.
|
