10-03-2016, 09:02 PM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2016, 10:04 PM by Albert Doyle.)
David Josephs Wrote:A decent guess but off by 25%.
Your last post flagrantly skipped my last reply to you on your challenge of my height claim.
David - You might want to pay closer attention to your illustration. It starts inside the foyer behind the glass and extends to the first step. In other words it is not a measure of the landing width. It shows that my 4 foot guess is about exactly right. The '5 feet' indicated in your illustration corresponds to the scale shown to its left and is not a measurement of the landing. But let me know if you have any more condescending corrections...
Quote:Albert - Place the man wherever you want - doesn't change the simple facts about the photo or how wrong you are about dimensions and perspective.
I'm afraid Mr Josephs that you've forfeited your credibility. For you to say what you write here and not realize how it exposes your ignorance of what is being argued is bad.
Your statement here is simply answered by the fact that once you concede Prayer Man is at the same distance plane as Frazier that you have no excuse for not honoring the height comparison by science. You are foolish to not realize that even your specious focal point claim does not serve as adequate excuse for not honoring this basic, undeniable simple science.
It is not me who is placing Prayer Man forward and even with Frazier it is my forensic evidence that you have uncredibly not given credit to. If you did correctly credit that evidence it would show, as my arguments claimed, that Prayer Man is at a distance where he is directly comparable to Frazier and therefore the obvious 6-7 inch height difference can be validly cited. Since this height difference scientifically proves that Prayer Man cannot be Oswald it can rightly be claimed that this issue is solved once and for all and that Murphy's theory has been debunked.
Please note the wrongfully accused's Right Elbow, Mr. Doyle ----> No voodoo science needed...just your vision and honesty is all that is required.
No matter how shady a car salesman presents his sales pitch, Mr. Doyle, a lemon is still a lemon (that's why unsuspecting consumers are protected by law).
Once again sir, please note the wrongfully accused's Right Elbow positioned upon the pillar in the photo image above...now, note how far away that pillar is from Mr. Frazier's position on that narrow, restrictive 3 foot plane...in comparison to the pillar, where the wrongfully accused's Right Elbow is positioned.
Thank goodness there are objective researchers in this worthy cause more interested in presenting facts about Prayer Man ----> http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq than offering mere distortions & misleading distractions.
Alan Ford Wrote:Please note the wrongfully accused's Right Elbow, Mr. Doyle ----> No voodoo science needed...just your vision and honesty is all that is required.
No matter how shady a car salesman presents his sales pitch, Mr. Doyle, a lemon is still a lemon (that's why unsuspecting consumers are protected by law).
Once again sir, please note the wrongfully accused's Right Elbow positioned upon the pillar in the photo image above...now, note how far away that pillar is from Mr. Frazier's position on that narrow, restrictive 3 foot plane...in comparison to the pillar, where the wrongfully accused's Right Elbow is positioned.
Thank goodness there are objective researchers in this worthy cause more interested in presenting facts about Prayer Man ----> http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq than offering mere distortions & misleading distractions.
It is obviously over your head Alan.
In my last post I pointed out to you some very irrefutable science that must be answered to maintain credibility. You ignored it and ridiculed it as a "used car salesmen selling a lemon". That's name-calling in reaction to sound argument and it dismisses its offerer from credibility.
For those who are more reality and intelligent argument oriented:
Mr Ford's claim places Prayer Man slightly over 4 feet from the aluminum frame at the back wall since the landing is about 4 feet wide and Darnell's 20 degree angle adds a little more. This is one side of a scalene triangle Mr Ford refuses to admit.
The next side is the west wall of the portal. This side of the triangle would have to be around 4 feet in length due to the cited science.
The final side of this scalene triangle would be the front edge of the landing. Right angle science could determine the exact length of this side because we know the length of the other two sides.
If we calculated this and determined 1/2 of Prayer Man's body width measured from his anatomical median, you would see that the front landing edge side of this triangle was too long to allow Prayer Man to be leaning against the wall. It's simple science that absolutely disproves Parker's leaning claim.
Mr Ford gives no intelligent answer to this, short of ROKC-like ridicule.
He also completely ignores my forensic science locators that disprove his leaning against the faux brickwork pillar claim via Fratini. My argument proves beyond a doubt Prayer Man would have to be on the first step down to be leaning against the faux pillar. Fratini proves beyond a doubt that Prayer Man is on the landing.
It's remarkable that David posts at all with regard to Albert's nonsense. Something other than research is going on here. Nobody is as dense as Mr. Doyle appears in threads regarding PM.
Let's try it this way Albert: Based on your irrefutable "scientific" evidence, overly the frame with the three dimensional rendering you are using in your "research". Take that tiny two dimensional image and show all of us who are ignorant exactly the dimensions of each architectural/structural element, the distances, the precise placement of the people with respect to elevation, distance from whatever landmark you've chosen. Illuminate us on how you've made this 2D rectangle of shades of gray into a precisely rendered irrefutable 3D model. I'll be waiting . . .
Michael Cross Wrote:
Let's try it this way Albert: Based on your irrefutable "scientific" evidence, overly the frame with the three dimensional rendering you are using in your "research". Take that tiny two dimensional image and show all of us who are ignorant exactly the dimensions of each architectural/structural element, the distances, the precise placement of the people with respect to elevation, distance from whatever landmark you've chosen. Illuminate us on how you've made this 2D rectangle of shades of gray into a precisely rendered irrefutable 3D model. I'll be waiting . . .
With this sharp reasoning rendered by Mr, Cross, I'll rest for the day.
Will study a compelling photo I've come across relative to the dimensions of the TSBD entrance stairs. Back tomorrow at some point to determine if Mr. Doyle cares to answer Mr. Cross in specific language or present yet another futile exercise in his opinionated "proof". Desperate times call for desperate measures they say. What have these lying treasonous cowards done in the name of "national security"?!
Safe travels everyone, and remember, if you want the real deal, straightforward analysis about Prayer Man instead of the masquerading Prayer Man wannabe woman w/ phantom handbags, lipstick, girdle, or Is she or isn't she wearing high heels to accommodate voodoo science height measurements, please venture over to this objective Q & A ----> http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq
11-03-2016, 03:43 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016, 05:48 PM by LR Trotter.)
David Josephs Wrote:
LR Trotter Wrote:The distance from the landing steps to the doorway appears to be no more than 3 feet, looking at the picture from the lobby. So, to me it appears that PP can't be far from the steps, and not much farther inward than BWF. The camera angle may slightly distort the relative heights of PP and BWF, but I would think it is a minimal distortion.
As for PrayerPerson, I have yet to see convincing proof that the person pictured is a male. And, what appears to be possibly a left arm may not be that, as possibly it is a purse. Also, I am having trouble determining the direction PP's head is facing, as seen in the still/picture.
Regarding BWF, I have to wonder, as I wander, if maybe he is sitting on, or leaning on a handrail that appears to be in the center of the porch/landing stairway. That being said, I do believe there is a measurable height difference between PP and the taller looking BWF.
And then there is LHO, and the question of his whereabouts at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, as well as presented evidence that indicates the possibility that he was a shooter during the assassination of JFK. But, even if it could be proved he was on the 6th floor of the TSBD during the shooting, to me the presented evidence is well short of proof that he was a shooter.
While I do not wish to continue participation in this discussion, and hopefully avoid any argument as well, I am amazed it continues. I do believe, as do others much smarter than I, that this issue is long ago settled. And, IMO not at all pertinent to current understanding. In any event, JMO, FWIW.
Can you or anyone please post a photo of Wesley in that spot prior to Darnell?
This I believe is even more critical.
When did Lovelady move from the far left to the middle of the landing...?
In the HUGHES film frame capture we see Altgens' Lovelady character far to the left of the landing as the limo turns the corner
In WEIGMAN, from virtually the same angle, Lovelady is now in the middle of the landing...
It was at this turn that Truly claims the limo swung WIDE and almost hit the island curb, almost stopped, and then swung back.
It is missing from Zap and somehow is not shown in Towner.
So 3 questions -
1) where's tall Wesley
2) when does Lovelady move and
3) how does he show up in Martin when by his own admission he and Shelley were in the back by the loading dock for quite a while after the shots.
Since it appears that I was quoted and asked a question, I have to ask why, when asking about presence of BWF and showing a cropped version of the Altgens photograph, an uncropped version was not used. When viewing the uncropped Altgens picture, it appears as though about half of the TSBD doorway is blocked from view by 2 SSAs riding on the SS limo, as well as a tree that also blocks viewing that side of the doorway, from that angle. I was not referring to the Altgens photo, and only expressed an opinion based on images from the Weigman and/or Darnell still/photo as discussed. So, I do not at all understand the reason for the question.
Michael Cross Wrote:
Let's try it this way Albert: Based on your irrefutable "scientific" evidence, overly the frame with the three dimensional rendering you are using in your "research". Take that tiny two dimensional image and show all of us who are ignorant exactly the dimensions of each architectural/structural element, the distances, the precise placement of the people with respect to elevation, distance from whatever landmark you've chosen. Illuminate us on how you've made this 2D rectangle of shades of gray into a precisely rendered irrefutable 3D model. I'll be waiting . . .
Michael,
I've presented sound scientific arguments you can't just ignore and then construct a photo tech obstacle course for me to run through. I consider it the cheap metadata end-around it is that asks for technical perfection as a ruse to get around not answering good arguments.
I'm sorry but the arguments I made are sound, rely on credible scientific reasoning, and therefore deserve an answer. You're dodging them Mr Cross.
The onus is clearly on you and I take your refusal to directly answer as a sign of my argument's validity and therefore proof. I've already listed enough details for you to not have any excuse to not answer or try to get around it by setting up an evasive quiz. I think it is obvious that you can't disprove anything that I've written and that's why you're doing this. Meanwhile you offer no challenge to Ford, who shows a total lack of grasp of the basic science in the portal and doesn't answer to his mistakes. You pretend to be very particular about strict measurements but never offered any correction to David when he showed a wrong measurement for the landing.
I have proven that Prayer Man is even with Frazier and therefore directly comparable in height as seen in the Darnell frame. Any direct comparison makes it more than clear that Frazier is at least 6-7 inches taller than Prayer Man, therefore dismissing him as being Oswald.
Meanwhile David Josephs' challenge isn't exactly sound. His can photo is probably taken from a camera that is 5 or 10 feet from the cans. As Drew pointed out, Darnell is much further away. Maybe about 100 feet? This means the perspective skewing of the cans is at a much different percentage than the potential skewing that would occur at Darnell's distance.
There's another simple flaw in what David writes. You doubters tend to seek the first quick excuse and think it allows you to dismiss this evidence offhand. Those seeking the truth look deeper and seek confirming evidence. Darnell's lens could probably be easily found out. While David tries to obfuscate by involving irrelevant photo science the truth is we could probably find out exactly what lens the WBAP television crew used and identify its photographic qualities and focal length. But a good photographer would be able to tell by eye anyway just from looking at the image.
This issue is ruled by the internal qualifiers I listed in detail and Mr Josephs categorically ignored. They prove Prayer Man is at the front of the landing and therefore legitimately comparable to Frazier in height.
I think Albert's on to something here. There should be a simple enough way to find out how far PP was from the aluminum frame, that appears to extend from PP's head, and from the wall, if we can draw a straight line from the point of the frame, to the point where Darnell was standing. Given that line, and the fact that PP's elbow appears to be close to, or touching, the wall, straight trigonometry should tell us the distance from the frame to the head, and then from the window to the head.
The angle we need is Column-> Frame -> Darnell. The distance from PP's center to the wall (since the elbow is touching or very close to the wall, (probably 2 feet or thereabouts)) divided by the cosine of that angle, will tell us exactly how far the center of PP's head was from the frame. Then we multiply that distance, times the sine of that same angle, to find out how far PP is from the glass window.
If that distance is less than 5 feet, PP is standing on the landing, and cannot be Oswald. If that distance is more than 5 feet, PP is standing on a step.
"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."
Drew Phipps Wrote:I think Albert's on to something here. There should be a simple enough way to find out how far PP was from the aluminum frame, that appears to extend from PP's head, and from the wall, if we can draw a straight line from the point of the frame, to the point where Darnell was standing. Given that line, and the fact that PP's elbow appears to be close to, or touching, the wall, straight trigonometry should tell us the distance from the frame to the head, and then from the window to the head.
The angle we need is Column-> Frame -> Darnell. The distance from PP's center to the wall (since the elbow is touching or very close to the wall, (probably 2 feet or thereabouts)) divided by the cosine of that angle, will tell us exactly how far the center of PP's head was from the frame. Then we multiply that distance, times the sine of that same angle, to find out how far PP is from the glass window.
If that distance is less than 5 feet, PP is standing on the landing, and cannot be Oswald. If that distance is more than 5 feet, PP is standing on a step.
My science is obviously sound because it can't be any other way. The triangulation relation of Prayer Man to the portal is a simple given once you intelligently consider the science. Mr Ford simply name-called it "VooDoo science" in ridicule. It seems there's somewhat of a double standard going on here since people who pretend to represent high science allow flagrant ridicule of that very same science when shown by myself.
Mr Ford never gave any credible answer to my Fratini evidence that shows Prayer Man's elbow cannot be touching the faux pillar brickwork. Neither did David or Michael. What this evidence shows is the reason Prayer Man's elbow appears to be touching the brickwork is because it is swung outward by Prayer Man's facing Frazier. This refutes ROKC's claim that Prayer Man is leaning against the wall with arms crossed.
If you simply apply that triangulation math you will see the front landing side of that triangle is too long to allow Prayer Man to be leaning against the wall. There would be a gap of space between Prayer Man's shoulder and the wall according to the firm numbers in the portal. Apparently some people think they are some kind of demanding lord who instructs others to go out and bring this information back to them for their approval. A more credible analyst would go find it on their own and prove their worth in the name of objectivity. Parker's claim that Prayer Man is leaning against the wall is just Tom Sawyer Pareidolia.
It is a violation of Deep Politics to ignore good science.
