Why the second floor lunch room encounter could not have happened

[Albert Doyle]

Ray has to be a LIAR, right?

And he has to have an agenda for being a liar, right? I mean everyone who disagrees with Doyle on this has to have an agenda, or be a hijacker.

Ray can't just have made a mistake? Or misremembered something?

Which, of course, Doyle has never done in his entire long career of posting here.

This guy has decimated his current life to polarizing and demeaning and dehumanizing all who disagree with him on this.

And OMG, all in the name and cause of Duncan McRae. Of all people in this world. ::bowtie::

Ray and yourself don't respond to direct FACTS Jim. Neither does that site you are defending that is generally banned from most forums and lost its web-host due to serious internet conduct violations. What kind of web-site goes after family members of JFK posters and posts lampooning photos of their mothers Jim? You defend a site like that? What do those methods tell you about the credibility of that website? You dare accuse me of polarizing and dehumanizing while I am the one insisting the EVIDENCE be responded to. Do you actually read the content of that site?


I'd be glad to discuss the evidence that proves my position in the Bear Pit Jim. So far you and the people you defend have avoided that. I can back-up what I write. What I see from you is an attempt to disparage by association or inference and zero discussion of the actual evidence.


I posted provable evidence on the Education Forum. The opposition (you defend) was literally unable to answer it. The person who defaulted was pampered and defended and I was put on unexplained moderation. None of the members protested or asked the opposition to answer the evidence I presented. They are pretending it doesn't exist.


You're protesting too much Jim. Please come to the Bear Pit and answer the facts. The facts will bear out who's right here.


In my opinion, the affect of Ray's wrong information on the lunchroom encounter is what counts the most here and I don't see anyone rushing to correct it.


Jim, answer me how Gordon preventing me from showing even further confirming photo evidence serves the truth? Or am I a bad guy whose provable evidence isn't good enough?


.

[Albert Doyle]

Douglass seems to be saying that FBI invented the alleged sighting of Oswald by Carolyn Arnold in the foyer in order to avoid the lunchroom encounter.

The context Douglass implies is that Carolyn Arnold complained to Golz that FBI had switched her statement that she had seen Oswald in the lunchroom to seeing him in the foyer. So in other words the Murphy advocates are honoring what was clearly a lie and not seeing what it was designed to get around. The only conclusion is FBI knew Oswald being seen by Arnold in the lunchroom was dangerous to their official version so they changed it to the foyer. A clear sign of guilt and also clear sign that Oswald was in the lunchroom.

[Albert Doyle]

Over on ROKC Greg is doing one of his evidence hacking routines in order to get around Carolyn Arnold. When ROKC has a problem with evidence they simply figure out why all the people who were actually there were wrong or were lying and revise the evidence to make Murphy fit. Greg is correcting Carolyn Arnold and telling her why her story can't be true.

Carolyn Arnold probably stayed behind longer in order to spend less time outside because she was pregnant. Greg has no evidence that Arnold didn't know the motorcade was delayed. In any case she was insistent to Golz that she left at 12:25. If you give her a minute to get out of the building it would put her Oswald sighting at around 12:24. Greg is trying to get around the obvious and has nerve trying to rework the evidence around what the people who were actually there insisted on. Despite Carolyn Arnold insisting to Golz she never saw Oswald in the foyer, Greg is correcting her and telling her she did. ROKC says Arnold was pressured to change her story but Golz said it was the first time Arnold had seen her FBI report. Nice try ROKC, but Golz witnessed Arnold's fresh reaction to seeing her FBI report for the first time and reacting to the incorrect information. Greg simply ignores that Arnold was responding to the passage in the FBI report that described what time she left the 2nd floor and saw Oswald. Greg does one of his usual spins and tries to say Arnold confused the time when she couldn't get back into the building with the time she left work. But Golz was very clear Arnold was correcting the wrong time FBI had inserted that said what time she left the 2nd floor. Also Arnold couldn't get back into the building well after the assassination, which occurred at 12:30 not 12:25.

Upon re-reading Douglass it becomes clear to me that FBI fabricated Arnold's foyer sighting of Oswald in order to avoid the lunchroom encounter. The foyer sighting Arnold complained about to Golz was substituted for the lunchroom encounter. Clear evidence of FBI trying to avoid something it knew was true. What Greg is doing is backing the FBI lie and ignoring what it was clearly designed to get around.

For goodness' sake it is even possible Oswald WAS sitting at the lunchroom table and it had to be changed because it obviously exonerated him and placed him where Arnold had seen him minutes earlier. It is possible that was the reason for the omission in Baker's affidavit.

Greg self-servingly fails to compute that Oswald was a CIA operative and was probably ordered to stay out of the way. The 2nd floor lunchroom was a good place to do that and being an op Oswald would not consider himself an ordinary worker. Greg ignores that the day of the motorcade was not an ordinary day and no salesmen in suits would be in there to protest. What all these Murphy-ites fail to realize is all the weirdness with the testimonies originated from the problem of Oswald being in the lunchroom and therefore not being in the Sniper's Nest. Baker's affidavit tried to put Oswald closer to the Sniper's Nest for the reasons above.

It is amazing to see mainstream researchers acting like silly Nellies and ignoring you or holding personal grudges against you because they don't want to admit these basic facts. It's embarrassing.



.

[Jim DiEugenio]

AD:
Ray and yourself don't respond to direct FACTS Jim.

Here we go again, the preacher on his podium.

If I recall correctly, what happened to the data that Duncan used to put together rendition of Prayer Man?

To the best of my memory, he could not locate it. Is that Ok with you?

And why you are allowed to drag in every dispute about this from EF and ROKC to vent your spleen against the people who don't buy your arguments, that issue simply escapes me.

[Albert Doyle]

Jim:

This is the problem. Because you have ignored our evidence you don't realize that Davidson was the source for the image of which you speak. The Michael Cross-types howled for Davidson's metadata. Davidson called their bluff and provided it. Every single one of those pro-Murphy posters were dead silent in reaction to Davidson's posted metadata. You see Jim the pro-Murphy mob was using the metadata claim as an excuse. They didn't expect Davidson to produce it. When he did they were silent to a man. They have swayed moderators in their favor but they still haven't answered what the metadata shows. That's intellectually dishonest.


You're not being honest Jim. The real point here, as shown in the material, is that YOU are being allowed to ignore good evidence which is not only against the rules of this site but is seriously against the research ethics you have espoused and made a living off of.


I have two cases of proof I am not being allowed to show on the Education Forum for reasons Gordon refuses to explain. There's no excuse for disallowing credible evidence and that is the problem here. If you look in the Bear Pit I caught Stancak avoiding proof that I was right in his overlay image on the EF. No one has the backbone to point it out over there while I remain unfairly censored.


I expect another classic DiEugenio 23 Skidoo in front of the FACTS I just posted.

[Albert Doyle]

Jim: Ask Stancak why he didn't make a cartoon image for ****** *** in his overlay graphic over on the Education Forum and see what he says. (It's because he knows it verified my claim that ****** *** was on the landing) Stancak is simply dishonest.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Albert, or Brian, which is the name you use over at EF:

Recall the so called "buttons" you said were irrefutable proof of some kind of overcoat or something.

Hmm. What happened?

What about the bag?

What about you being banned from EF when you were not?

OK, now go ahead over to your second home, Duncan's, and trash me for saying this stuff.

[Albert Doyle]

You're not being rational Jim.


You should practice the level of science you usually aspire to. That highest level of science is Davidson's photoshop enhancement of the Wiegman Film. When MacRae enlarged that image it showed the clear face of a woman. When the Murphy-ites were shown the image they admitted it was a woman but then claimed it was an illusion. The bias is so strong for Murphy that they were allowed to get away with it. Meanwhile that level of science you normally practice would admit that Davidson did justify his methods by posting his metadata and none of the pro-Murphy challengers were able to respond. Davidson backed-off because he's a politically sensitive person who doesn't want to cause any trouble with the members. He accidentally discovered the woman's face while doing photo enhancement for other purposes (which only legitimizes his findings because he wasn't trying to produce the result). Sorry Jim but you have to answer to the highest, best level of normally practiced science in the research community. That science is Davidson's metadata and it deserves respect and recognition. If we were to honor that science it would show that Davidson's publicly-posted and unanswered metadata did prove his methodology in producing the woman's face. What that proves is the face was part of Wiegman's original film and does therefore prove the subject in question was a woman - therefore refuting Murphy.


I got permanently banned from Duncan's site because he allowed obvious trolls entering demented input to attack my evidence. He then sided with them saying they were under no obligation to answer anything. When I pointed-out to Duncan that he had just done what he himself haughtily protested over and accused Gordon of doing to him on the Education Forum he banned me because he knew I was right. Duncan's problem was he was trying to serve both sides at the same time. He was obviously doing it to cater to his advertizing revenue by attracting the most members for rating purposes. Duncan made a deal with the devil and traded his soul for clicks. It is unfortunate that Duncan isn't reliable because his site offered some of the best photographic evidence.


In any case it is clear to me that Stancak did make a cartoon graphic for ****** *** in his latest overlay image on the Education Forum. I think that when he applied it he realized it showed that ****** *** had to be standing on the landing. Jim, you are ignoring what I am posting. Stancak's overlay graphic is the exact same overlay of the portal features I was referencing in my verbal arguments. Stancak managed to put to visibility what I had been pointing-out in words. When he did he realized it proved what I was saying. That's why he didn't make a cartoon graphic for ****** *** in that same image even though he did for Frazier. I'm trying to tell you it is proof he knows what I am saying is true and it is wholly dishonest 1) To not point it out, and 2) Not allow me to point it out. Stancak has just proved my case for me with his own graphic and nobody is honest enough to point it out to him while I am restricted without explanation. Also, people forget that Stancak never answered my last post to him or its evidence. While I was subjected to a martinet level of rules and requirements by Gordon, after Stancak was allowed to not answer, the standard Gordon presently enforces in the same thread is one of casual conversation by persons who are obviously unfamiliar with the evidence. It's a hugely unfair double standard but one that works for the Murphy-ites.


I have further confirming original image photo proof of my claim. When I go to the Education Forum the posting box says

You are currently restricted from posting content.

I sent an e-mail to Gordon asking why that went unanswered.


Come on. I expect better from you...Ask Stancak why he didn't make a cartoon image for the person in question.



.

[Albert Doyle]

Trejo should be informed that in a presidential assassination the Dallas Police Department could have commandeered or borrowed a tape recorder from any of the numerous possible existing sources in Dallas in minutes.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

You're not being rational Jim.


You should practice the level of science you usually aspire to. That highest level of science is Davidson's photoshop enhancement of the Wiegman Film. When MacRae enlarged that image it showed the clear face of a woman. When the Murphy-ites were shown the image they admitted it was a woman but then claimed it was an illusion. The bias is so strong for Murphy that they were allowed to get away with it. Meanwhile that level of science you normally practice would admit that Davidson did justify his methods by posting his metadata and none of the pro-Murphy challengers were able to respond. Davidson backed-off because he's a politically sensitive person who doesn't want to cause any trouble with the members. He accidentally discovered the woman's face while doing photo enhancement for other purposes (which only legitimizes his findings because he wasn't trying to produce the result). Sorry Jim but you have to answer to the highest, best level of normally practiced science in the research community. That science is Davidson's metadata and it deserves respect and recognition. If we were to honor that science it would show that Davidson's publicly-posted and unanswered metadata did prove his methodology in producing the woman's face. What that proves is the face was part of Wiegman's original film and does therefore prove the subject in question was a woman - therefore refuting Murphy.


I got permanently banned from Duncan's site because he allowed obvious trolls entering demented input to attack my evidence. He then sided with them saying they were under no obligation to answer anything. When I pointed-out to Duncan that he had just done what he himself haughtily protested over and accused Gordon of doing to him on the Education Forum he banned me because he knew I was right. Duncan's problem was he was trying to serve both sides at the same time. He was obviously doing it to cater to his advertizing revenue by attracting the most members for rating purposes. Duncan made a deal with the devil and traded his soul for clicks. It is unfortunate that Duncan isn't reliable because his site offered some of the best photographic evidence.


In any case it is clear to me that Stancak did make a cartoon graphic for ****** *** in his latest overlay image on the Education Forum. I think that when he applied it he realized it showed that ****** *** had to be standing on the landing. Jim, you are ignoring what I am posting. Stancak's overlay graphic is the exact same overlay of the portal features I was referencing in my verbal arguments. Stancak managed to put to visibility what I had been pointing-out in words. When he did he realized it proved what I was saying. That's why he didn't make a cartoon graphic for ****** *** in that same image even though he did for Frazier. I'm trying to tell you it is proof he knows what I am saying is true and it is wholly dishonest 1) To not point it out, and 2) Not allow me to point it out. Stancak has just proved my case for me with his own graphic and nobody is honest enough to point it out to him while I am restricted without explanation. Also, people forget that Stancak never answered my last post to him or its evidence. While I was subjected to a martinet level of rules and requirements by Gordon, after Stancak was allowed to not answer, the standard Gordon presently enforces in the same thread is one of casual conversation by persons who are obviously unfamiliar with the evidence. It's a hugely unfair double standard but one that works for the Murphy-ites.


I have further confirming original image photo proof of my claim. When I go to the Education Forum the posting box says

You are currently restricted from posting content.

I sent an e-mail to Gordon asking why that went unanswered.


Come on. I expect better from you...Ask Stancak why he didn't make a cartoon image for the person in question.



.

You are truly a sight to behold, Mr. Doyle. You're a part of the times, i'm afraid. Rather prophetic, I must say.