Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[David Healy]

Cut the crap Albert - didn't you just write: "That was a 1 minute walk" so even if Ozzie leaves at 12:27, he gets to the PM position well before the morotcade arrives.

But you're not answering the point David. Answer my original point please (which nobody seems to be able to do). That point was that by Greg Parker's logic he's claiming that Mrs Arnold saw Oswald in the lunch-room at 12:15. Yet, if you pay close attention to what he's claiming he's also claiming Mrs Arnold left the Depository for good at 12:25. As I already pointed out, there's a serious timing problem with that. That walk only takes 1 minute - yet we have Greg indirectly claiming it took 10 minutes without accounting for it.

You can claim the timing was possible for Oswald to walk down from Mrs Arnold's 12:25 witnessing in the lunch-room in order to get him on the front steps but I would remind you you would have to do so in the face of zero witnesses, not answering the proof for Prayer Man being a woman, and Oswald then having to dash up to the lunch-room ahead of Baker without being out of breath. It makes much more sense that the Oswald Mrs Arnold saw settled in for lunch stayed there and finished his lunch, where he was then seen casual and not out of breath by Officer Baker. It also makes sense that Harvey would be given an order that kept him out of view and away from the action in the lunch-room. Harvey stayed in character at the police station. This isn't a profile that would then blow cover by wandering down to the front door. "Crap"? I don't think so.

Whenever Parker finds an FBI report that doesn't support his theories, he tries to refute them without an ounce of corroboration... never has there been a researcher more full of it.

I've never seen a bigger bullshit artist get this far without being called on it. I'm amazed the community lets him get away with it and takes him seriously. However in this case Parker is agreeing with the fraudulent 12:15 time FBI indicated on the report that Mrs Arnold protested.

You do understand these are approximate times... right?

They were accurate enough to provoke a protest from Mrs Arnold.

As for Duncan's ability to see things in that highly pixelated junk... that's up to each of you to decide. In my view, there is not enough info in those images to make that detailed a conclusion.

I think those who are philosophically committed to Prayer Man being Oswald see the pixels where those who are objectively looking at what is discernable in the photos see the obvious evidence that is visible at that resolution. I'm 100% confident credible photo analysis will show the Darnell blow-up shows long wavy woman's hair. I can see it plain as day. So can others. In fact I've been seeing it for months now long before Duncan made his post. I say there is 100% viable credible evidence in those pictures of Prayer Man grasping a purse with her left hand and partially obstructing her right arm with its corner. This is plain as day in Darnell and matches this claim perfectly. It is also an observation that is above the pixel level and plainly observable in what can be seen. This is above the pixel level and deals with clear shapes and their obvious explanation as well as hair tones and shapes.

With enough manipulation anyone can make little off color spots, shadow and light look like anything they might want it to be... claiming those arrows point to buttons given the clarity and size is wishful thinking at best.

You're philosophizing David. I think you'll find the original Darnell still to be unaltered and show the exact same thing.



.

here's why these type of threads are nonsense in my humble opinion... and this is a beef I've had for years. Self-styled photo interpreters can't determine the lineage of the photos they work with, have never determined what generation image they are working with, do NOT disclaim their image interpretation and generation are simply negligent. Those who agree or disagree with their "photo intepretation" are sawing off the limb the interpreter is standing on, credibility is shot--a simple waste of bandwidth... fools-folly. Especially if one has a modicum of knowledge concerning film/phots related to this case.

How do you determine color of clothes or for that matter hair style in a seriously deformed b/w photo? I doubt even Lampoon Lamson (of the dunc-meister forum) would touch that one, even with a ten foot pole...