Heads Up!

[Albert Doyle]

Unmitigated bullsh!t buddy. Fetzer and Cinque could use a man like you!

David,


I have already given technical information to show why your over-simplified entries aren't valid and you have ignored it each time I posted it. If you read my post I gave examples that qualify the placement of Prayer Man. The most important being the sun striking the hand in the Wiegman glowing hand shot. It is funny how when analysts post weeks-long theories on cameras and coffee cups there is no such technical protest. They are allowed to endlessly post on non-existent objects creating a whole mystery world existence and history for these Oswald-associated objects when the truth is the glowing object is Prayer Man's hand glancing the sun/shadow plane. A sharp eye will see the glowing object just so happens to be oblong like a hand. If you want to offer technical protest do it where it is deserved with these claims over non-existing Oswald-associated objects. They don't exist. Any analyst who practices the true level of scrutiny you proclaim would observe that Prayer Man's hand could only glow in a position that is up at the forward edge of the landing by sun plane. This is not "eyeballing" as you said because the sun plane is a fixed entity that only exists at the front of the landing. It is independent of visual observation because it exists with independent scientific certainty. I have mentioned this several times and you have ignored it.

May I remind you that Fetzer and Cinque are proponents of imaginary Oswald's in the portal.

PM is only 12 inches (maybe even 6) further back that the Wesley? - didn't your fingers get all stinky pulling that out of your a$$?

I wonder if I would get away with this vulgarity if it came from my side?

I also noticed that you repeatedly ignored that Robin Unger analyzed his Prayer Man frames after seeing members of MacRae's forum question Prayer Man's location on the landing. He commented, after seeing my entries, that he too thought the forensic landmarks like the brickwork placed Prayer Man forward in the landing. I see you have ignored that each time I posted it.

You don't have the first clue about the distances that separated them just as you would tell me the can in the back is at varying distances from the front car - depending on which photo I showed you.

You're doing it again David. Drew and Trotter already called you on this and you ignored them. You are skipping my abstract arguments of forensic evidence and going right to your totally-unrelated photo science examples. In doing that you are ignoring my qualifiers that deal specifically with the evidence within the portal photos we are talking about. You have ignored those qualifiers each and every time I posted them only to reference non-related other photos.

If I took the focal lengths off this image you'd be telling me the cans moved - brilliant!

The trouble with your can imagery is it doesn't answer the forensic particulars I pointed-out in Darnell and Wiegman that Unger agreed with. You see the glowing hand from the sun plane cannot be perspective tweaked. Once you have the sun illuminating Prayer Man's hand in a place that can only be at the front of the landing that forensic evidence cannot be disregarded using irrelevant examples of focal point shifting from lenses. Just like the brickwork Unger pointed-out as landmarking Prayer Man's position forward in the landing. The flaw in your overly-general examples here David is that they ignore the locked-in internal qualifiers I posted several times and you ignored each and every time only to return with scientific irrelevancies (and vulgarities). You see those things are immune too your self-serving focal length perspective shifts and serve as trumping qualifiers and photo forensic evidence of location. They are also things that exist in the photos in question and not in other photos that have no relation to what we're talking about.

It's okay to be wrong Albert. Okay to admit you are making a mistake and simply don't understand measurements and distance of a 3d representation on 2d space.

David,


I have posted several times that both MacRae and Unger have posted film clips at MacRae's site that show beyond a doubt that Prayer Man is at the front of the landing. The reason this is superior evidence is because the slight movement Prayer Man makes in those clips is enough to create depth perception that makes Prayer Man's location at the front of the landing visible. I'm disappointed that someone like you who claims a superior level of analysis skill would just flagrantly ignore this proof of Prayer Man's position and refer to inferior evidence and overly-general still shots of focal length perspective skewing. If you read your entries you are trying to claim a very vague and overly-general disqualifying of all photo evidence due to others not comprehending "3d objects in 2d space". But, frankly, it looks to me that you are desperately trying to use that to ignore all of the evidence I have been posting that refutes it. I would say proof of this is your refusal to recognize it and how it overcomes your overly-general claim. In short, your posting images of cans doesn't validly answer the many points of photo forensic evidence seen in Darnell that prove what I'm saying. Your can photos don't overcome this evidence.

or you can keep on guessing and throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.

One gives you a slight bit of class and self respect - the other just keeps your hands and fingers stinky...



::


::evilpenguin::

What you haven't answered here is that, contrary to your saying I was the only one seeing this, many others, including ROKC and Unger, have emphatically posted that Prayer Man is at the front of the landing. You are just ignoring this while trying to lower the conversation to epithet-filled ridicule. Meanwhile you have totally ignored my examples of the internal forensic indicators of the brickwork and aluminum frame orienting Prayer Man forward (agreed to by Unger); the two film clips that show Prayer Man forward in the landing; and the sun glow on Prayer Man's hand and forearm that could only occur at the front of the landing.

Your position is simply a dismissive one that makes the claim that any photo evidence can't be analyzed because of focal length skewing. However you are dishonestly using that to ignore valid photo forensic evidence that refutes it. I think smart people will see your total refusal to even recognize or address the forensic qualifiers I listed bespeaks a consciousness of their validity.

There's a basic point your entries fall short of. That is, once we reasonably prove Prayer Man is at the front the landing (which we have) that there's no excuse to not directly compare the obvious height difference between Frazier and Prayer Man. I don't know why you are struggling against that because it is a good argument. Sorry David but if you compare our entries there is some very valid science you are ignoring. My observations about the geometric math in the portal are valid and deserve a more respectful, serious response. You blow them off by simply ridiculing them as "Fetzering", but if you gave them the serious attention they deserve you would find they are valid and do prove what I'm saying. I have to protest that you are being allowed to ignore (and even ridicule) valid science. A simple overhead chart showing those planes and distances would make it clear. Credible analysts would go for this evidence and what it shows instead of dismissive ridicule.

Once you establish Prayer Man is even with Frazier at the front of the landing the geometric math of the portal dimensions and distance plane from Darnell's lens does prove that a direct height comparison between Frazier and Prayer Man can be made. It is very obvious that Frazier is 6-7 inches taller than Prayer Man, therefore disqualifying him as Oswald within the evidence we already have.

You have ignored my Fratini evidence that proves beyond a doubt that Prayer Man is on the landing with Frazier.

Pictures of cans and ridicule does not answer this.

PS: I agree with your gif that shows somebody being shoved from behind.



.