Heads Up!

[Alan Ford]

Since there's nothing wrong with my science or arguments

Nothing wrong except that it isn't science. It's speculation. You refuse to admit that.

Your THEORY that something could be learned by comparing the elements in the frame is a good one Albert, and if it WAS possible to accurately render the space in three dimensions we could in fact learn something. But it's not. And no amount of claiming you're right because you're right will ever change that. Why you're allowed to proffer this nonsense as being "science" baffles me, but perhaps you amuse the moderators.

You've never shown so directly Michael. Both you and David noticeably skip dealing directly with my arguments only to conclude they are wrong for very general reasons that are not accurate.

I posted some very clear qualifiers based on the internal forensic evidence in Darnell that show why your photogrammetry excuses are not valid and do not take precedence over them. I'm not sure if you and David are aware of it but if you look in this thread you both completely avoided them. You both seem to be positioning yourselves to hide behind David's focal point canard. My forensic arguments overturn that excuse and are better evidence. You're just calling it speculation, but you've had every opportunity to show why. So far you haven't been able to do that. What you are saying is false and my forensic points are connected to very real things seen in Darnell. You are falsely calling that speculation but it isn't. It is based on sound evidence and arguments that you have noticeably been unable to credibly answer. You're stooping to semantics here Michael. Meanwhile my hard science proves Prayer Man can't be leaning against the wall like your mentor Greg Parker suggests. My arguments are connected to firm numbers and science. Yours, semantics. You can't ignore my forensics and then step back and call them speculation.

I have already proven why your claim that nothing can be determined in the portal is wrong by means of the internal forensic identifiers you ignored. Both Unger's and MacRae's film clips both showed Prayer Man at the front of the portal and even with Frazier. The sun illuminating the hand is independent of your focal point obfuscation and is the exact opposite of speculation since the sun plane is a fixed entity in and of itself (that you have failed to answer to). That sun lit hand can only happen at the front of the landing. You haven't even admitted the basic scientific fact that objects at equal distance from Darnell's lens can be directly compared since they exist at the same distance.

You gentlemen don't realize that you've been out-argued. Your focal point depth perception claim is not a valid dismisser of all evidence in the portal as you seem to think. You cannot credibly hide behind it as you are doing or use it to ignore valid arguments. You are conspicuously using it to avoid admitting that we have made a good case that Prayer Man and Frazier are at a comparable distance from Darnell's lens and that the obvious height difference can be used to credibly dismiss Oswald as being Prayer Man.

Perhaps this will get me banned, or a time out from this forum, but if so, that's fine. You sir are a liar. I am not going to go back to cut and paste the series of accurate and well thought rebuttals to the horse shit you purvey, but they are in this thread and others for all to see. Your contention that you've been ignored, that your "science" is irrefutable is a lie. Your "points" have been completely countered with evidence. The fact that you either ignore them or don't understand them changes nothing. Your "forensic" points are opinion, have no science behind them and are entirely worthless. David's focal point example was not a canard. It was IN FACT science, and any objective observer would have paused to ponder the implications of how the appearance of three dimensional space can be altered in a two dimensional representation by the length of a lens. This is PROVEN SCIENCE. That you call it a canard exposes you for the charlatan you've always appeared to be.

*edit for spelling.

An objective observer for certain, Mr. Cross, with objective being the operative word here.