Challenge

[Alan Ford]

However, we don't have PRECISE measurements of any architectural feature in the door way. We have estimates. Attempts at "geometry" etc are therefore estimates. The Darnell frame itself doesn't have three dimensions.

Here is where Michael tries to wiggle out of the admitted flaws in his side's offerings. What is really happening here is our trigonometry is valid and does operate within acceptable parameters capable of ruling out certain possibilities, including Oswald being Prayer Man. Meanwhile the real failure in accuracy comes from ROKC and Stancak's jerry-built computer graphic pseudo-analysis, which is really just Stancak hoping he can get away with murder because people are impressed by his computer graphic skills.

I'm not going to spend much time on you Brian, as your continued assertions based on vapor are laughable. Why you continue to be allowed to peddle this nonsense on a serious forum is baffling.

Your "trigonometry" is based, according to Drew, on the drawing David Joseph's presented in post #79 of the now locked thread "heads up" (a post in which you didn't even know the length of a measurement you were using for your "proof"). That drawing - which is attached - has a "scale in feet" guide, and features crudely drawn steps of varying width which are clearly not a representation of the actual steps. It is not precise. It is not a blueprint. It is not a survey of the site. It is crudely rendered and imprecise. Further IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POSITIONS OF ANY PERSON THAT WAS ON THE STEPS. ANY ASSIGNMENT OF POSITION IS A GUESS AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE USED TO FORMULATE PROOF. I don't know how else to say this, and with all due respect to Drew: NO OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE POSITIONS OF THE PEOPLE ON THE STEPS EXISTS. THEREFORE THERE CAN BE NO ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF THEIR POSITIONS ON THE STEPS AND RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. IT CANNOT BE DONE. DREW USED MATH TO PRODUCE CONJECTURE BASED ON THIS ESTIMATION OF POSITIONS.


I'm sorry that you don't understand mathematics (or photography). Math is PRECISE. It requires PRECISE measurements to produce an outcome. Everything you propose as proven is based on estimations AND IS COMPLETE HOGWASH. You are either ignorant or are willfully trying to mislead. Being combative does not lend credence to the inane tripe you continue to spout.

You continue to spew disinformation. Frankly, that you are allowed to continue this campaign taints what is otherwise an superb forum.

Well said, Mr. Cross, in respect to being fair about guessing and estimating as oppose to having concrete specific data to make a fair evaluation. There's nothing ever wrong with making a fair evaluation based upon specifics.