Challenge

[Albert Doyle]

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.

It would be in your interest to not have to answer how your recommended source, Stancak, agrees with me and places Prayer Man even more forward than we do with no such protest from you. Michael, may I ask how you are going to convince people to take your thundering authority and disapproval seriously when you make such gaffes? Let me get this straight. You are saying we can't make any measurements but then automatically approving of Stancak who agrees even more that Prayer Man is way forward on the landing? I can understand your need to keep this short. Otherwise you might actually have to answer for stuff like this.

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.

If you had any understanding of what we were talking about you would realize your answer falls way short and doesn't answer our science. Your precise scale excuse above doesn't recognize that it doesn't refute our science. The same science you are avoiding by focusing on this specious irrelevant point. You've been getting away with this too long Michael and the trouble is it still doesn't answer the point. The answer to what you write here is that our trigonometry argument is good as presented and does reasonably disprove Prayer Man as Oswald. Your scale canard here doesn't answer for it or disprove it. You're just using it as a cheap strawman to avoid giving a credible answer.

Gilbride managed to recognize the good science we offered. He is helping turn the corner on this with credible researchers. If you go back and actually recognize what we wrote your bogus dismissal here doesn't answer to it and doesn't disprove its merit. The math we provided does exclude Oswald as being Prayer Man on a mathematical basis from the measurements that could be gotten. You are just ignoring good evidence like the 2 gif's that showed Prayer Man at the front, the sun plane evidence, Unger's admission that Prayer Man was forward, and worst of all - your own source's insistence that Prayer Man was well forward and on the step. It's kind of foolish for you to offer Stancak and then not realize he's more forward than anybody. How does that work for your credibility and the worth of your opinion Michael? You're obviously making desperate excuses to avoid the inevitable. I was told I was alone on this. A more honest view would show that only the deniers refuse to admit this and just about every one else, including Stancak and Unger, agree Prayer Man is up forward.

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.

That's the worst part of this Michael. That while patronizing us and telling us we don't understand the science if you look at the content of our offerings it is clearly our side that offers the better photogrammetry. You are just name-calling and offering self-serving excuses. A more credible examination will show our science is sound, disproves Prayer Man as Oswald, and hasn't even been touched by you. This isn't ROKC and you can't get away with metadata excuses any more. The corner is being turned on this and the science will prove that crude dismissals won't work any more like they have up to now. There has been some very credible science offered that deserves a better answer. So far you haven't given one. You are the ones not bringing enough to the table here not I.