Challenge

[Michael Cross]

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.

My God you are a buffon. My "recommended source". I simply provided a link to a man that is working to build a three dimensional model. It's impressive. I have no idea if it's accurate and neither do you.

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.

You are asserting science doesn't need precision. I rest my case.