Challenge

[Albert Doyle]

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.

Michael,


This is an ROKC name-calling level conversation that isn't allowed here.


Your submission deliberately seeks to drag the conversation out into the overly general where you can safely ignore the points I made. You can't do that at this level Michael and at some point you are going to have to answer for what you do here.

All you are saying here is that you just blindly offer Stancak without knowing anything about what you recommend. This is a view I also share of what you offer. If you compare what we offer my posts are full of precise references to evidence that you are clearly making an effort not to answer and deliberately steering the conversation into the uncredibly overly simple. This is typical of ROKC members. When caught not noticing that Stancak claimed an even more forward position for Prayer Man than we did instead of accounting for your gaffe you play dumb and say you are just innocently offering a link.

It is quite stupid of you to not notice that I am accusing you of having no credible understanding what you offer while both condemning and patronizing me. In response to that you basically shoot yourself in the foot by calling Stancak's work "impressive" while then qualifying it with an admission that you aren't really sure if it is complete crap or not. This is pretty stupid Michael, because we are both agreeing that you have no idea of what you are offering and can't account for it when shown. And you are calling ME the buffoon?

Meanwhile Stancak has made some serious mistakes that you obviously have no interest in acknowledging. Which means you aren't a credible source for this and have no right to take the posture you do of bombastic authority while then admitting in the next sentence that you may indeed be offering crap.

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

This does not honestly answer what I wrote.


What I did write was that your cheap dismissal did not answer or live up to the credible science Drew and I presented. That science is sound and you are taking obvious pains to avoid it, which once again means you are not a serious source for this and are not seriously interested in determining the truth. You have been given undue privilege on this site because some well known researchers have a bias towards Murphy. Indeed, the best precision offered on the subject has been shown by Drew and myself. You ROKC deniers, who have successfully infiltrated this site, are in contempt of it and have succeeded in lowering the intellectual/academic quality of this board while subversively undermining its previously accepted standard.


1) Stancak needs to be forced to answer for Fratini's Tie Man evidence that shows beyond a doubt that Prayer Man is on the landing. Stancak is an ROKC incompetent. While it's nice listening to your goofy protestations, a real researcher would take the initiative to seek out and inquire as to Fratini. When he did he would find there is no doubt Prayer Man is up on the landing (which means Stancak has no idea of what he is talking about).

2) If Stancak wants to be helpful he'll do a computer graphic of Wiegman where Lovelady is a clear 2-3 inches taller than Prayer Man. Seeing how Lovelady is known to be 5 foot 8, that is a final and devastating point of evidence that proves Prayer Man isn't Oswald once and for all. Again, credible researchers seek and inquire over this kind of evidence. ROKC clowns do their best to avoid it.


3) I have a very good idea of whether Stancak is accurate or not by the things I wrote in precise detail that you ignored. You don't seem to realize that while talking down to me you are offering something that is basically an admission of lack of qualification. You ROKC deniers get very mushy when caught and this is a good example. The trigonometry Drew offered proves Prayer Man isn't Oswald and you haven't answered for it short of name-calling and getting out as fast as possible.



.