05-03-2017, 08:22 PM
Mark,
Your last comment just shows your ignorance and trollish contempt. I'm a respected world expert on Jimi's death who has done a radio show on it in San Francisco. The fact you show so little respect towards what is one if the best examples of a Deep State assassination perfectly illustrates your punkish nature and trollish intent. There's a huge double standard where certain people are allowed to rip into other certain people with no fear of site rules or anything.
Unger is like Davidson, very good technically but stays away from trouble and abstract argument of evidence. Both Davidson and Unger shy away from interpreting what they show. I think they don't want to upset bullies like yourself Mark, who exploit internecine research community politics and use intimidation, like you do here, to side with the mob instead of honoring sound analysis. Mark, it is obvious to me that you possess no skill and are threatened by those who do, hence you use the crude tactic of personal attack to defend those who you know will let you get away with it because they don't want to admit they're wrong.
Over on Duncan's site Unger made a negative comment about me saying all I did was "yak yak yak". I pointed out to Unger that actually I had made some very direct and evidenced arguments that he made no attempt to answer. The problem with this issue is persons like DiEugenio may be brilliant, but the technical evidence exists in a very narrow abstract niche that most people are not able to detect. Also, there's a huge bias towards Murphy because he represents a very temptingly sexy theory that exonerates Oswald with no doubt. It is irresistible for these CTer's to not put Oswald into that gray area that evidence magician Sean Murphy goes out of his way to craft. When you get enough prominent CTer's to give Murphy the nod others will follow because they don't possess the skill or energy to overcome Murphy's industriousness.
In short Mark, like Jim D you show intellectual/research laziness and incompetence by not realizing the issue has already been solved. Because your approach is limited to trollish attacking of my posts you don't realize that this issue has been hanging at the impasse of the Davidson enchancement and its metadata. Jim D was assisting in disallowing the posting of that fact on this board. Yet in his comments he exposed the fact that he was ignorant of the basic facts of the issue. Jim was completely unfamiliar with the basic evidence or arguments. When I informed him that the issue was stuck at the point of Davidson's metadata he didn't answer. So what you are doing here is calling for something that has already been given and you aren't aware of because of your contempt.
This is why the unaccountable absence of photo experts like Chris Davidson and Robin Unger from this issue is so damaging to credible research. Actually someone did put it directly to Davidson on Duncan's board. He responded "I am not interested in this topic but will say in my personal opinion my enhancement does show the face of a woman on Prayer Man". When I pointed out that persons like DiEugenio usually accept Chris Davidson's work without question and he is generally seen as a credible photo expert I got the usual silence. Chris's opinion is unquestioned except when it comes to putting the final word on a bogus theory that many of the silent people championed. Unger and Davidson are quiet because they don't want to get into the mess those who refuse to admit Murphy is bogus create instead of honestly admitting evidence. This effort is strongly directed by ROKC.
As to Shelley and Lovelady walking down the Elm St Extension, it's definitely them. There's enough evidence like the plaid pattern and bald spot and Shelley's head being confirmed by Miller. The reason this evidence isn't admitted is because it gives tabloid researchers like Graves and Larsen the opportunity for unending parsing and microanalysis that goes nowhere but keeps them at the top. This is enforced by witless Gordon who sees volume as preferable over quality information. It gives the artificial appearance of the Education Forum being an active academic room full of the best thinkers when in fact it promotes offerers of lesser information over persons capable of resolving issues. What good is it to have photo experts if they don't use their discoveries to reach the best conclusions? What good is discussing evidence if corrupted moderation is going to prevent the correct conclusions from being made?
The reason Graves and Larsen are concentrating on Shelley, Lovelady, and Calvery is because they are diverting from the real issue that Murphy is being debunked and therefore throwing cold reality on their favorite theory. It is quickly becoming clear that Shelley and Lovelady left right away, as the reality Bob Prudhomme is in denial of shows in the Couch/Darnell films. None of the mob will point this out to Bob because they don't want to disprove their own favorite theory. Gloria Calvery being seen running up to the portal in Darnell quickly proves that Baker and Truly ran right up and in, and she followed, just as witness Molina testified. Baker & Truly then confronted Oswald in the lunchroom. And, finally, Sarah Stanton is Prayer Man.
Prudhomme is on the Education Forum saying the fact Shelley looks taller than Lovelady on the Elm St Extension shows it isn't them. I just found a quote from Frazier on the ROKC site saying "Shelley was slightly taller than Lovelady". Bob ignores the other overwhelming evidence that proves it is them.
Mark - get back to us when you can directly confront any of this stuff yourself...
Your last comment just shows your ignorance and trollish contempt. I'm a respected world expert on Jimi's death who has done a radio show on it in San Francisco. The fact you show so little respect towards what is one if the best examples of a Deep State assassination perfectly illustrates your punkish nature and trollish intent. There's a huge double standard where certain people are allowed to rip into other certain people with no fear of site rules or anything.
Unger is like Davidson, very good technically but stays away from trouble and abstract argument of evidence. Both Davidson and Unger shy away from interpreting what they show. I think they don't want to upset bullies like yourself Mark, who exploit internecine research community politics and use intimidation, like you do here, to side with the mob instead of honoring sound analysis. Mark, it is obvious to me that you possess no skill and are threatened by those who do, hence you use the crude tactic of personal attack to defend those who you know will let you get away with it because they don't want to admit they're wrong.
Over on Duncan's site Unger made a negative comment about me saying all I did was "yak yak yak". I pointed out to Unger that actually I had made some very direct and evidenced arguments that he made no attempt to answer. The problem with this issue is persons like DiEugenio may be brilliant, but the technical evidence exists in a very narrow abstract niche that most people are not able to detect. Also, there's a huge bias towards Murphy because he represents a very temptingly sexy theory that exonerates Oswald with no doubt. It is irresistible for these CTer's to not put Oswald into that gray area that evidence magician Sean Murphy goes out of his way to craft. When you get enough prominent CTer's to give Murphy the nod others will follow because they don't possess the skill or energy to overcome Murphy's industriousness.
In short Mark, like Jim D you show intellectual/research laziness and incompetence by not realizing the issue has already been solved. Because your approach is limited to trollish attacking of my posts you don't realize that this issue has been hanging at the impasse of the Davidson enchancement and its metadata. Jim D was assisting in disallowing the posting of that fact on this board. Yet in his comments he exposed the fact that he was ignorant of the basic facts of the issue. Jim was completely unfamiliar with the basic evidence or arguments. When I informed him that the issue was stuck at the point of Davidson's metadata he didn't answer. So what you are doing here is calling for something that has already been given and you aren't aware of because of your contempt.
This is why the unaccountable absence of photo experts like Chris Davidson and Robin Unger from this issue is so damaging to credible research. Actually someone did put it directly to Davidson on Duncan's board. He responded "I am not interested in this topic but will say in my personal opinion my enhancement does show the face of a woman on Prayer Man". When I pointed out that persons like DiEugenio usually accept Chris Davidson's work without question and he is generally seen as a credible photo expert I got the usual silence. Chris's opinion is unquestioned except when it comes to putting the final word on a bogus theory that many of the silent people championed. Unger and Davidson are quiet because they don't want to get into the mess those who refuse to admit Murphy is bogus create instead of honestly admitting evidence. This effort is strongly directed by ROKC.
As to Shelley and Lovelady walking down the Elm St Extension, it's definitely them. There's enough evidence like the plaid pattern and bald spot and Shelley's head being confirmed by Miller. The reason this evidence isn't admitted is because it gives tabloid researchers like Graves and Larsen the opportunity for unending parsing and microanalysis that goes nowhere but keeps them at the top. This is enforced by witless Gordon who sees volume as preferable over quality information. It gives the artificial appearance of the Education Forum being an active academic room full of the best thinkers when in fact it promotes offerers of lesser information over persons capable of resolving issues. What good is it to have photo experts if they don't use their discoveries to reach the best conclusions? What good is discussing evidence if corrupted moderation is going to prevent the correct conclusions from being made?
The reason Graves and Larsen are concentrating on Shelley, Lovelady, and Calvery is because they are diverting from the real issue that Murphy is being debunked and therefore throwing cold reality on their favorite theory. It is quickly becoming clear that Shelley and Lovelady left right away, as the reality Bob Prudhomme is in denial of shows in the Couch/Darnell films. None of the mob will point this out to Bob because they don't want to disprove their own favorite theory. Gloria Calvery being seen running up to the portal in Darnell quickly proves that Baker and Truly ran right up and in, and she followed, just as witness Molina testified. Baker & Truly then confronted Oswald in the lunchroom. And, finally, Sarah Stanton is Prayer Man.
Prudhomme is on the Education Forum saying the fact Shelley looks taller than Lovelady on the Elm St Extension shows it isn't them. I just found a quote from Frazier on the ROKC site saying "Shelley was slightly taller than Lovelady". Bob ignores the other overwhelming evidence that proves it is them.
Mark - get back to us when you can directly confront any of this stuff yourself...