Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[Albert Doyle]

Dunce has recruited a disciple!!

Thanks for being unable to answer any of my extensively detailed points Bob. And you were calling me the troll.



I think we know who the cult disciple is here.



Bob, how did Carolyn Arnold take 10 minutes to go from the lunch-room to the front door?



And why did she leave for good 5 minutes before the shooting?



Greg Parker: "It doesn't make any sense".

[Bob Prudhomme]

Dunce has recruited a disciple!!

Thanks for being unable to answer any of my extensively detailed points Bob. And you were calling me the troll.



I think we know who the cult disciple is here.



Bob, how did Carolyn Arnold take 10 minutes to go from the lunch-room to the front door?



And why did she leave for good 5 minutes before the shooting?



Greg Parker: "It doesn't make any sense".

What does Carolyn Arnold have to do with Dunce MacRae's cartoon alterations of the Prayer Man still?

[Albert Doyle]

What does Carolyn Arnold have to do with Dunce MacRae's cartoon alterations of the Prayer Man still?

Playing dumb again Bob? You're calling obvious evidence 'alterations' in order to avoid answering what it shows. Not very honest of you Bob. I don't think they are alterations and I think you can trace them back to the original Darnell still.



Carolyn Arnold complained to Golz that FBI altered her statement that she saw Oswald at 12:25 when she left the building. Your cult leader Parker gave a very impressive imitation of one of Judyth Baker's long drawn out excuses in order to account for it. Typical of Parker he patronized a real time witness, Mrs Arnold, and told her why her memory was wrong. He honored FBI's 12:15 time, that Mrs Arnold protested was wrong, and claimed she confused her second statement where she told FBI she left the Depository for good at 12:25 with her original statement where she told FBI she left the 2nd floor at 12:15. Greg then says this proves Mrs Arnold saw Oswald in the lunch-room at 12:15.

It's obvious what you are doing here Bob is answering a question with a question in order to avoid answering. Why don't you have your cult leader answer my original post and the specific points it made? It pointed out that by Greg's theory Carolyn Arnold would had to have taken 10 minutes to leave the 2nd floor and finally exit the Depository at 12:25, as Greg is claiming. That was a 1 minute walk, so Greg has some explaining to do. Also, Greg is proposing that Carolyn Arnold left the Depository for good at 12:25. But why would she leave the Depository for good if Kennedy wasn't shot until 5 minutes later? Could it be Bob, that the timing of the 1 minute walk from the 2nd floor lunch-room to a 12:25 final exit marks Mrs Arnold's lunch-room witnessing as occurring at 12:24-25? Could it be that instead of Greg's correction of live witness, Mrs Arnold, that her protest that she saw Oswald at 12:25 and FBI altered it to 12:15 is correct? Could it be that what I wrote confirms it by logic crosseye'd Greg missed and both of you haven't been able to answer?


Do I need to explain that if Oswald was in the lunch-room at 12:25 then he wasn't out on the front steps as Prayer Man?


Bob, instead of answering this directly what Parker does is give a speech to himself where he mulls over the same stuff without ever answering the points. He does that because he can't answer point for point. He thinks calling it obtuse will relieve him of answering what he's clearly unable to answer. He stays desperately away from answering any of my direct points. For instance he never makes any attempt to explain why his theory requires Carolyn Arnold to take 10 minutes to walk the 1 minute route from the 2nd floor to the exit? Greg's not going to answer that. The reason why is because he can't. He also never touches why Mrs Arnold would leave the Depository for good at 12:25? - 5 minutes before JFK was shot. Another example of Greg's credulous offerings is he says Piper's claim that he spoke to Oswald on the 1st floor proves Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald at 12:15. That's a completely confused and inaccurate statement. First off, Piper said he saw Oswald at noon. So his sighting has nothing to do with anything and doesn't answer anything. It's just a typical Parker non-sequitir that is thrown in there as a prop claiming to answer the issue when in fact it is just a space filler being used to avoid giving a valid answer. Piper seeing Oswald at noon means absolutely nothing in relation to the conflicts I pointed out in Greg's claim. Parker's getting away with murder because he repeats that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on the 1st floor despite her iron clad quote that she never saw Oswald there. And people let him get away with it without saying anything. I guess people who deal at a trolling level miss it too. Wake up Bob. Your boy is a fraud as this proves.



.

[David Josephs]

What does Carolyn Arnold have to do with Dunce MacRae's cartoon alterations of the Prayer Man still?

Playing dumb again Bob? You're calling obvious evidence 'alterations' in order to avoid answering what it shows. Not very honest of you Bob. I don't think they are alterations and I think you can trace them back to the original Darnell still.



Carolyn Arnold complained to Golz that FBI altered her statement that she saw Oswald at 12:25 when she left the building. Your cult leader Parker gave a very impressive imitation of one of Judyth Baker's long drawn out excuses in order to account for it. Typical of Parker he patronized a real time witness, Mrs Arnold, and told her why her memory was wrong. He honored FBI's 12:15 time, that Mrs Arnold protested was wrong, and claimed she confused her second statement where she told FBI she left the Depository for good at 12:25 with her original statement where she told FBI she left the 2nd floor at 12:15. Greg then says this proves Mrs Arnold saw Oswald in the lunch-room at 12:15.

It's obvious what you are doing here Bob is answering a question with a question in order to avoid answering. Why don't you have your cult leader answer my original post and the specific points it made? It pointed out that by Greg's theory Carolyn Arnold would had to have taken 10 minutes to leave the 2nd floor and finally exit the Depository at 12:25, as Greg is claiming. That was a 1 minute walk, so Greg has some explaining to do. Also, Greg is proposing that Carolyn Arnold left the Depository for good at 12:25. But why would she leave the Depository for good if Kennedy wasn't shot until 5 minutes later? Could it be Bob, that the timing of the 1 minute walk from the 2nd floor lunch-room to a 12:25 final exit marks Mrs Arnold's lunch-room witnessing as occurring at 12:24-25? Could it be that instead of Greg's correction of live witness, Mrs Arnold, that her protest that she saw Oswald at 12:25 and FBI altered it to 12:15 is correct? Could it be that what I wrote confirms it by logic crosseye'd Greg missed and both of you haven't been able to answer?


Do I need to explain that if Oswald was in the lunch-room at 12:25 then he wasn't out on the front steps as Prayer Man?

Cut the crap Albert - didn't you just write: "That was a 1 minute walk" so even if Ozzie leaves at 12:27, he gets to the PM position well before the morotcade arrives.

Whenever Parker finds an FBI report that doesn't support his theories, he tries to refute them without an ounce of corroboration... never has there been a researcher more full of it.

You do understand these are approximate times... right?

In an interview with the journalist Earl Golz in 1978, Carolyn Arnold claimed that "she saw Oswald in the 2ndfloor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the depository to watch the presidential motorcade …. She left the building at 12:25pm." (Earl Golz, Was Oswald in Window?,' Dallas Morning News, 26 November 1978, p.13A; available as PDF). Golz quotes her as saying that Oswald "was sitting there … in one of the booth seats on the righthand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." She explicitly denied that her sighting of Oswald took place near the front doors: "Why would I be looking back inside the building? That doesn't make any sense to me."

The 12:15pm time is BOGUS... the FBI created this time for their report and has nothing to do with reality. There is no 10 minute walk to worry about..
The "inside the front doors" is denied.

When Mrs. Reid is asked if there were any men when she left the 2nd floor lunchroom: There either was or wasn't Albert... nothing difficult about the question after sitting there and eating

Mr. BELIN. Were you the last person in the lunchroom?
Mrs. REID. No; I could not say that because I don't remember that part of it because I was going out of the building by myself, I wasn't even, you know, connected with anyone at all.
Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there?
Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that.

That sure sounds scared to me... and does not say there were no men left when she leaves

Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mrs. REID. I can't remember the time they left.

So basically thie following report is pure junk. How long any walk may or may not have taken is unknowable - regardless of how one Mr. Parker thinks it SHOULD go.

We do not see the PM figure in images until 12:30... as you say it's a 1 minute walk so no real problem there. The man REID sees after the assassination with a coke does not have a shirt or jacket over his T-Shirt

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt?
Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on.

This argument at least is not a credible argument against PM being Harvey Oswald.

As for Duncan's ability to see things in that highly pixelated junk... that's up to each of you to decide. In my view, there is not enough info in those images to make that detailed a conclusion.

With enough manipulation anyone can make little off color spots, shadow and light look like anything they might want it to be... claiming those arrows point to buttons given the clarity and size is wishful thinking at best.

There is yet to be a significant rebuttal to PM being Oswald which EXCLUDES the possibility.

[Albert Doyle]

Cut the crap Albert - didn't you just write: "That was a 1 minute walk" so even if Ozzie leaves at 12:27, he gets to the PM position well before the morotcade arrives.

But you're not answering the point David. Answer my original point please (which nobody seems to be able to do). That point was that by Greg Parker's logic he's claiming that Mrs Arnold saw Oswald in the lunch-room at 12:15. Yet, if you pay close attention to what he's claiming he's also claiming Mrs Arnold left the Depository for good at 12:25. As I already pointed out, there's a serious timing problem with that. That walk only takes 1 minute - yet we have Greg indirectly claiming it took 10 minutes without accounting for it.

You can claim the timing was possible for Oswald to walk down from Mrs Arnold's 12:25 witnessing in the lunch-room in order to get him on the front steps but I would remind you you would have to do so in the face of zero witnesses, not answering the proof for Prayer Man being a woman, and Oswald then having to dash up to the lunch-room ahead of Baker without being out of breath. It makes much more sense that the Oswald Mrs Arnold saw settled in for lunch stayed there and finished his lunch, where he was then seen casual and not out of breath by Officer Baker. It also makes sense that Harvey would be given an order that kept him out of view and away from the action in the lunch-room. Harvey stayed in character at the police station. This isn't a profile that would then blow cover by wandering down to the front door. "Crap"? I don't think so.

Whenever Parker finds an FBI report that doesn't support his theories, he tries to refute them without an ounce of corroboration... never has there been a researcher more full of it.

I've never seen a bigger bullshit artist get this far without being called on it. I'm amazed the community lets him get away with it and takes him seriously. However in this case Parker is agreeing with the fraudulent 12:15 time FBI indicated on the report that Mrs Arnold protested.

You do understand these are approximate times... right?

They were accurate enough to provoke a protest from Mrs Arnold.

As for Duncan's ability to see things in that highly pixelated junk... that's up to each of you to decide. In my view, there is not enough info in those images to make that detailed a conclusion.

I think those who are philosophically committed to Prayer Man being Oswald see the pixels where those who are objectively looking at what is discernable in the photos see the obvious evidence that is visible at that resolution. I'm 100% confident credible photo analysis will show the Darnell blow-up shows long wavy woman's hair. I can see it plain as day. So can others. In fact I've been seeing it for months now long before Duncan made his post. I say there is 100% viable credible evidence in those pictures of Prayer Man grasping a purse with her left hand and partially obstructing her right arm with its corner. This is plain as day in Darnell and matches this claim perfectly. It is also an observation that is above the pixel level and plainly observable in what can be seen. This is above the pixel level and deals with clear shapes and their obvious explanation as well as hair tones and shapes.

With enough manipulation anyone can make little off color spots, shadow and light look like anything they might want it to be... claiming those arrows point to buttons given the clarity and size is wishful thinking at best.

You're philosophizing David. I think you'll find the original Darnell still to be unaltered and show the exact same thing.



.

[David Healy]

Cut the crap Albert - didn't you just write: "That was a 1 minute walk" so even if Ozzie leaves at 12:27, he gets to the PM position well before the morotcade arrives.

But you're not answering the point David. Answer my original point please (which nobody seems to be able to do). That point was that by Greg Parker's logic he's claiming that Mrs Arnold saw Oswald in the lunch-room at 12:15. Yet, if you pay close attention to what he's claiming he's also claiming Mrs Arnold left the Depository for good at 12:25. As I already pointed out, there's a serious timing problem with that. That walk only takes 1 minute - yet we have Greg indirectly claiming it took 10 minutes without accounting for it.

You can claim the timing was possible for Oswald to walk down from Mrs Arnold's 12:25 witnessing in the lunch-room in order to get him on the front steps but I would remind you you would have to do so in the face of zero witnesses, not answering the proof for Prayer Man being a woman, and Oswald then having to dash up to the lunch-room ahead of Baker without being out of breath. It makes much more sense that the Oswald Mrs Arnold saw settled in for lunch stayed there and finished his lunch, where he was then seen casual and not out of breath by Officer Baker. It also makes sense that Harvey would be given an order that kept him out of view and away from the action in the lunch-room. Harvey stayed in character at the police station. This isn't a profile that would then blow cover by wandering down to the front door. "Crap"? I don't think so.

Whenever Parker finds an FBI report that doesn't support his theories, he tries to refute them without an ounce of corroboration... never has there been a researcher more full of it.

I've never seen a bigger bullshit artist get this far without being called on it. I'm amazed the community lets him get away with it and takes him seriously. However in this case Parker is agreeing with the fraudulent 12:15 time FBI indicated on the report that Mrs Arnold protested.

You do understand these are approximate times... right?

They were accurate enough to provoke a protest from Mrs Arnold.

As for Duncan's ability to see things in that highly pixelated junk... that's up to each of you to decide. In my view, there is not enough info in those images to make that detailed a conclusion.

I think those who are philosophically committed to Prayer Man being Oswald see the pixels where those who are objectively looking at what is discernable in the photos see the obvious evidence that is visible at that resolution. I'm 100% confident credible photo analysis will show the Darnell blow-up shows long wavy woman's hair. I can see it plain as day. So can others. In fact I've been seeing it for months now long before Duncan made his post. I say there is 100% viable credible evidence in those pictures of Prayer Man grasping a purse with her left hand and partially obstructing her right arm with its corner. This is plain as day in Darnell and matches this claim perfectly. It is also an observation that is above the pixel level and plainly observable in what can be seen. This is above the pixel level and deals with clear shapes and their obvious explanation as well as hair tones and shapes.

With enough manipulation anyone can make little off color spots, shadow and light look like anything they might want it to be... claiming those arrows point to buttons given the clarity and size is wishful thinking at best.

You're philosophizing David. I think you'll find the original Darnell still to be unaltered and show the exact same thing.



.

here's why these type of threads are nonsense in my humble opinion... and this is a beef I've had for years. Self-styled photo interpreters can't determine the lineage of the photos they work with, have never determined what generation image they are working with, do NOT disclaim their image interpretation and generation are simply negligent. Those who agree or disagree with their "photo intepretation" are sawing off the limb the interpreter is standing on, credibility is shot--a simple waste of bandwidth... fools-folly. Especially if one has a modicum of knowledge concerning film/phots related to this case.

How do you determine color of clothes or for that matter hair style in a seriously deformed b/w photo? I doubt even Lampoon Lamson (of the dunc-meister forum) would touch that one, even with a ten foot pole...

[Albert Doyle]

Parker is just a sloppy excuse-maker who doesn't answer the issues and only digs himself in deeper.



Again, Parker is an arrogant disinformationist and flagrant liar. After being shown Carolyn Arnold's statement to Golz several times, where she emphasized that she did not see Oswald on the 1st floor, Greg ignores it and repeats his claim that she did. Greg is going to insist on this no matter how many times the actual person whom he speaking of disclaimed it. Again, we are talking about a person who now qualifies for a psychological condition considering his imperviousness to fact. Greg Parker is going to correct Carolyn Arnold even if she was there and he wasn't. No matter how many times she denies it.


Greg really tries to get away with a Judyth Bakerism in his next excuse. He claims that Mrs Arnold thought the motorcade was supposed to arrive at 12:25 so that was the time she gave FBI when she actually left at 12:30. Bullshit. Mrs Arnold's statement where she mentioned 12:25 was given on March 18 1964, 4 months after the assassination when the 12:30 shooting time had been saturated into the public's mind by media coverage. Greg suggests that a main witness and person who witnessed the shooting would not be intensely aware of this fact. No, nice try Bullshit Greg. What is painfully clear is Carolyn Arnold said she left the Depository building at 12:25, as she complained to Golz. Greg is tinkering with context here. Carolyn Arnold never said she made a comment on when she left the Depository and went home. She was simply saying when she left the building to go out and watch the motorcade. That time was 12:25. That means she saw Oswald in the lunch-room a minute earlier. Greg is stretching context to make it sound like Carolyn was responding to when she went home. That isn't at all what she said. Once again Greg is fabricating that and telling it with full confidence when in fact there is absolutely no indication of it in the actual record. Greg has no problem with the fact FBI lied about Mrs Arnold seeing Oswald on the 1st floor in the same November 26 1963 report where they claimed 12:15.


Greg again gives a non-response response where he gives recklessly inaccurate information and schmoozes an answer that doesn't really faithfully reflect the true record or what is actually being said. Greg is basically a disinformation troll making it up as he goes along. He's an obfuscator and liar. The real truth that Greg is taking pains to avoid is that Carolyn Arnold told FBI 12:25 as the one and only time she left the Depository. The correct context was that she left the 2nd floor at that time with the intention of going out to watch the parade. When the assassination happened Mrs Arnold left. Greg tries to get around this with one of his classic Judyth Baker Jerry-built excuses, but he can't even make that believable either. Smart people will realize Mrs Arnold is speaking in the context of when she was last able to see Oswald who was presumed to be inside. When she gave the time she left the Depository it was in the context of what FBI was interested in - that is when she last had the opportunity to witness Oswald. So the 12:25 claim is in the context of when she left the Depository building. There's simply no way Carolyn Arnold didn't know that JFK was shot at 12:30 4 months after the assassination. It is very obvious that Mrs Arnold said she left the 2nd floor at 12:25, like she told FBI, and then went home after the assassination. When she told FBI what time she left the Depository building she said 12:25. That's what she meant by she left the building at 12:25 and never came back. When Golz showed her the 12:15 claim, she protested she never said that. She said she claimed 12:25 - which she did.



.

[Albert Doyle]

How do you determine color of clothes or for that matter hair style in a seriously deformed b/w photo? I doubt even Lampoon Lamson (of the dunc-meister forum) would touch that one, even with a ten foot pole...

I don't think you're credible Mr Healy. If I had the computer skill I would take you to school on what you ask above. A simple display of Darnell's blow-up would show distinct dark hair tones that your offhand excuses above won't get around.

You are saying "seriously deformed" but the truth is there's more than enough resolution to see the things I am referencing. I would bet the Darnell image is unchanged from the day it was taken and therefore deserves more credible acknowledgment than the petty dismissals offered so far. I think this is a matter of skill level frankly.

[David Healy]

How do you determine color of clothes or for that matter hair style in a seriously deformed b/w photo? I doubt even Lampoon Lamson (of the dunc-meister forum) would touch that one, even with a ten foot pole...

I don't think you're credible Mr Healy. If I had the computer skill I would take you to school on what you ask above. A simple display of Darnell's blow-up would show distinct dark hair tones that your offhand excuses above won't get around.

You are saying "seriously deformed" but the truth is there's more than enough resolution to see the things I am referencing. I would bet the Darnell image is unchanged from the day it was taken and therefore deserves more credible acknowledgment than the petty dismissals offered so far. I think this is a matter of skill level frankly.

well Albert why don't you tell me what the resolution of the image your working with, where it came from and how many analog and digital generations it's down, well go from there, okay?

What I'd really like for you to tell us/me anyway, is how can you determine hair, texture and color in a seriously degraded black and white, no lineage declared image. I mean I've only worked with film, photos and video for over 50 years Albert, I'm always willing to learn new things.

So let's start with your images resolution, size in pixels, share with us what they are... and of course, where did you find the image? The internet? Format? YOU want credibility Albert, speak up. Opinions are fine, Albert... but you know what they say about opinions... they're like a******, everyone has one...

[Albert Doyle]

well Albert why don't you tell me what the resolution of the image your working with, where it came from and how many analog and digital generations it's down, well go from there, okay?

Those irrelevant technicalities you are obfuscating above make no difference to what I'm showing. You're using them to avoid acknowledging what is plainly already there. While some expert may be able to provide them, you still haven't answered for the hair tones that are visible in Darnell that show woman's hair. Use any excuse you like. You're just uncredibly ignoring the evidence and the arguments for it. It strikes me as phony and dishonest seeking of excuses instead of evidence.

What I'd really like for you to tell us/me anyway, is how can you determine hair, texture and color in a seriously degraded black and white, no lineage declared image. I mean I've only worked with film, photos and video for over 50 years Albert, I'm always willing to learn new things.

I already have. If you have comprehension problems that's not my fault. We both know there's clearly visible dark tones around Prayer Man's head in Darnell. I've already adequately explained that the dark tone at the top of the head where we know there is hair registers the tone for Prayer Man's hair in Darnell. You can't argue that tone isn't the tone for Prayer Man's hair. It can't be anything else.

You're avoiding the arguments Mr Healy. And there nothing 'degraded' about the Darnell blow-up. It might be a photo with poor resolution but it is an accurate representation of Darnell's still as displayed on a computer. So far, while dishonestly trying to make excuses for why the Darnell blow-up isn't worthy you have yet to provide anything that shows why the things I'm pointing out aren't valid. I'm not the one who should be answering the questions here Mr Healy. Those dark hair tones are plainly visible in the existing blow-up. You have yet to provide a reason why we can't reference them. You're obviously making excuses to avoid acknowledging the simple things I'm showing. None of your excuses justify avoiding an interpretation of the plainly visible hair tones in Darnell.

So let's start with your images resolution, size in pixels, share with us what they are... and of course, where did you find the image? The internet? Format? YOU want credibility Albert, speak up. Opinions are fine, Albert... but you know what they say about opinions... they're like a******, everyone has one...

Please explain to me how this obvious, obnoxious, trolling attempt at photo high brow is a justifiable excuse for avoiding a simple evaluation of Prayer Man's dark hair tones in Darnell? The things I'm talking about are plainly visible without all those deliberately constructed excuses. The issue here was discussion of those visible hair tones. You failed it with your first reply and now you are failing it again with your deliberate excuses. The burden here is not on me to answer obfuscation but on you to answer the original argument that you have no excuse for avoiding.


The plain simple fact is you can see dark hair tones that extend to Prayer Man's neck and also expand out like a woman's hair style. Pixels and generations have nothing to do with this and you haven't answered it.