Quote:My science is obviously sound because it can't be any other way.
I'm right because I'm right because I'm right?
Quote:It is a violation of Deep Politics to ignore good science.
It's a violation of common sense to allow you to continue representing FAITH, BELIEF and JUNK SCIENCE as FACT... but the mods are doing so anyway.
If you were to look back and the early moments of Duncan's original PW posts - he admits he did it just to watch people like you trip over themselves to support junk science... and laugh while doing it.
To see who would take the bait. Wasn't it PT Barnum who said a sucker is born every minute?
It's all a show - all you need do is go spend some time at his JFKAssassination Forum to get a flavor.
You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know Albert... and your eyeballing trust of other's work since you dont seem to be able to do any of the analysis on your own leaves you open to the whim and fancy of those you are supporting.
I suppose you also support Dale Myers misrepresentation of the event as well?
Posner and Bugliosi on your "must read" list this year Albert?
One last try - there is simply not enough information from the image to tell who this is. So the earlier declaration that "PW" is wearing horned rimmed glasses and therefor a woman.. you can make those out can you?
You and Monet buddy... nobody else.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
11-03-2016, 06:03 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016, 06:19 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Drew Phipps Wrote:If that distance is less than 5 feet, PP is standing on the landing, and cannot be Oswald. If that distance is more than 5 feet, PP is standing on a step.
Drew,
I advise you study Tony Fratini's Allen photo evidence on MacRae's site.
We are way past the point of questioning whether or not Prayer Man is standing on the landing or step.
If you follow Fratini's evidence, he found that Allen's perspective was nearly identical to Darnell's. In the Allen photo a man stands just behind the glass. Since the perspective was nearly the same Fratini cut this man out and placed him next to Prayer Man in the Darnell frame. This juxtaposition shows without a doubt that Prayer Man is on the landing because the body proportions were the same for both images. One look at Fratini's evidence would show that for Prayer Man to be on the first step down would require a grotesque extension of his legs from the shins down. Also, Unger's and MacRae's film clips show without a doubt Prayer Man is up on the landing.
But in pondering this I realized that it makes no difference. Prayer Man is 100% standing on the landing according to Fratini's proof. However if we hypothetically speculated that he was on the first step down it would still prove he isn't Oswald. Why? Because, if I'm not mistaken, the step is 7 inches high. If Prayer Man was on the first step down and Frazier is 6-7 inches taller that means if we calculated the difference Prayer Man would be at an even 6 feet with Frazier - also dismissing him from being Oswald either way. And if he was on the first step down he would also be right in the same distance plane as Frazier from Darnell's lens. The doubters are simply not following the science.
Quote:My science is obviously sound because it can't be any other way.
I'm right because I'm right because I'm right?
Quote:It is a violation of Deep Politics to ignore good science.
It's a violation of common sense to allow you to continue representing FAITH, BELIEF and JUNK SCIENCE as FACT... but the mods are doing so anyway.
If you were to look back and the early moments of Duncan's original PW posts - he admits he did it just to watch people like you trip over themselves to support junk science... and laugh while doing it.
To see who would take the bait. Wasn't it PT Barnum who said a sucker is born every minute?
It's all a show - all you need do is go spend some time at his JFKAssassination Forum to get a flavor.
You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know Albert... and your eyeballing trust of other's work since you dont seem to be able to do any of the analysis on your own leaves you open to the whim and fancy of those you are supporting.
I suppose you also support Dale Myers misrepresentation of the event as well?
Posner and Bugliosi on your "must read" list this year Albert?
One last try - there is simply not enough information from the image to tell who this is. So the earlier declaration that "PW" is wearing horned rimmed glasses and therefor a woman.. you can make those out can you?
You and Monet buddy... nobody else.
Sorry David this is just flaming and ridicule.
You skipped answering my last post to you in this thread that detailed the scientific particulars. You don't have any right to do that and I find it demeaning of your credibility.
Please go back and seriously and directly answer my points in the post you ignored. We're dealing specifically with my height arguments and you're not answering what I'm writing. Drew seems to be able to manage. Nobody is above science.
A decent idea. Mr. Phipps. I'm all for any fairly rendered application of measurement. This matter shouldn't become mired down into who is right and who is wrong. After all, An innocent, unarmed representative of the People was killed. Exacting a sense of justice for him should be our top priority.
That said, without creating a measurement-commission of sorts, I do think if such measurement confirmation study was actually undertaken that it should be conducted by neutral parties to enhance an unbiased outcome. How we do that poses a real challenge. If I was a casual observer, without any vested interest in an outcome at stake, I would suggest the selection of a seven member panel of non-vested parties, whose compositional make up reflects 3 CT's, 3 LN's and an independent party of impeccable integrity. However, given this very contentious issue, it may be much easier to get the notorious Hell Angels and another biker group together to sing Kumbaya.
Whether that format is possible or even something the research community wishes to pursue is not my call. However, at the very least, a fair minded approach is the best manner to determine measurements (no opinions, just a fair application of all of the available evidence). Set a venue, convene an honest panel, record the proceedings and let the evidence or lack thereof speak for itself (add some women please, we've already smucked up bad enough with all men the last time).
*Still working on a photo image that deserves my full attention before making an accompanying post in the near future. I never noticed that crook in the step before.
*Quick note to self: Don't forget to determine Sarah Stanton's height...
then--given she's standing up there w/ Mr. Frazier as per his testimony, compare her height differential to Prayer Man as well...
if she is indeed as tall as depicted then, yes, there's a possibility the wrongfully accused is on the same plane, however, if her actual height is much less then that would convey why she even looms over Prayer Man's position.
Quote:My science is obviously sound because it can't be any other way.
I'm right because I'm right because I'm right?
Quote:It is a violation of Deep Politics to ignore good science.
It's a violation of common sense to allow you to continue representing FAITH, BELIEF and JUNK SCIENCE as FACT... but the mods are doing so anyway.
If you were to look back and the early moments of Duncan's original PW posts - he admits he did it just to watch people like you trip over themselves to support junk science... and laugh while doing it.
To see who would take the bait. Wasn't it PT Barnum who said a sucker is born every minute?
It's all a show - all you need do is go spend some time at his JFKAssassination Forum to get a flavor.
You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know Albert... and your eyeballing trust of other's work since you dont seem to be able to do any of the analysis on your own leaves you open to the whim and fancy of those you are supporting.
I suppose you also support Dale Myers misrepresentation of the event as well?
Posner and Bugliosi on your "must read" list this year Albert?
One last try - there is simply not enough information from the image to tell who this is. So the earlier declaration that "PW" is wearing horned rimmed glasses and therefor a woman.. you can make those out can you?
You and Monet buddy... nobody else.
Sorry David this is just flaming and ridicule.
You skipped answering my last post to you in this thread that detailed the scientific particulars. You don't have any right to do that and I find it demeaning of your credibility.
Please go back and seriously and directly answer my points in the post you ignored. We're dealing specifically with my height arguments and you're not answering what I'm writing. Drew seems to be able to manage. Nobody is above science.
I prefer to ignore you from now on Albert...
You continue to illustrate how NOT to approach science or fact.
Last time - point out Wesley in the doorway prior to Darnell. And how does this testimony corroborate what we see in the images prior to Darnell when Wesley is nowhere to be seen.
Mr. BALL - When you stood out on the front looking at the parade, where was Shelley standing and where was Lovelady standing with reference to you? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also. Now we both know that Lovelady is at the center of the landing by the railing and Shelley is behind him, also in the middle. If Wesley is down one step and Lovelady is down a few steps and also over by the wall... who is the person in the bottom image on the right with "In Front" written over him?
Maybe also look at why Shelley lied - or Viles did - about who was where. Lovelady lies or that's not Lovelady in Martin.
Mr. SHELLEY - Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them. Mr. BALL - And who was out there? Mr. SHELLEY - Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she's with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards. Mr. BALL - You were standing where? Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there. Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance? Mr. SHELLEY - yes.
Mr. Trotter - I realize I replied using your post yet it was by no means an attack... You mention that Wesley appears taller than PP... I agree completely - he was a tall man in general compared to everyone else.
But that doesn't put him where he claims he was at the time. Altgens is only half that image... the bottom shows the entire landing.. do you see a head sticking up above the rest?
Who is that in the left hand corner of the landing as we face it looking like Oswald, when Lovelady is supposed to be in the center and further down the steps?
And for Albert - Lovelady and Wesley are almost the same size when at the front of the stairs. Lovelady also appear much taller than PM due to the depth of field and focal lengths involved.
Can you explain how Lovelady is in the Martin film when according to his testimony he was in the TSBD? Was Martin more than 30 minutes after the shooting and why does Lovelady not ever say he was back on the steps in front?
All I'm saying is AD here is using his eyes to guess about distance... he's guessing about heights, guessing about details and just plain guessing about everything and trusting others to do his work.
Mr. BALL - How did you happen to go down there? Mr. LOVELADY - I don't know, because everybody was running from that way and naturally, I guess--- Mr. BALL - They were running from that way or toward that way? Mr. LOVELADY - Toward that way; everybody thought it was coming from that direction. Mr. BALL - By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building? Mr. LOVELADY - As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building. Mr. BALL - How many steps? Mr. LOVELADY - Twenty, 25. Mr. BALL - Steps away and you looked back and saw him enter the building? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes. Mr. BALL - Then you came back. How long did you stay around the railroad tracks? Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, just a minute, maybe minute and a half. Mr. BALL - Then what did you do? Mr. LOVELADY - Came back right through that part where Mr. Campbell, Mr. Truly, and Mr. Shelley park their cars and I came back inside the building. Mr. BALL - And enter from the rear? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any other people on the first floor? Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, yes; by that time there were more; a few of the guys had come in. Mr. BALL - And you stayed on the first floor then? Mr. LOVELADY - I would say 30 minutes. And one of the policemen asked me would I take them up on the sixth floor. Mr. BALL - Did you take them up there? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; I sure did. Mr. BALL - Mr. Lovelady, your testimony will be written up and it can be submitted to you for your signature if you wish and you can make any changes, or you can waive signature and we will make this your final--- Mr. LOVELADY - I want this to be the final one. Mr. BALL - All right; you waive signature? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes. Mr. BALL - Thanks very much.
If that is Lovelady (the shorter man in the plaid shirt) with Shelley - then he is much shorter than Wesley... and was telling the truth about leaving the stairs.
(I believe this is Gerda's work yet I'm not sure)
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
David Josephs Wrote:I prefer to ignore you from now on Albert...
You continue to illustrate how NOT to approach science or fact.
Since there's nothing wrong with my science or arguments, and you couldn't directly show how they were wrong, I'll assume you are defaulting and simply can't answer them. I find that somewhat intellectually dishonest. You keep referring to my arguments being flawed because they fail your standards but then ignore how they do meet an adequate standard that proves Prayer Man can't be Oswald. You are simply referencing your excuse and ignoring that which refutes it. Also, your alleged standard isn't as sound as you would like to think and you refuse to discuss that too. Your overly-general focal length photo science doesn't overcome my internal forensic landmarks you flagrantly ignored. Fair enough. The public can see what you're doing.
I just realized that the faux brickwork pillar may have been misreferenced by Mr Ford and I allowed it. On second look I'm not sure if Prayer Man's elbow is overlapping that faux pillar? In Darnell it looks like there is a healthy space between Prayer Man's elbow and that brickwork. This is important to determine because it orients Prayer Man according to the specific forensics.
Where David is cutting and running is right where we were getting to the part where we determined the camera lens used by the WBAP film crew. I imagine it was a common lens used by TV news crews at the time and could probably be found out pretty easily. We could then determine the focal point. But I'm forced to say the arguments and evidence I presented that David ignored showed why we don't need to know that.
Discussion of Wesley's location in other photos is a switch of the subject and irrelevant.
Nice hand-wave vs solid arguments Dave. And you have the nerve to say I'm​ not bringing enough to the table. What I brought to the table clearly made you run and your feet speak louder than your words.
A decent idea. Mr. Phipps. I'm all for any fairly rendered application of measurement. This matter shouldn't become mired down into who is right and who is wrong. After all, An innocent, unarmed representative of the People was killed. Exacting a sense of justice for him should be our top priority.
That said, without creating a measurement-commission of sorts, I do think if such measurement confirmation study was actually undertaken that it should be conducted by neutral parties to enhance an unbiased outcome. How we do that poses a real challenge. If I was a casual observer, without any vested interest in an outcome at stake, I would suggest the selection of a seven member panel of non-vested parties, whose compositional make up reflects 3 CT's, 3 LN's and an independent party of impeccable integrity. However, given this very contentious issue, it may be much easier to get the notorious Hell Angels and another biker group together to sing Kumbaya.
Whether that format is possible or even something the research community wishes to pursue is not my call. However, at the very least, a fair minded approach is the best manner to determine measurements (no opinions, just a fair application of all of the available evidence). Set a venue, convene an honest panel, record the proceedings and let the evidence or lack thereof speak for itself (add some women please, we've already smucked up bad enough with all men the last time).
*Still working on a photo image that deserves my full attention before making an accompanying post in the near future. I never noticed that crook in the step before.
This is ridiculous. The geometric triangulation I presented is a neutral party since it is objective science. You ignored it and called it "VooDoo science". You seem to fail to realize that it is valid science that must be answered in the here and now. Like ROKC you call for another analysis in the future under some kind of other terms. You can't do that because the things I wrote require an answer now because of their soundness.
The internal forensic items I posted do credibly locate Prayer Man at the front of the portal. You even admit this. Once you establish Prayer Man is at the front of the portal you must answer to credible science and admit that a direct height comparison can be made. That comparison excludes Oswald as being Prayer Man.
It is ironic that David Josephs claims I am ignorant of photogrammetry when it is obvious I possess the better photogrammetric arguments.
Albert Doyle Wrote:Since there's nothing wrong with my science or arguments
Nothing wrong except that it isn't science. It's speculation. You refuse to admit that.
Your THEORY that something could be learned by comparing the elements in the frame is a good one Albert, and if it WAS possible to accurately render the space in three dimensions we could in fact learn something. But it's not. And no amount of claiming you're right because you're right will ever change that. Why you're allowed to proffer this nonsense as being "science" baffles me, but perhaps you amuse the moderators.
