The flaw in your photo evidence is it alludes to many potential various lenses that might produce vastly varying results, but as I've more than reasonably shown that isn't the case here and you have refused to answer for it.
My links show Jimmy Darnell's small hand-held film camera and lens. Both common sense and the Darnell photo itself suggest the Darnell Film wasn't shot in any irregular mode. His lens alone was just one type and not the several you mention, so we are not dealing with the vast variety of potential lenses you are suggesting. You have a penchant for not answering things directly David. What I said here is correct and excludes a large percentage of what you write. It deserves a better answer. I'm not sure you realize the message you are sending by avoiding it. This discussion should be focusing on finding out Darnell's precise lens and setting. However the perspective that is credibly visible to the naked eye does suggest a normal news camera shot focal length perspective in which things can be reasonably compared.
You once again totally ignored Drew's trigonometry. Again, I'm not sure you realize the impact of this.
What Alan fails to realize is his one step down claim places Prayer Man in a precisely determinable location due to geometric triangulation. If Prayer Man was on the first step down the transit line from Darnell's camera would restrict that to one specific location. If that location was mapped it would be about 3 feet from the west wall. Drew recognized that the combination of Prayer Man's head being in line with the aluminum frame and Darnell's approximate 20 degree angle to the portal creates a geometric triangulation in which certain measurements can be made. If that triangle is made with Prayer Man located on the first step down the side of the triangle from Prayer Man to the west wall is about 3 feet long and is therefore too long to allow Ford's leaning against the wall with crossed arms claim. I posted this to Ford but he refused to answer it. Drew also demanded an answer to this and got none. Mr Ford fails to realize a basic thing, the visible image in Darnell precludes Prayer Man being on the first step down and leaning against the wall because there would not be the gap you see between Prayer Man's elbow and the faux brickwork pillar. Prayer Man would be visibly further left and forward if he were in that position. And since this proves Prayer Man is not leaning his true position of facing Frazier would not line up with Frazier from the step. The two film clips I referenced prove it beyond a doubt. This is the best photogrammetry involved with Prayer Man that continues to be ignored and answered with deficient arguments that are so far beneath the level of discussion it represents that they serve as self-refutation of the offerers more than anything else.
Alan Ford Wrote:Looking at this next photo image honestly ----->
You're displaying the patience of JOB, and I appreciate your attempts to engage Albert/Brian in an honest debate, but he's displayed over and over that he's incapable or unwilling of objectivity, or comprehension, or the willingness to consider anything other than his own agenda. Don't waste your breath/keystrokes.
Brian - his real name - won't win because we refuse to debate. It's pointless to debate someone that insists the sky is orange.
Words of wisdom, Mr. Cross, quote, "It's pointless to debate someone that insists the sky is orange". Or the world is flat; or only a portion of a full photograph matters, etc.
Michael Cross Wrote:Yes David. Again you're spot on. I can't for the life of me understand why this disinfo is allowed to continue.
If you honestly reviewed this thread, each and every time I asked Mr Cross to qualify that vs my arguments he fled.
It would be in the interest of those failing the arguments to call for a closing of the discussion.
Honestly, ROKC proxying should not be allowed on this issue.
Mr Cross insults the intelligence of the readers by daring to offer this vs what I wrote.
Cheerleading is not a credibly enterable level of discussion at this point in comparison to the arguments being made.
.
I don't flee. I tire of your boorish bullshit.
There's no reason to continually provide rebuttals to refute your imaginary proof. It only takes ONE accurate rebuttal to do so; your crap never changes. You claim you're right because you're right. Also, and this is becoming more and more apparent, your response to the rebuttals that are carefully offered smacks of a disinformation agent:
ROKC proxy, I'm a member there, haven't posted or read anything in over a month (not sure I ever posted). Your accusation is without merit - its an attempt to distract from the point at hand, which is that your entire argument is invalid. EVERY POINT you've tried to make has been refuted in detail; in response you dismiss the truth by relying on various disnfo tactics - like trying to discredit your detractors by calling them proxies of another forum. Your "geometry" is by DEFINITION based on assumptions of placement and size. You don't have a laser grid of the space, you don't have actual positions of the people that were there, you have assumptions and estimations.
Proof is derived from absolutes, not estimations. THEORIES are derived from estimations.
You have nothing, and your attempt to discredit me or David by trying to associate me/us with another forum is an indication of the lack of depth of your position. If the "readers" think I'm insulting their intelligence by calling you on the bullshit you purvey, they are welcome to chime in. All I see in this thread Albert is a moderator that agreed with David, Jim D doing the same, Alan agreeing with us and another member astutely pointing out that there are no people in the Darnell image - there are shades of gray in arrangements that represent people in two dimensions. I don't see a rush of Brian/Albert supporters queueing up to tout the relevancy of the crap you purvey.
14-03-2016, 10:31 PM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2016, 11:10 PM by Alan Ford.)
David Josephs Wrote:Mr. Doyle -
This has gone on long enough.
Quote:Where we are in this discussion is David used exaggerated reasoning to falsely claim no judgments of distance relationships could be made in Darnell. This is not correct as the reasoning I offered
As explained before - while you were covering every orifice making sure nothing got in - eyeballing a frame or photo to determine distances cannot be done.
It truly is not our fault that you remain stubborn and stupid when the concepts have been explained and there is an entire internet available for you to learn how wrong you remain.
Will you now argue that the baby's head is larger than Lovelady when you still do not know the distances involved, the lens involved or anything about the properties of light, depth and perspective.
If you knew the size of the baby's head, you believe you can determine the size of Lovelady's head using your eyeballing process of comparisons and guessing?
Forgot this example as well?
How much taller is the can in the front, in the 24mm image, than the can in the back Doyle? at 70mm? 135mm? & 300mm?
Are they using 4 different sets of different sized cans or one set Doyle?
At 300mm, how far to the left and back is the can on the left compared to the front and middle can? at 24mm? at 70mm? 135mm?
If you only saw the 300mm image - would you then spend 20 pages arguing that the cans are all next to each other?
Is the can in the 24mm image farther away from the front can than in the 135mm image? if so, by how much?
And finally - simply because you know the size of the cans does not mean you can measure distance unless you employ one of a number of photogrammetry algorithms.
FYI - the can in the 24mm image is just under 2" in this image... how much shorter is the can in the back? and in the 135mm image?
answer the questions in bold... show off that big brain of yours Doyle and extrapolate your expertise at measuring distance from the PM images to the one above.
You get this right and maybe we make it into an after school special ::thumbsup::
Like Mr. Cross, here again comes, Mr. Josephs, simply asking Mr. Doyle to exercise some consideration for the dynamics of photography. A simple request, worthy of genuine consideration... yet try as they may, the only response is total avoidance. Why?
It's plain to see why...
A jackarse, a billy goat and a stubborn mule wagered a bet to see who could win the Stubborn Award, given annually to the most stubborn of all. Putting their petty stubbornness aside momentarily to agree upon a contest to crown a winner, they decided that the last one to answer nature's call after drinking an equal amount of designated water would reign and hoist the Stubborn Award.
Twelve hours later all three were holding steady, and shooting steely daggar eyes at each other. An additional twelve hours creeped by, and the trio held firm. 48hrs later, Farmer 1, pointing over at the jackarse, billy goat and mule, says to Farmer A, What's that all about?
Farmer A says, they made a bet that the last one to answer nature's call would reign supreme as the Stubborn Champ of all time. To which Farmer 1, pointing to the urine and feces all about them, said, Don't they realize the contest is over? To which Farmer A replied, hel* what do they know, jarkarse and mule are so stubborn they even deny they are one and the same; and though all of them are full of smit, they are too darn stubborn to admit it anyway.
Now, all humour aside. Mr. Oswald told us where he was. Officialdom promptly hid his airtight alibi from public view/consumption for decades. Why? Just one honest, with honest being the operative word here, look at the following photo and we all know why ---->
We cannot tell what happened using the evidence available
We will NEVER find a witness statement claiming PM was Oswald
Wherever you go - there you are.....
Everybody was somewhere, yet one and only one "somewhere".
Based on the Evidence of the Conspiracy it is not impossible for PM to be Oswald since the Evidence cannot put Oswald at that window at that time.
If Baker's 3rd floor man is not Oswald, and the Lunchroom never happened, and the man Mrs Reid sees in a Tshirt looking like Oswald is not Oswald...
Until someone claims to have been in that spot - or until someone addresses why Shelley lies about who is up there with him on the steps...
and until someone finds Wesley in an image of the TSDB doorway PRIOR to the shooting and explains why he too claims that Lovelady was on a lower step in front of him and not in the exact spot he claimed to be in Weigman, he too cannot be relied upon for accuracy.
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.
Mr. BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here. Mr. BALL - I see. Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me. Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow? Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady. Mr. BALL - Billy? Mr. FRAZIER - Right Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago. Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - In front of you to the right over to the wall? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. Mr. BALL - Is this a Commission exhibit? We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Given Albert/Brian's insistence on ignoring the detailed rebuttals offered here, I thought I'd roll up the heavy lifting done by David Josephs. Alan's done a nice job of rebuttal as well; my contributions in this thread are just observations about what can be PROVEN from the extant image - nothing. Of course we've been through this all before with the prayer woman debacle. But this series of posts is more than enough to stop the endless proffering of junk proof Albert/Brian:
David Josephs Wrote:
Michael Cross Wrote:
Albert Doyle Wrote:
Michael Cross Wrote:I'm weary of this discussion in general, but I will say this: Unless and until an early generation SCAN of the original film can be obtained, and some researchers are endeavoring to do so, NOTHING can be proven about PM, other than who he isn't, based on the confirmed location of other individuals known to have been in the area.
Mr Cross,
I'm not sure if you are aware that I've already proven Prayer Man can't possibly be Oswald via a direct height comparison in Darnell. If you compare heights between Prayer Man and Frazier in the Darnell frame it is plainly visible that Prayer Man is 6-7 inches shorter than the 6 foot tall Frazier making him 5 foot 5 or 6. Since Oswald was 5 foot 9 this precludes Oswald from being Prayer Man by simple analysis.
I'm not sure why this discussion is not allowed here since it is no different than any other discussion, however if it is arbitrarily disallowed I have proven this against all doubters at MacRae's forum and ROKC was not able to refute it.
I'd be glad to discuss this over there if you like.
Sigh. So you were somehow able to render exact measurements for every person, step and architectural feature present in the frame, in the required three dimensions, from a tiny amount of poorly rendered digital information? Amazing. Or did you travel back in time and place laser measuring devices on site to allow for such precise information?
No, I won't be joining you elsewhere to discuss any of the "research" done on the tiny two dimensional Darnell frame. Ever.
Exactly Albert...
Which Photogammetry software did you use on this 2d representation of 3d space to arrive at accurate data?
And one final note - the ACTUAL SIZE of this frame and PM within this frame - it is from these crystals that you are concluding what you are...
Wesley is by the front of the landing and PM is near the back - this creates perspective distortion multiplied by the focal length of the lens.
Look at the image at the bottom to see how that works - for now, this image represents a single frame from a film having 3.5mm x 4.8 mm sized
The "Actual Size Negative" gives you some idea of the size of the frame and then within that tiny frame PM occupies a tiny fraction of the image.
For as small as it is, the detail is amazing... but any other work on this image needs more math than you're bringing to the table Albert.
Ferrie on the left is not 2 feet larger than Oswald - cameras play tricks... you can't eyeball the image and claim Wesley is X # of inches taller - you need photogammetry
David Josephs Wrote:
Albert Doyle Wrote:
Alan Ford Wrote:On the contrary, Mr. Doyle, your height "evidence" is built upon quicksand
You've been invited to show so. Please do so in direct response to the specific facts I listed as I described them.
You got away with this last time. So far you are not answering what I wrote short of saying "quicksand" (I think you've already defaulted).
If you honestly answered what I wrote you would realize 1) There is no getting around the fact Prayer Man is in the same arc curve as Frazier in distance from Darnell's camera. Therefore there's no excuse for not making a direct height comparison between the two. 2) There's no getting around the fact there's a 6-7 inch difference in height between the two subjects. Use the aluminum frames behind both subjects as gauges.
You are forcing moot points vs proven facts.
I'm only going to do this once Albert.
Your photographic understanding and analysis is severely flawed. You're using your eyes to judge distance and size in a 2d representation of 3d space.
You are plain and simply - wrong about your conclusions which are based on a severely faulty process... eyeballing.
Maybe you think there's "no excuse for not making a direct height comparison" but you remain the only one not understanding the concepts of light, lens, focal distance and angles.
I posted the Ferrie/Oswald camp image to show that items at the front of an image cannot be compared to images anywhere else on the image without understanding photogammetry.
No Albert the sun does not revolve around the earth even though it appears that way as the sun moves thru the sky.
You cannot measure distance of any sort - accurately - within a photo - without that math.
That you dont understand the difference between the front or back of something is again, not our fault but your poor understanding and/or application of basic photographic rules.
1) the same arc? where do you get this gobbledee-goop?
Do you understand that higher focal lengths cause more distortion in the image? The greater the distance as well...
When you move Wesley over without a shift in depth you can easily see that he cannot be compared to PM - the depth is wrong and he is distorted when moved next to someone farther away.
2) Since you cannot compare distances and lengths within a photo using 2d analysis you need to understand why you remain so incredibly wrong about the images you are analyzing and coming to conclusions which are completely worthless.
you then write: "Use the aluminum frames behind both subjects as gauges"
Which is yet an even more egregious error in measurement within a photo and yet another version of the topic you butcher terribly.
Albert - we're all terribly sorry that reality and physics, light and 2d representation of 3d space confuses you so that you need to refute facts with tautology and non-sequitur.
If you want to continue to spout nonsense about your measuring skills and techniques - enjoy yourself... if others wish to debate with you about this have at it.
You might as well be pointing out that we will fall off the world when we reach the horizon because ships you visually watch disappear once they cross over.
Astute observation yet similarly incorrect once you have the facts
These cans are the same size
Depending on the Focal Length of the lens (and the distance to the subject since the higher focal length, the farther away the camera has to be from the subject to retain the same framing).. we can make the can in front seem almost twice as tall, while a zoomed lens does the opposite.
How far away from each other are the cans based on the 300mm image?
Different than the 24mm? of course.
That BS you are peddling about arcs on a circle and some relationship between these distances is very amusing Albert. It confirms you not only haven't the first clue related to photography but you'll make up anything you think will aid in your selling such tripe.
Quote:If we took our string that was stretched exactly to the center point of Frazier and walked it over to Prayer Man we would see that Prayer Man's center pole was no more than 12 inches further back from the lens in distance
...
You would find that, being generous, a 12 inch depth difference at that distance from Darnell's lens would account for a 1/2 inch perspective shift at the most, and that is probably stretching it
Unmitigated bullsh!t buddy. Fetzer and Cinque could use a man like you!
PM is only 12 inches (maybe even 6) further back that the Wesley? - didn't your fingers get all stinky pulling that out of your a$$?
You don't have the first clue about the distances that separated them just as you would tell me the can in the back is at varying distances from the front car - depending on which photo I showed you.
If I took the focal lengths off this image you'd be telling me the cans moved - brilliant!
It's okay to be wrong Albert. Okay to admit you are making a mistake and simply don't understand measurements and distance of a 3d representation on 2d space.
or you can keep on guessing and throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.
One gives you a slight bit of class and self respect - the other just keeps your hands and fingers stinky...
::
::evilpenguin::
David Josephs Wrote:
LR Trotter Wrote:The distance from the landing steps to the doorway appears to be no more than 3 feet, looking at the picture from the lobby. So, to me it appears that PP can't be far from the steps, and not much farther inward than BWF. The camera angle may slightly distort the relative heights of PP and BWF, but I would think it is a minimal distortion.
As for PrayerPerson, I have yet to see convincing proof that the person pictured is a male. And, what appears to be possibly a left arm may not be that, as possibly it is a purse. Also, I am having trouble determining the direction PP's head is facing, as seen in the still/picture.
Regarding BWF, I have to wonder, as I wander, if maybe he is sitting on, or leaning on a handrail that appears to be in the center of the porch/landing stairway. That being said, I do believe there is a measurable height difference between PP and the taller looking BWF.
And then there is LHO, and the question of his whereabouts at 12:30pm CST on 11/22/'63, as well as presented evidence that indicates the possibility that he was a shooter during the assassination of JFK. But, even if it could be proved he was on the 6th floor of the TSBD during the shooting, to me the presented evidence is well short of proof that he was a shooter.
While I do not wish to continue participation in this discussion, and hopefully avoid any argument as well, I am amazed it continues. I do believe, as do others much smarter than I, that this issue is long ago settled. And, IMO not at all pertinent to current understanding. In any event, JMO, FWIW.
Can you or anyone please post a photo of Wesley in that spot prior to Darnell?
This I believe is even more critical.
When did Lovelady move from the far left to the middle of the landing...?
In the HUGHES film frame capture we see Altgens' Lovelady character far to the left of the landing as the limo turns the corner
In WEIGMAN, from virtually the same angle, Lovelady is now in the middle of the landing...
It was at this turn that Truly claims the limo swung WIDE and almost hit the island curb, almost stopped, and then swung back.
It is missing from Zap and somehow is not shown in Towner.
So 3 questions -
1) where's tall Wesley
2) when does Lovelady move and
3) how does he show up in Martin when by his own admission he and Shelley were in the back by the loading dock for quite a while after the shots.
David Josephs Wrote:
Quote:Brilliant, Mr. Josephs, what have these people done in the name of "national security"?
Your three questions are indicative of what a genuine investigation into this matter would have laid out in a fair and square manner right from the very beginning.
Am venturing over to Mr. Kelly's (Bill) to determine if he may have some floor plans/dimensions of the TSBD entrance way. Enjoy your day, Mr. Josephs, Cheers!
Albert:
Quote:I think the landing is 4 feet wide because the glass door doesn't go past it when opened if you look at photos of the portal.
A decent guess but off by 25%.
Albert - Place the man wherever you want - doesn't change the simple facts about the photo or how wrong you are about dimensions and perspective.
I'll ask you then Albert - where is Wesley in Altgens?
Michael Cross Wrote:Let's try it this way Albert: Based on your irrefutable "scientific" evidence, overly the frame with the three dimensional rendering you are using in your "research". Take that tiny two dimensional image and show all of us who are ignorant exactly the dimensions of each architectural/structural element, the distances, the precise placement of the people with respect to elevation, distance from whatever landmark you've chosen. Illuminate us on how you've made this 2D rectangle of shades of gray into a precisely rendered irrefutable 3D model. I'll be waiting . . .
David Josephs Wrote:
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.
David Josephs Wrote:
Albert Doyle Wrote:
David Josephs Wrote:
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)
David Josephs Wrote:Mr. Doyle -
This has gone on long enough.
Quote:Where we are in this discussion is David used exaggerated reasoning to falsely claim no judgments of distance relationships could be made in Darnell. This is not correct as the reasoning I offered
As explained before - while you were covering every orifice making sure nothing got in - eyeballing a frame or photo to determine distances cannot be done.
It truly is not our fault that you remain stubborn and stupid when the concepts have been explained and there is an entire internet available for you to learn how wrong you remain.
Will you now argue that the baby's head is larger than Lovelady when you still do not know the distances involved, the lens involved or anything about the properties of light, depth and perspective.
If you knew the size of the baby's head, you believe you can determine the size of Lovelady's head using your eyeballing process of comparisons and guessing?
Forgot this example as well?
How much taller is the can in the front, in the 24mm image, than the can in the back Doyle? at 70mm? 135mm? & 300mm?
Are they using 4 different sets of different sized cans or one set Doyle?
At 300mm, how far to the left and back is the can on the left compared to the front and middle can? at 24mm? at 70mm? 135mm?
If you only saw the 300mm image - would you then spend 20 pages arguing that the cans are all next to each other?
Is the can in the 24mm image farther away from the front can than in the 135mm image? if so, by how much?
And finally - simply because you know the size of the cans does not mean you can measure distance unless you employ one of a number of photogrammetry algorithms.
FYI - the can in the 24mm image is just under 2" in this image... how much shorter is the can in the back? and in the 135mm image?
answer the questions in bold... show off that big brain of yours Doyle and extrapolate your expertise at measuring distance from the PM images to the one above.
You get this right and maybe we make it into an after school special ::thumbsup::
David Josephs Wrote:
Quote:Mr Josephs, you have unfairly ignored the best evidence and arguments and violated the premise of Deep Political inquiry.
Arthur Canon Brian Albert Doyle or whoever the $%@#$ you claim you are for today's posts...
Your intellectual dishonesty makes McAdams and Myers look like saints.
Your inability to see beyond your own inability to grasp these concepts remains laughable.
Your ongoing argument against the laws of nature betrays your complete lack of understanding of the subject matter and a POV that precludes independent thought of any kind
Your insistence that others haven't fooled you into believing you and they can make out detail is a miniscule area of a 3.8mm x 4.5mm film frame proves you'll buy most anything as long as you don't need to understand it.
In answering the questions I posed about that can image Doyle, you may find out how wrong you are about everything you've posted.
Then again - you aint gonna learn what you don't wanna know. And you surely don't want to learn about this.
btw - Duncan admitted it was a joke in a reply to me which is no longer in the thread...
Greg P got it...:
Posted 15 September 2015 - 12:51 PM Yeah... you got me Duncan. Should have seen that this was a "joke" thread.
Bravo David.
Edit: HA! And I missed the latest!
David Josephs Wrote:Thanks guys...
Couple things to remember
We cannot tell what happened using the evidence available
We will NEVER find a witness statement claiming PM was Oswald
Wherever you go - there you are.....
Everybody was somewhere, yet one and only one "somewhere".
Based on the Evidence of the Conspiracy it is not impossible for PM to be Oswald since the Evidence cannot put Oswald at that window at that time.
If Baker's 3rd floor man is not Oswald, and the Lunchroom never happened, and the man Mrs Reid sees in a Tshirt looking like Oswald is not Oswald...
Until someone claims to have been in that spot - or until someone addresses why Shelley lies about who is up there with him on the steps...
and until someone finds Wesley in an image of the TSDB doorway PRIOR to the shooting and explains why he too claims that Lovelady was on a lower step in front of him and not in the exact spot he claimed to be in Weigman, he too cannot be relied upon for accuracy.
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.
Mr. BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here. Mr. BALL - I see. Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me. Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow? Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady. Mr. BALL - Billy? Mr. FRAZIER - Right Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago. Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - In front of you to the right over to the wall? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. Mr. BALL - Is this a Commission exhibit? We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369.
The approach needed sadly involves the Evidence available... who was where and from what source can it be proven?
Talking about buttons on a coat is akin to seeing the lit patch on Badgeman... since the sun is behind this image, sources of light emanating from this area proves we are only looking at leaves.
If that is a left shoulder patch and badge, what is lighting them up?
Nothing... Badgeman and Gordon Arnold are not in these photos until you manipulate them enough and color them... regardless of how big you blow it up.
How obvious do we need to be? about as wrong as Mr. Doyle remains.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
David refused to answer this so I consider this debate as won by myself. He's now decided to lower his dignity and credibility by openly trolling serious discussion with two obviously unserious posters. I'll consider David's inability to answer this a concession of the points:
Quote:The flaw in your photo evidence is it alludes to many potential various lenses that might produce vastly varying results, but as I've more than reasonably shown that isn't the case here and you have refused to answer for it.
My links show Jimmy Darnell's small hand-held film camera and lens. Both common sense and the Darnell photo itself suggest the Darnell Film wasn't shot in any irregular mode. His lens alone was just one type and not the several you mention, so we are not dealing with the vast variety of potential lenses you are suggesting. You have a penchant for not answering things directly David. What I said here is correct and excludes a large percentage of what you write. It deserves a better answer. I'm not sure you realize the message you are sending by avoiding it. This discussion should be focusing on finding out Darnell's precise lens and setting. However the perspective that is credibly visible to the naked eye does suggest a normal news camera shot focal length perspective in which things can be reasonably compared.
You once again totally ignored Drew's trigonometry. Again, I'm not sure you realize the impact of this.
What Alan fails to realize is his one step down claim places Prayer Man in a precisely determinable location due to geometric triangulation. If Prayer Man was on the first step down the transit line from Darnell's camera would restrict that to one specific location. If that location was mapped it would be about 3 feet from the west wall. Drew recognized that the combination of Prayer Man's head being in line with the aluminum frame and Darnell's approximate 20 degree angle to the portal creates a geometric triangulation in which certain measurements can be made. If that triangle is made with Prayer Man located on the first step down the side of the triangle from Prayer Man to the west wall is about 3 feet long and is therefore too long to allow Ford's leaning against the wall with crossed arms claim. I posted this to Ford but he refused to answer it. Drew also demanded an answer to this and got none. Mr Ford fails to realize a basic thing, the visible image in Darnell precludes Prayer Man being on the first step down and leaning against the wall because there would not be the gap you see between Prayer Man's elbow and the faux brickwork pillar. Prayer Man would be visibly further left and forward if he were in that position. And since this proves Prayer Man is not leaning his true position of facing Frazier (that Kamp admitted) would not line up with Frazier from the step. The two film clips I referenced prove it beyond a doubt. This is the best photogrammetry involved with Prayer Man that continues to be ignored and answered with deficient arguments that are so far beneath the level of discussion it represents that they serve as self-refutation of the offerers more than anything else.
15-03-2016, 01:22 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2016, 01:59 AM by Albert Doyle.)
Michael Cross Wrote:I don't flee. I tire of your boorish bullshit.
There's a remarkable coincidence between your tiring and not answering that which refutes you. This level of conversation is not what I would expect on the Deep Politics board. You have managed to lower the quality of discussion on this board to the ROKC level.
Michael Cross Wrote:ROKC proxy, I'm a member there...
Which is more than clear from your posting. ROKC is a notorious troll site. This site used to screen ROKC proxies. Especially when they got to the point of the flagrant evidence evasion you are currently practicing.
Michael Cross Wrote:You have nothing, and your attempt to discredit me or David by trying to associate me/us with another forum is an indication of the lack of depth of your position.
You do an awful lot of running from nothing.
Michael Cross Wrote:If the "readers" think I'm insulting their intelligence by calling you on the bullshit you purvey, they are welcome to chime in. All I see in this thread Albert is a moderator that agreed with David, Jim D doing the same, Alan agreeing with us and another member astutely pointing out that there are no people in the Darnell image - there are shades of gray in arrangements that represent people in two dimensions. I don't see a rush of Brian/Albert supporters queueing up to tout the relevancy of the crap you purvey.
You're not answering the arguments I'm making. Instead you're making excuses and entering this kind of crap. My posts contain good content and serious arguments of evidence. Your posts contain the above.
You ignored Drew's math. You aren't credible. You can't ignore good science no matter what your excuse.
The fact you say there are no people seen in Darnell is demented and shows a lack of credible scrutiny of posts on the site's behalf.
Michael Cross Wrote:Your "geometry" is by DEFINITION based on assumptions of placement and size. You don't have a laser grid of the space, you don't have actual positions of the people that were there, you have assumptions and estimations.
That isn't true and when Drew spelled-out his precise math you ignored it. You're a fool Mr Cross. The dimensions referred to by Drew are firm and never change since they are the measured and known dimensions of the portal. You're obviously desperate for excuses while ignoring the provable math. We do have a confirmed spatial map as established by Roberdeaux. You're just entering silly defiance Mr Cross that I would expect from children and not a member of the Deep Politics board.
Contrary to your falsehood above, Drew has established the correct trigonometry involved. He has correctly referenced Roberdeaux's 90 foot distance for Darnell from the portal as well as the correct perspective varation at such a distance. I noticed that you were totally unable to answer Mr Phipp's sound science. You are offering juvenile stupidity above Mr Cross in reaction to some very intelligently rendered and accurate analysis. I must say you do represent your ROKC site well in that regard.
As for my geometry, as I have already stated, the distance from the aluminum frame aligned with Prayer Man's head at the back wall of the landing to Prayer Man, if he was on the first step down, would be about 4.7 feet. Contrary to your falsehood above, the landing's measurements are well-known and are not estimations as you so incorrectly claimed above. With a 4 foot width for the landing plus an extra 6 inches for Prayer's Man's claimed position on the first step down, that diagonal would be close enough to 4.7 feet. The distance of the side on the west wall would be approximately 4.5 feet. It is simple math that the remaining side along the first step down would be too long to allow any leaning against the wall claim. Simple math that you've not managed any credible answer to.
Greg Parker was sequestered from this site for much less than this.
:
: