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.
Well said, Mr. Cross. The world is still flat to some people, because their "science" says so.
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.
You've never shown so directly Michael. Both you and David noticeably skip dealing directly with my arguments only to conclude they are wrong for very general reasons that are not accurate.
I posted some very clear qualifiers based on the internal forensic evidence in Darnell that show why your photogrammetry excuses are not valid and do not take precedence over them. I'm not sure if you and David are aware of it but if you look in this thread you both completely avoided them. You both seem to be positioning yourselves to hide behind David's focal point canard. My forensic arguments overturn that excuse and are better evidence. You're just calling it speculation, but you've had every opportunity to show why. So far you haven't been able to do that. What you are saying is false and my forensic points are connected to very real things seen in Darnell. You are falsely calling that speculation but it isn't. It is based on sound evidence and arguments that you have noticeably been unable to credibly answer. You're stooping to semantics here Michael. Meanwhile my hard science proves Prayer Man can't be leaning against the wall like your mentor Greg Parker suggests. My arguments are connected to firm numbers and science. Yours, semantics. You can't ignore my forensics and then step back and call them speculation.
I have already proven why your claim that nothing can be determined in the portal is wrong by means of the internal forensic identifiers you ignored. Both Unger's and MacRae's film clips both showed Prayer Man at the front of the portal and even with Frazier. The sun illuminating the hand is independent of your focal point obfuscation and is the exact opposite of speculation since the sun plane is a fixed entity in and of itself (that you have failed to answer to). That sun lit hand can only happen at the front of the landing. You haven't even admitted the basic scientific fact that objects at equal distance from Darnell's lens can be directly compared since they exist at the same distance.
You gentlemen don't realize that you've been out-argued. Your focal point depth perception claim is not a valid dismisser of all evidence in the portal as you seem to think. You cannot credibly hide behind it as you are doing or use it to ignore valid arguments. You are conspicuously using it to avoid admitting that we have made a good case that Prayer Man and Frazier are at a comparable distance from Darnell's lens and that the obvious height difference can be used to credibly dismiss Oswald as being Prayer Man.
Perhaps this will get me banned, or a time out from this forum, but if so, that's fine. You sir are a liar. I am not going to go back to cut and paste the series of accurate and well thought rebuttals to the horse shit you purvey, but they are in this thread and others for all to see. Your contention that you've been ignored, that your "science" is irrefutable is a lie. Your "points" have been completely countered with evidence. The fact that you either ignore them or don't understand them changes nothing. Your "forensic" points are opinion, have no science behind them and are entirely worthless. David's focal point example was not a canard. It was IN FACT science, and any objective observer would have paused to ponder the implications of how the appearance of three dimensional space can be altered in a two dimensional representation by the length of a lens. This is PROVEN SCIENCE. That you call it a canard exposes you for the charlatan you've always appeared to be.
*edit for spelling.
An objective observer for certain, Mr. Cross, with objective being the operative word here.
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
This post refuted everything Albert asserts. Everything.
and yet the world remains flat because of Mr. Doyle's near-sighted sense of "science".
You and Mr. Josephs, Mr. Cross, have the patience of Saints. A fair, objective analysis allows for all key elements--including the dynamics of photography--to be included before arriving at a definitive conclusion.
There's an obvious 45 degree angle differential between Prayer Man and Mr. Frazier (there is an obvious reason for that, Prayer Man is standing well forward of Mr. Frazier's position). Thus, they are not on the same measuring plane.
Please let me share the Don Cook image once more...
*Credit Mr. Hocking
For clarity sake, he is the male figure leaning on one knee to your viewing left near the top of the landing. Please note a few things: where his right leg is positioned; his right elbow is positioned; and, now scan across on a direct line from his right elbow across. The ending point comes directly in alignment with the pillar.
Now, we all know from viewing the following photo image how far forward the pillar rests from the tight, restrictive 3 foot landing Mr. Frazier is positioned upon, well back of both Mr. Cook's position and the wrongfully accused as well...let's take a look ----->
*Credit Warren Commission
That tight, restrictive landing as you can see stops well short of the pillar sitting well forward. To suggest that Mr. Cook's position is on a perfect alignment with the police officers well above him at at-least a 45 degree angle would be stretching the truth. Before I move onward to the next image, just a final reminder to keep in mind Mr. Cook's position, his right elbow position and how far forward he is in contrast to the tight, restrictive landing as depicted in the above image.
Having said that, let's now turn our attention to another rather interesting photo ---->
*Credit Prayer-Man website
There are more than a few things interesting about this particular photo. First, unlike so many others that do not afford a clear visual to determine the total number of stairs, it does. That's important because if I have to I will submit an image of a female w/her face practically in Prayer Man's mid-section, and we all know the person standing there in Prayer Man's position isn't wheel-chair bound, so where there is a mid-section there are lower extremities as well. Lower extremities that rest forward instead of to the rear.
Moving along, please note where the forward pillars begin and what step of seven total it rests. Now, turning back to the full image, please note the red mark on the left near the top of the stairs. Would any reasonable person standing in that position where Prayer Man is captured in Mr. Darnell's film stand directly alongside that bottle? Not if he knew any sudden movement by him may spill the contents within. So, a more reasonable thing to do would be to step forward, and shield the contents behind his position from others passing to and from the entrance (unless he has a strong back and is flexible enough to sit it down one step, and simply dare to bend over at an awkward angle to fetch it even if it meant he could lose his balance and tumble head long down the remaining stairs.
*More to follow...Em is giving me that look (Saturday morning errands, grr)
Alan: The landing is 5 feet in depth not 3. You can see it's big enough at least for 2 grown men to stand elbow to elbow in picture 3. In picture 1 you should note that the guy you call Cook has his left foot on the landing and his right foot on a lower step. That's why his left leg is bent. Further, you can see the shade cast by his right leg pant cuff on the vertical part of the stair nearest his foot. You couldn't see that if he was standing with both feet on the landing.
Of course you cannot see the inside western wall of the entrance in picture 1. The photographer is standing west of the entrance. From that angle, there is nothing visible of the west wall to "draw a line to." The western interior wall is visible in photo 3 but the eastern interior wall is visible in photo 1. The difference between photos 1 and 3 is not magic, or focal length, or pinhole distortion, or any other complicated arcanery, its simply a matter of where the photographer is standing.
Your photographs do illustrate one point, obvious enough to anyone with experience of southern exposure and the Texas sun, but worth repeating. The western portion of the landing is in shadow. The eastern portion of the landing is not. You don't tell us what time of day those pictures were shot, but its obviously in the afternoon. If it was early in the morning, the eastern interior wall would be in shadow and the western interior wall lit up.
At midday, if the building was aligned perfectly north and south, there would be no shade at all on the steps. Since the building, and the street it fronts, are aligned to the Dallas street grid instead of compass directions, you will get a narrow sliver of shade along the west interior wall at noon. According to Don Robardeau's map, the Dallas city grid is oriented 17 degrees off of the true compass directions. At 12:30 PM, (also according to Don Robardeau) the sliver of shade would be 8.8 degrees wider than at noon. So that means there is a sliver of shade making a 26 degree angle running "north" from the west column across the stairs and the landing.
At 26 degrees, the width of the shade at 5 feet distance along the western interior wall, where the landing meets the stairs, is 2.4 feet.
(5 feet / cos (26)) * sin (26) = 2.4 feet
Unless you agree with Albert, that PP's arm is illuminated by sunlight (which I do not), you must concede that the shadow would not be wide enough for PP to stand completely within it, unless PP was at least 5 feet "north" of the column, i.e. on the landing.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Alan Ford Wrote:and yet the world remains flat because of Mr. Doyle's near-sighted sense of "science".
You and Mr. Josephs, Mr. Cross, have the patience of Saints. A fair, objective analysis allows for all key elements--including the dynamics of photography--to be included before arriving at a definitive conclusion.
There's an obvious 45 degree angle differential between Prayer Man and Mr. Frazier (there is an obvious reason for that, Prayer Man is standing well forward of Mr. Frazier's position). Thus, they are not on the same measuring plane.
Your side has been given the opportunity to answer the easily explained science presented by both Drew and myself. It passed and therefore defaulted Alan.
You are ignoring sound arguments on why Prayer Man can't be well forward of Frazier at a 45 degree angle. Fratini's evidence proves beyond a doubt that Prayer Man is standing on the landing. You, David, and Michael are ignoring it and therefore forfeiting your credibility. You can't ignore sound evidence and still claim credibility. Fratini's evidence shows beyond a doubt that a man who was confirmed as standing at the landing level had identical body proportions to Prayer Man. The two film clips shown by MacRae and Unger both clearly show Prayer Man on the landing. And, finally, if you had any sense of the forensics you would realize for Prayer Man to be 45 degrees forward of Frazier would put him in the sun.
Your men David and Michael are ignoring this because they are well aware if they discuss it it will refute their previous position.
You shouldn't be allowed to do flagrant ROKC proxying (trolling really) on this forum while so flagrantly ignoring good arguments.
If you tried to show why Fratini's evidence is wrong you wouldn't be able to and cheerleading is no replacement.
Your level of discussion, Alan, is conspicuously below the level Drew and I are presenting and fails to answer it in a self-dismissing way.
Drew Phipps Wrote:Alan: The landing is 5 feet in depth not 3.
More like 4 Drew. David goofed when he said 5 because he didn't realize the 5 feet corresponded to the scale bar in that illustration and not the measurement of the landing. David did not come back and admit he was wrong on that just to keep score on honesty in this thread.
You are wasting your time trying to pose a technical argument to Alan. He's obviously here to cheerlead for ROKC no matter what he's shown.
It's the other two 'experts' who are so far above everyone else in technical knowledge whose answers we await.
A news camera man would not shoot footage at an extreme lens setting. We can easily sort out that setting and defeat David's obfuscation.
Drew: It is a mistake to take the bait and answer Alan's attempts to divert to other photos. The only reason people are offering other photos is because they refuse to honestly answer what we are pointing out in Darnell.
Albert, you know why these guys like baiting you, don't you? Because you sprinkle your posts with words like "flagrantly" and "trolling" and "cheerleading." Don't add personal sideswipes to the discussion, please. Let's stick to the math and the science and have a rational discussion about our opinions, which are bound to differ.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Drew Phipps Wrote:Unless you agree with Albert, that PP's arm is illuminated by sunlight (which I do not), you must concede that the shadow would not be wide enough for PP to stand completely within it, unless PP was at least 5 feet "north" of the column, i.e. on the landing.
Drew Phipps Wrote:Albert, you know why these guys like baiting you, don't you? Because you sprinkle your posts with words like "flagrantly" and "trolling" and "cheerleading." Don't add personal sideswipes to the discussion, please. Let's stick to the math and the science and have a rational discussion about our opinions, which are bound to differ.
You're a lawyer Drew.
The biggest offense here is the flagrant ignoring of sound arguments.
You don't criticize the evidence-evaders who not only ignore sound evidence but also sprinkle their posts with even worse verbal offenses.
If you want to offer some helpful advice ask those people to honestly answer the arguments. It would do the most good. You're giving their baiting credit. Skip all that and demand they answer the truth. That's the bottom line here. These men obviously can't back up what they write or their swagger. This thread proves when unfair moderation doesn't prevent free speech that our side was correct. That's what Deep Politics is supposed to be about isn't it? Look at the claimed founding basis of this site.
