Michael Cross Wrote:However, we don't have PRECISE measurements of any architectural feature in the door way. We have estimates. Attempts at "geometry" etc are therefore estimates. The Darnell frame itself doesn't have three dimensions.
Here is where Michael tries to wiggle out of the admitted flaws in his side's offerings. What is really happening here is our trigonometry is valid and does operate within acceptable parameters capable of ruling out certain possibilities, including Oswald being Prayer Man. Meanwhile the real failure in accuracy comes from ROKC and Stancak's jerry-built computer graphic pseudo-analysis, which is really just Stancak hoping he can get away with murder because people are impressed by his computer graphic skills.
I'm not going to spend much time on you Brian, as your continued assertions based on vapor are laughable. Why you continue to be allowed to peddle this nonsense on a serious forum is baffling.
Your "trigonometry" is based, according to Drew, on the drawing David Joseph's presented in post #79 of the now locked thread "heads up" (a post in which you didn't even know the length of a measurement you were using for your "proof"). That drawing - which is attached - has a "scale in feet" guide, and features crudely drawn steps of varying width which are clearly not a representation of the actual steps. It is not precise. It is not a blueprint. It is not a survey of the site. It is crudely rendered and imprecise. Further IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POSITIONS OF ANY PERSON THAT WAS ON THE STEPS. ANY ASSIGNMENT OF POSITION IS A GUESS AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE USED TO FORMULATE PROOF. I don't know how else to say this, and with all due respect to Drew: NO OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE POSITIONS OF THE PEOPLE ON THE STEPS EXISTS. THEREFORE THERE CAN BE NO ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF THEIR POSITIONS ON THE STEPS AND RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. IT CANNOT BE DONE. DREW USED MATH TO PRODUCE CONJECTURE BASED ON THIS ESTIMATION OF POSITIONS.
I'm sorry that you don't understand mathematics (or photography). Math is PRECISE. It requires PRECISE measurements to produce an outcome. Everything you propose as proven is based on estimations AND IS COMPLETE HOGWASH. You are either ignorant or are willfully trying to mislead. Being combative does not lend credence to the inane tripe you continue to spout.
You continue to spew disinformation. Frankly, that you are allowed to continue this campaign taints what is otherwise an superb forum.
Well said, Mr. Cross, in respect to being fair about guessing and estimating as oppose to having concrete specific data to make a fair evaluation. There's nothing ever wrong with making a fair evaluation based upon specifics.
Michael Cross Wrote:I'm not going to spend much time on you Brian, as your continued assertions based on vapor are laughable. Why you continue to be allowed to peddle this nonsense on a serious forum is baffling.
It would be in your interest to not have to answer how your recommended source, Stancak, agrees with me and places Prayer Man even more forward than we do with no such protest from you. Michael, may I ask how you are going to convince people to take your thundering authority and disapproval seriously when you make such gaffes? Let me get this straight. You are saying we can't make any measurements but then automatically approving of Stancak who agrees even more that Prayer Man is way forward on the landing? I can understand your need to keep this short. Otherwise you might actually have to answer for stuff like this.
Michael Cross Wrote:Your "trigonometry" is based, according to Drew, on the drawing David Joseph's presented in post #79 of the now locked thread "heads up" (a post in which you didn't even know the length of a measurement you were using for your "proof"). That drawing - which is attached - has a "scale in feet" guide, and features crudely drawn steps of varying width which are clearly not a representation of the actual steps. It is not precise. It is not a blueprint. It is not a survey of the site. It is crudely rendered and imprecise. Further IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POSITIONS OF ANY PERSON THAT WAS ON THE STEPS. ANY ASSIGNMENT OF POSITION IS A GUESS AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE USED TO FORMULATE PROOF. I don't know how else to say this, and with all due respect to Drew: NO OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE POSITIONS OF THE PEOPLE ON THE STEPS EXISTS. THEREFORE THERE CAN BE NO ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF THEIR POSITIONS ON THE STEPS AND RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. IT CANNOT BE DONE. DREW USED MATH TO PRODUCE CONJECTURE BASED ON THIS ESTIMATION OF POSITIONS.
If you had any understanding of what we were talking about you would realize your answer falls way short and doesn't answer our science. Your precise scale excuse above doesn't recognize that it doesn't refute our science. The same science you are avoiding by focusing on this specious irrelevant point. You've been getting away with this too long Michael and the trouble is it still doesn't answer the point. The answer to what you write here is that our trigonometry argument is good as presented and does reasonably disprove Prayer Man as Oswald. Your scale canard here doesn't answer for it or disprove it. You're just using it as a cheap strawman to avoid giving a credible answer.
Gilbride managed to recognize the good science we offered. He is helping turn the corner on this with credible researchers. If you go back and actually recognize what we wrote your bogus dismissal here doesn't answer to it and doesn't disprove its merit. The math we provided does exclude Oswald as being Prayer Man on a mathematical basis from the measurements that could be gotten. You are just ignoring good evidence like the 2 gif's that showed Prayer Man at the front, the sun plane evidence, Unger's admission that Prayer Man was forward, and worst of all - your own source's insistence that Prayer Man was well forward and on the step. It's kind of foolish for you to offer Stancak and then not realize he's more forward than anybody. How does that work for your credibility and the worth of your opinion Michael? You're obviously making desperate excuses to avoid the inevitable. I was told I was alone on this. A more honest view would show that only the deniers refuse to admit this and just about every one else, including Stancak and Unger, agree Prayer Man is up forward.
Michael Cross Wrote:I'm sorry that you don't understand mathematics (or photography). Math is PRECISE. It requires PRECISE measurements to produce an outcome. Everything you propose as proven is based on estimations AND IS COMPLETE HOGWASH. You are either ignorant or are willfully trying to mislead. Being combative does not lend credence to the inane tripe you continue to spout.
You continue to spew disinformation. Frankly, that you are allowed to continue this campaign taints what is otherwise an superb forum.
That's the worst part of this Michael. That while patronizing us and telling us we don't understand the science if you look at the content of our offerings it is clearly our side that offers the better photogrammetry. You are just name-calling and offering self-serving excuses. A more credible examination will show our science is sound, disproves Prayer Man as Oswald, and hasn't even been touched by you. This isn't ROKC and you can't get away with metadata excuses any more. The corner is being turned on this and the science will prove that crude dismissals won't work any more like they have up to now. There has been some very credible science offered that deserves a better answer. So far you haven't given one. You are the ones not bringing enough to the table here not I.
How far is PM from the door, from the back wall, from both side walls. Supply both in inches and centimeters. We also need measurements to both shoulders and his spine in order to be accurate. What type of shoes is he wearing? How much heel?
Do the same for every other person on the steps and provide specific distances between each.
As soon as you do so we'll discuss how you got those measurements. We can proceed from there with the measurements of the architecture. So go ahead, provide your proof.
Albert Doyle Wrote:It would be in your interest to not have to answer how your recommended source, Stancak, agrees with me and places Prayer Man even more forward than we do with no such protest from you. Michael, may I ask how you are going to convince people to take your thundering authority and disapproval seriously when you make such gaffes? Let me get this straight. You are saying we can't make any measurements but then automatically approving of Stancak who agrees even more that Prayer Man is way forward on the landing? I can understand your need to keep this short. Otherwise you might actually have to answer for stuff like this.
My God you are a buffon. My "recommended source". I simply provided a link to a man that is working to build a three dimensional model. It's impressive. I have no idea if it's accurate and neither do you.
Michael Cross Wrote:Your "trigonometry" is based, according to Drew, on the drawing David Joseph's presented in post #79 of the now locked thread "heads up" (a post in which you didn't even know the length of a measurement you were using for your "proof"). That drawing - which is attached - has a "scale in feet" guide, and features crudely drawn steps of varying width which are clearly not a representation of the actual steps. It is not precise. It is not a blueprint. It is not a survey of the site. It is crudely rendered and imprecise. Further IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POSITIONS OF ANY PERSON THAT WAS ON THE STEPS. ANY ASSIGNMENT OF POSITION IS A GUESS AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE USED TO FORMULATE PROOF. I don't know how else to say this, and with all due respect to Drew: NO OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE POSITIONS OF THE PEOPLE ON THE STEPS EXISTS. THEREFORE THERE CAN BE NO ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF THEIR POSITIONS ON THE STEPS AND RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. IT CANNOT BE DONE. DREW USED MATH TO PRODUCE CONJECTURE BASED ON THIS ESTIMATION OF POSITIONS.
Albert Doyle Wrote:If you had any understanding of what we were talking about you would realize your answer falls way short and doesn't answer our science. Your precise scale excuse above doesn't recognize that it doesn't refute our science. The same science you are avoiding by focusing on this specious irrelevant point. You've been getting away with this too long Michael and the trouble is it still doesn't answer the point. The answer to what you write here is that our trigonometry argument is good as presented and does reasonably disprove Prayer Man as Oswald. Your scale canard here doesn't answer for it or disprove it. You're just using it as a cheap strawman to avoid giving a credible answer.
You are asserting science doesn't need precision. I rest my case.
Michael Cross Wrote:So supply your specifics Brian:
How far is PM from the door, from the back wall, from both side walls. Supply both in inches and centimeters. We also need measurements to both shoulders and his spine in order to be accurate. What type of shoes is he wearing? How much heel?
Do the same for every other person on the steps and provide specific distances between each.
As soon as you do so we'll discuss how you got those measurements. We can proceed from there with the measurements of the architecture. So go ahead, provide your proof.
And if you can't do so please shut the hell up.
A voice of reason speaks...simply asking for specifics rather than a continuous surplus of more guessing and estimating.
Guessing and estimating doesn't serve the truth. To wit: I guess I saw so and so; I estimate the time at so and so. Anything gleaned from guessing and estimating puts us in the ballpark, but not at a specific time or specific location. That's why within this Challenge specifics matter most.
Otherwise, prayer woman and her spawn would be able to masquerade as Prayer Man without producing actual evidence based research to support their existence, let alone their claim to Prayer Man's specific position. The day is still young here on the eve of Day Ten (10) of the simple Challenge within this thread, so there's still a chance prayer woman, prayer person, prayer thing, prayer it, prayer ghost, prayer pick a spawn, etc. will actually provide some specifics to substantiate their existence (with a specific name) and provide a credible explanation to explain away the "not a stranger" litmus test. Otherwise, they remain far behind on the specifics count when compared to Prayer Man.
Still sitting at (0) specifics nine days into this Challenge. There's a reason for that.
I'm not advocating for his identity; as I've said many times, without more information, hopefully a hi-res scan of the Darnell original, we can't prove anything.
The junk science that continues to be proffered is embarrassing.
According to Ms Sarah Stanton, she was standing on the TSBD front steps when JFK was shot, and she did not see LeeHarveyOswald at that time, or anytime that day. Thanks to Ms Gayle Nix Jackson for providing this information. http://gaylenixjackson.com/wp-content/up...tanton.png
07-04-2016, 12:19 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2016, 12:36 AM by Albert Doyle.)
Michael Cross Wrote:My God you are a buffon. My "recommended source". I simply provided a link to a man that is working to build a three dimensional model. It's impressive. I have no idea if it's accurate and neither do you.
Michael,
This is an ROKC name-calling level conversation that isn't allowed here.
Your submission deliberately seeks to drag the conversation out into the overly general where you can safely ignore the points I made. You can't do that at this level Michael and at some point you are going to have to answer for what you do here.
All you are saying here is that you just blindly offer Stancak without knowing anything about what you recommend. This is a view I also share of what you offer. If you compare what we offer my posts are full of precise references to evidence that you are clearly making an effort not to answer and deliberately steering the conversation into the uncredibly overly simple. This is typical of ROKC members. When caught not noticing that Stancak claimed an even more forward position for Prayer Man than we did instead of accounting for your gaffe you play dumb and say you are just innocently offering a link.
It is quite stupid of you to not notice that I am accusing you of having no credible understanding what you offer while both condemning and patronizing me. In response to that you basically shoot yourself in the foot by calling Stancak's work "impressive" while then qualifying it with an admission that you aren't really sure if it is complete crap or not. This is pretty stupid Michael, because we are both agreeing that you have no idea of what you are offering and can't account for it when shown. And you are calling ME the buffoon?
Meanwhile Stancak has made some serious mistakes that you obviously have no interest in acknowledging. Which means you aren't a credible source for this and have no right to take the posture you do of bombastic authority while then admitting in the next sentence that you may indeed be offering crap.
Michael Cross Wrote:You are asserting science doesn't need precision. I rest my case.
This does not honestly answer what I wrote.
What I did write was that your cheap dismissal did not answer or live up to the credible science Drew and I presented. That science is sound and you are taking obvious pains to avoid it, which once again means you are not a serious source for this and are not seriously interested in determining the truth. You have been given undue privilege on this site because some well known researchers have a bias towards Murphy. Indeed, the best precision offered on the subject has been shown by Drew and myself. You ROKC deniers, who have successfully infiltrated this site, are in contempt of it and have succeeded in lowering the intellectual/academic quality of this board while subversively undermining its previously accepted standard.
1) Stancak needs to be forced to answer for Fratini's Tie Man evidence that shows beyond a doubt that Prayer Man is on the landing. Stancak is an ROKC incompetent. While it's nice listening to your goofy protestations, a real researcher would take the initiative to seek out and inquire as to Fratini. When he did he would find there is no doubt Prayer Man is up on the landing (which means Stancak has no idea of what he is talking about).
2) If Stancak wants to be helpful he'll do a computer graphic of Wiegman where Lovelady is a clear 2-3 inches taller than Prayer Man. Seeing how Lovelady is known to be 5 foot 8, that is a final and devastating point of evidence that proves Prayer Man isn't Oswald once and for all. Again, credible researchers seek and inquire over this kind of evidence. ROKC clowns do their best to avoid it.
3) I have a very good idea of whether Stancak is accurate or not by the things I wrote in precise detail that you ignored. You don't seem to realize that while talking down to me you are offering something that is basically an admission of lack of qualification. You ROKC deniers get very mushy when caught and this is a good example. The trigonometry Drew offered proves Prayer Man isn't Oswald and you haven't answered for it short of name-calling and getting out as fast as possible.
07-04-2016, 03:31 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2016, 03:51 AM by LR Trotter.)
[URL="http://gaylenixjackson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/shellyonsteps.png"]According to his statement, at the time of the JFK assassination, Mr William (Bill) Shelley, a TSBD supervisor, was standing on the top step in the front entrance of the TSBD, along with Mr Billy Lovelady, Mr Buell Frazier, Ms Sarah Stanton, and Ms Carolyn Arnold. Thanks to information provided by Ms Gayle Nix Jackson. http://gaylenixjackson.com/wp-content/up...nsteps.png[/URL]
