First, taking nothing away from the painstaking efforts of Mr. Gilbride, it's just unfortunate for him to have to build upon a shaky foundation. Truth always have the ability to stand alone. Over time even. However, with no fault due to the OP, the lies of others can not stand the test of time. All we have about an encounter in the lunchroom w/the wrongly accused is mere words. Toss in words uttered amid double-speak, multiple discussions off the record, and an assortment of outright lies, the phantom encounter was doomed from the start, nothing more than a temporary stopgap to lend a hastily contrived script concocted to frame an innocent party some time, and with any luck...
In no particular order--no further scrutiny from Mr. Murphy (Sean); the Mr. DiEugenio (Jim); Mr. Kamp (Bart); Mr. Josephs (David); Mr. Ernest (Barry), etc., and countless other researchers whose invaluable contributions on this singular issue are simply sharp, critical thinkers that know the difference between hocus-pocus and the plain simple truth)--
wouldn't have emerged on the scene to exercise their respective abilities to separate the wheat from the chaff. Lest anyone think otherwise, I admire Mr. Gilbride's efforts, and am encouraged he takes issue w/research rather than a fellow researcher. My sentiments exactly.
Moving on--sadly, which further proves my point about the phantom encounter standing upon a shaky foundation of lies comes the following (just one among many other instances of lies crumbling under closer examination) ----->
Q1: Did you lead Marrion Baker up the backstairs?
Mr. BELIN. Okay. And where was this officer at that time?
Mr. TRULY. This officer was right behind me and coming up the stairway.
By the time I reached the second floor, the officer was a little further behind me than he was on the first floor, I assume--I know.
Mr. BELIN. Was he a few feet behind you then?
Mr. TRULY. He was a few feet. It is hard for me to tell. I ran right on around to my left, started to continue on up the stairway to the third floor, and on up.
Mr. BELIN. Now when you say you ran on to your left, did you look straight ahead to see whether there was anyone in that area, or were you intent on just going upstairs?
Mr. TRULY. If there had been anybody in that area, I would have seen him on the outside. But I was content--I was trying to show the officer the pathway up, where the elevators--I mean where the stairways continued. -- Roy Truly's "truth" via his Warren Commission testimony
Q2: Or, Did you follow him up the backstairs?
"...we took the stairs, the officer ahead of me. When I reached the second-floor landing, the officer was already at the open door of the lunchroom, some twenty or twenty-five feet away. -- Roy Truly's "truth" via an interview with Leo Sauvage (author of The Oswald Affair)
Which "truth" is it, Roy Truly? Were you leading him up the stairs?, following him from behind?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer.
No great surprise, considering the source. Only lies, Roy Truly, need revision...the plain simple truth is able to stand all alone on its own.
Addendum: Unlike the plain simple truth, a lie cannot stand alone, nor stand the test of time. That said, I will always make every effort to respect my fellow researchers wherever they may stand on this issue, but parroting back the same hastily contrived script does not mean it's based upon truth, which is all that should really matter here, the plain simple truth...not Roy Truly's "truth" -----> see the one example--among many others--above)
Self-reminder: work on this image after Valentine's Day next week through Passover, and develop a definitive Blog Post in the Spring, continuing w/An Open Examination of the only male figure unaccounted for in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381, and why his presence is essential to establishing the truth in the JFK Assassination ----->
*AF 1248 @ 77%
Truth stands on a solid foundation, only a lie, and the many other lies it breeds stand upon quicksand. Truth stands the test of time. A hastily contrived lie from it's inception is doomed to fail the test of time.
Richard... I took your reply and crafted a response to what you ask... my replies are in bold blue
your words remain in black without italic.
-----
This new mega-essay is not an attack on Bart Kamp. It is an attack on the unsuspecting readers who fell for Sean Murphy's mullarkey. Bart has to be critiqued for his error-riddled thesis, which masquerades as award-winning scholarship. It's a garbage theory he's being the huckster for.
David Josephs: "MANY people were leaving and moving about in the TSBD at that [lunchroom scene] time... something Richard fails to mention..."
Bullcrap. No one has put more work into which specific people were in which specific place inside the TSBD than myself. You never bother reading my material, which is all publicly-available. Maybe you can enlighten us as to which people were moving where, and when, David? And do try to incorporate that into the theme and space of that section of your essay.
Take a breath Richard…. I've done the analysis like you… Are you telling me you don't recall the group of men at the back door letting people in and out? The old colored man who just sits back there, I believe Haygood and/or Harkness - who were with Sawyer - see this man and actually leaves him in charge of guarding the back door....
Mr. BELIN - What does it say there on that transcript?
Mr. HARKNESS - "Witness says shots came from fifth floor, Texas Book Depository store at Houston and Elm. I have him with me now and we are sealing off the building."
Mr. BELIN - All right, that was at 12:36 p.m.?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Had the building been sealed off at that time?
Mr. HARKNESS - Not to my knowledge. There were several officers around it, but I don't know whether it had been sealed off or not.
Mr. BELIN - Then am I correct that your testimony is that you didn't notice whether people were coming in and out? Did you notice, or did you not notice whether people were coming out of the building at that time?
Mr. HARKNESS - Several officers at the area, and it was a lot of people around. I don't know whether they were going in or out or not. I couldn't say that.
Mr. BELIN - Then you went around to the back of the building?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Was anyone around in the back when you got there? Mr. HARKNESS - There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service.
Mr. SAWYER. Well, they had it covered when I got there. There were officers all around the front. The only thing I don't think had been done by the time I got there, was the instructions not to let anybody in or out.
Mr. BELIN. All right, now, did you give the instructions not to let anyone in or out?
Mr. SAWYER. I did.
Mr. BELIN. Did you give those instructions before or after you came down from the fourth floor or top floor?
Mr. SAWYER. After I got down. (note: we are now after 12:38.. have you seen the images of people streaming back into and out of the TSBD front, let alone who was in and out of the rear-doors)
Mrs. REID. I couldn't tell you because, you know, I didn't count the floors and I didn't count them, and I made the statement "Oh, I hope they don't think any of our boys have done this" and I had no thoughts of anything like that. I turned and went back in the building.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Now, let me ask you this then.
Mrs. REID. All right.
Mr. BELIN. Before you turned and went back into the building did you---did Mr. Campbell say anything to you?
Mrs. REID. He said, "Oh, Mrs. Reid, no, it came from the grassy area down this way," and that was the last I said to him.
Mr. SHELLEY - We walked on down to the first railroad track there on the dead-end street and stood there and watched them searching cars down there in the parking lots for a little while and then we came in through our parking lot at the west end.
Mr. BALL - At the west end?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes; and then in the side door into the shipping room.
*********************************
David Josephs: "...yet they are not on the same 'image plane'... nor have you determined a scale..."
Bullcrap. I have provided that scale. Trask determined that Camera Car 3 was approximately 70 feet from the closest point of the TSBD. That closest point wasn't Frazier. The closest point was the east corner of the building. Frazier then measures approximately 75 feet to Camera Car 3. And Camera Car 3 then measures about 76.5 feet to PrayerMan.
Please look at the diagram on p.6; there are two separate drawings of the Darnell camera position, with the TSBD landing drawn to scale. In the real world, off the diagram, the TSBD landing is 4 ft. x 11.5 ft.
And because PrayerMan is at the front of the landing, you can see from my compass arcs that PrayerMan & Frazier are very nearly in the same "image plane"- only a 76.5/75 = 1.04% correction needs to be made for perspective.
***********************
"I'd suggest Richard go to a University which can perform photogrammetry..."
What you have before you, which you apparently unable to discern, is photogrammetry. If you are unhappy with it, why don't you show us your own abilities at photogrammetry? So as to ascertain PrayerMan's height?
What you did with the photo is not photogrammetry Richard… it's best guess with your margin of error much larger than you want to admit… Someone once tried to show that Oswald in the Ferrie CAP photo was the same height as Ferrie… the same depth of field and measurement problems are involved…
He skewed the image my overlay to make Ozzie taller…:
When, if you move Oswald next to Ferrie in the image, you begin to understand the problem with depth and perspective on 2d representation of 3d space. Oswald is obviously not 4'5"
I came up with a scientifically sound estimate of 5' 2 1/2"- nowhere near Oswald's height.
That you come up with a height is not contested… the method and accuracy is what I take issue with Richard…
Tell us why you think PM is in the corner, David. And don't forget to include the Wiegman film forensic that shows the vertical border-strip of the plate-glass partition at PM's east shoulder.
- which proves he was on the front part of the landing.
The landing is actually 5 feet deep, not 4. Frazier is standing much closer to the camera than the person in the corner. The percentage of difference in distance does not equate to the same difference in the measurement. You are aware that focal distance and lens size matters as well…
The words "focal" and "lens" each appear only once in your essay and not in this context… we both know that a 100mm lens or higher from a telephoto lens will distort the perspective much more than say a 35mm lens…. What where these images' lens mm?
The problem here is your 5.2 and 4.4 measurements… your claims of arc and distance do not support the assumption that these two are even close to the same photographic plane… just like the Ferrie image above which exaggerates it… the 1.04% difference in the focal distance equates to a size ratio - how?
*************************
David Josephs: "The button argument is pure conjectural BS... assuming that level of detail is possible results in erroneous conclusions..."
Bullcrap. How do contrast-enhanced artifacts line up in vertical symmetry? They're not random artifacts!!
Any professional photo-analyst would confirm that they are most probably buttons. I still have a faint hope that they're circular pieces of styrofoam.
Once again Richard… subjective interpretation is not corroboration. Assume any resolution you'd like and then tell us within that image how many pixels is a button… when there is much less information than is needed to form an opinion, shapes can start to be seen everywhere…
Let me show you… this is the famous "kneeling assassin" who cleverly blended into the shrubs… we both know there was no one there Richard... doesn't mean someone NOT knowing wouldn't see this person and from then on always see this person.... and can argue that there is an image of the dude so he MUST have been there... simple contrast and brightness...
the same process was used for Badgeman which is simply the patterns in the leaves…. When you color in the sky in Moorman, badgeman disappears.
So yes Richard, I can easily manipulate the image to make it appear that buttons may be there… that doesn't make them buttons (Pixelization is usually vertical and horizontal... just like buttons)
*********************
I have some inside skinny from my high-up JFK contacts in the biz that the guy who got banned from this Deep Politics forum for expressing dissent against that garbage lunchroom hoax theory- well, he done convinced Debra Conway that Bart Kamp's award be revoked. She had nothing to do deciding on the award and it was Larry Hancock's mistake. But the fumage is so strong from those cuckooheads defending the award, they've outlawed free speech as regards anything Murphyesque. Go figure.
Do have a nice day, unless you've made other plans.
IDK what you're referring to here… rather than descend into opinions let's stay with the nuts and bolts facts that help us make a decision…
I'm NOT saying PM is Oswald… I have read too many white lies about who was where to come to any conclusions (Shelley has Lloyd Viles right next to him when he was nowhere near him… I thought maybe PM was Lloyd by process of elimination.)
But I'm also not saying it isn't…. (not sure if you are aware but I believe I've put Shelley and Oswald together in New Orleans at the ITM and how that might bear upon Oswald's time there...)
With regard to the crux of the matter, the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Floor Lunchroom Hoax…. Using Bugliosi as a source is akin to using McAdams or Myers or Posner…. You really have GOT to be kidding us…
Your interpretation of the Baker written statements is also IMHO off… One wonders why the man and Truly would need to write yet another statement on Sept 23[SUP]rd[/SUP] … And Baker even needed to correct that related to the COKE… which conflicts with Reid.
Affidavit 11/22 says one thing… everything after that conflicts with the first day account… and you're all cool with that as THE evidence which puts Oswald in that lunchroom…. Arguably much sooner than anyone admits…
Putting it on the same page really shows the stark contrast between signed statements.... y'know the coke had to go away to reduce the amount of time he was already down in the room to fit the time table...
Are you of the impression Oswald was always in the lunchroom... or that he came down after his doing the shooting, to the lunchroom?
You're not a LNer, so one has to wonder why you feel what Baker writes winds up so different from his testimony and subsequent statement, and for what purpose.... I see it hiding the identity of the man coming down the stairs with Marvin Johnson happily filling in the blanks with his own commentary.
This is how I reply Richard... I truly would like to work together... If I'm wrong and you can illustrate why... great. Excuse the tangents, that's how my mind works - by example.... with evidence being more tied together within this cover-up[ than would be in real life....
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Something to know about CE1381... they were from a set batch of questions designed to say next to nothing while giving the impression Oswald could have done it...
"WHO" is making the voluntary statement
Describe yourself
Where were you on Nov 22 when JFK rode by
Do you know Lee Harvey Oswald and did you see him "at the time of the shooting" (since no one sees him he could be the shooter)
Did you see anyone who attracted your attention around the TSBD
What happened after the shooting
I have read and confirm this statement is true
Sometimes the answers to 2 or 3 questions are contained in one paragraph... but for the most part this was part of the glossing over of the evidence...
Who is missing though... could be interesting... it's in alphabetically order so..... ::
What is the image you posted below? what does the full image look like?
and waht does *AF 1248 @ 77% mean?
thanks
DJ
Self-reminder: work on this image after Valentine's Day next week through Passover, and develop a definitive Blog Post in the Spring, continuing w/An Open Examination of the only male figure unaccounted for in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381, and why his presence is essential to establishing the truth in the JFK Assassination ----->
*AF 1248 @ 77%
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Something to know about CE1381... they were from a set batch of questions designed to say next to nothing while giving the impression Oswald could have done it...
"WHO" is making the voluntary statement
Describe yourself
Where were you on Nov 22 when JFK rode by
Do you know Lee Harvey Oswald and did you see him "at the time of the shooting" (since no one sees him he could be the shooter)
Did you see anyone who attracted your attention around the TSBD
What happened after the shooting
I have read and confirm this statement is true
Sometimes the answers to 2 or 3 questions are contained in one paragraph... but for the most part this was part of the glossing over of the evidence...
Who is missing though... could be interesting... it's in alphabetically order so..... ::
What is the image you posted below? what does the full image look like?
and waht does *AF 1248 @ 77% mean?
thanks
DJ
Self-reminder: work on this image after Valentine's Day next week through Passover, and develop a definitive Blog Post in the Spring, continuing w/An Open Examination of the only male figure unaccounted for in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381, and why his presence is essential to establishing the truth in the JFK Assassination ----->
*AF 1248 @ 77%
Spot On!, Mr. Josephs, in your keen assessment of the slanted questioning of the Texas School Book Depository employees as compiled within Commission Exhibit 1381. Yes, the questions were obviously drawn up in such a manner to lead to a determined outcome in order to FRAME an innocent party. Just for the fun of it, I'm going to pretend to answer your questions to demonstrate how the fix worked ---->
"WHO" is making the voluntary statement (Alan Ford, 123 Any Street, Irving, Texas)
Describe yourself (4th floor publishing gopher for Scott-Foresman)
Where were you on Nov 22 when JFK rode by (standing on the corner of Elm & Houston w/John Smith a fellow co-worker)
Do you know Lee Harvey Oswald and did you see him "at the time of the shooting" (since no one sees him he could be the shooter) No, I did NOT see the scoundrel, thus HE did the shooting, because he mumbles a lot and sticks to himself, f'ing commie loving traitor)
Did you see anyone who attracted your attention around the TSBD (No, no stranger could be guilty of this crime...again, I saw everyone else and their mother, but NOT Oswald)
What happened after the shooting (After our initial shock, my coworkers and I returned inside. Again Oswald nowhere to be seen, and, Oh, lest you didn't read it the first time, we did not see any strangers or OSWALD)
I have read and confirm this statement is true (Do I get a cold glass of milk & chocolate chip cookies for steering the focus upon only Oswald who was NOT seen/accountable, yada, yada, yada)
Very perceptive of you to fully understand where these questions were headed. The image posted is of an individual standing upon the front entrance stairs--mere seconds after the gunsmoke cleared in Dealy Plaza. My understanding here is ace card researcher Sean Murphy dubbed him something or other, but--out of respect for this Forum--I'm staying clear of that subject and simply referencing him as the only male figure unaccounted for in the CE 1381 log.
The AF ='s my initials, and the numeric number makes reference to a designated file. The @ 77% means if I wish to develop this image further I'll have to go to Kodak in Rochester, NY.
Again, a keen observation @ how the questioning of the employees were so cleverly designed to reach a contrived outcome.
Just curious to hear what others may think about an eyewitness who continues to give conflicting testimony @ Roy Truly...What's your take, Mr. Josephs, on eyewitnesses who always find themselves revising their "truth"?, especially amid Discussions off the record?
Let's add a bit more analysis to the PM question...
The following image is a composite to show where "LOVELADY" was standing at different times of the motorcade...
At the top left we see what safely could be assumed as LOVELADY right behind the black man in the corner of the stairs...
Altgens and an enlargement below that, with PM next to that....
At the bottom is PM with LOVELADY to its left near where Frazier ultimately is seen in the PM image...
When, between Hughes/Altgens and Couch/Darnell does LOVELADY move from the side to the center?
and look at the movement of the hands... while others claimed PM was taking photos or drinking, I dont' see that...
The limo is passing the corner near the end of the clip... bottom right the limo is further down Elm and LOVELADY is now over to the left of PM, not in front of him
We agree that Lovelady in the top gif and image is not in the same place as the bottom right image...
How dat?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Well done, Mr. Josephs, especially demonstrating placement of Lovelady in the same image as the mystery male still unaccounted for in CE 1381. The Lovelady card has run it's expiration course. Thanks for settling that issue.
Alan Ford Wrote:First, taking nothing away from the painstaking efforts of Mr. Gilbride, it's just unfortunate for him to have to build upon a shaky foundation. Truth always have the ability to stand alone. Over time even. However, with no fault due to the OP, the lies of others can not stand the test of time. All we have about an encounter in the lunchroom w/the wrongly accused is mere words. Toss in words uttered amid double-speak, multiple discussions off the record, and an assortment of outright lies, the phantom encounter was doomed from the start, nothing more than a temporary stopgap to lend a hastily contrived script concocted to frame an innocent party some time, and with any luck...
In no particular order--no further scrutiny from Mr. Murphy (Sean); the Mr. DiEugenio (Jim); Mr. Kamp (Bart); Mr. Josephs (David); Mr. Ernest (Barry), etc., and countless other researchers whose invaluable contributions on this singular issue are simply sharp, critical thinkers that know the difference between hocus-pocus and the plain simple truth)--
wouldn't have emerged on the scene to exercise their respective abilities to separate the wheat from the chaff. Lest anyone think otherwise, I admire Mr. Gilbride's efforts, and am encouraged he takes issue w/research rather than a fellow researcher. My sentiments exactly.
Moving on--sadly, which further proves my point about the phantom encounter standing upon a shaky foundation of lies comes the following (just one among many other instances of lies crumbling under closer examination) ----->
Q1: Did you lead Marrion Baker up the backstairs?
Mr. BELIN. Okay. And where was this officer at that time?
Mr. TRULY. This officer was right behind me and coming up the stairway.
By the time I reached the second floor, the officer was a little further behind me than he was on the first floor, I assume--I know.
Mr. BELIN. Was he a few feet behind you then?
Mr. TRULY. He was a few feet. It is hard for me to tell. I ran right on around to my left, started to continue on up the stairway to the third floor, and on up.
Mr. BELIN. Now when you say you ran on to your left, did you look straight ahead to see whether there was anyone in that area, or were you intent on just going upstairs?
Mr. TRULY. If there had been anybody in that area, I would have seen him on the outside. But I was content--I was trying to show the officer the pathway up, where the elevators--I mean where the stairways continued. -- Roy Truly's "truth" via his Warren Commission testimony
Q2: Or, Did you follow him up the backstairs?
"...we took the stairs, the officer ahead of me. When I reached the second-floor landing, the officer was already at the open door of the lunchroom, some twenty or twenty-five feet away. -- Roy Truly's "truth" via an interview with Leo Sauvage (author of The Oswald Affair)
Which "truth" is it, Roy Truly? Were you leading him up the stairs?, following him from behind?
Mr. TRULY. That I can't answer.
No great surprise, considering the source. Only lies, Roy Truly, need revision...the plain simple truth is able to stand all alone on its own.
Addendum: Unlike the plain simple truth, a lie cannot stand alone, nor stand the test of time. That said, I will always make every effort to respect my fellow researchers wherever they may stand on this issue, but parroting back the same hastily contrived script does not mean it's based upon truth, which is all that should really matter here, the plain simple truth...not Roy Truly's "truth" -----> see the one example--among many others--above)
Self-reminder: work on this image after Valentine's Day next week through Passover, and develop a definitive Blog Post in the Spring, continuing w/An Open Examination of the only male figure unaccounted for in Warren Commission Exhibit 1381, and why his presence is essential to establishing the truth in the JFK Assassination ----->
*AF 1248 @ 77%
Truth stands on a solid foundation, only a lie, and the many other lies it breeds stand upon quicksand. Truth stands the test of time. A hastily contrived lie from it's inception is doomed to fail the test of time.
It appears that AlanFord has referenced some researchers/authors that quite likely have reached certain conclusions about the assassination of JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr, and possible assassination attempt/wounding of JohnBowdenConnallyJr, and surrounding events. However, to my knowledge none of those referenced in this post were actual eyewitnesses to the event. Said conclusions can, and should be, weighed to ascertain validity, but conclusions still, and chosen evidence and opinion are likely included. When possible, I try to reference known eyewitness statements/testimony that influences my conclusions, and I remain committed to avoid calling deceased eyewitnesses "liars". I am unable to place any reliable value for AlanFord's quote referencing Author LeoSauvage's published interview of RoyTruly, but I do wonder, as I wander, if the complete q & a is available for thorough clarification. Also, I am unable to ascertain what is being proposed/promoted by the attached photograph and AlanFord's referenced "only male figure unaccounted for in Warren Commision Exhibit 1301." If it has been determined that the posted image is that of a male, I have to wonder, as I wander, if the science that proves gender can be confirmed/explained?
A question for AlanFord: Huh?
AlanFord posted:"Q1id you lead Marrion Baker up the backstairs?" LR Trotter asked: Exactly who, at what hearing/testimony event asked RoyTruly this specific question?
AlanFord posted:"Q2:Or, did you follow him up the backstairs?" LR Trotter asked: Exactly who, at what hearing/testimony event asked RoyTruly this specific question?
AlanFord posted:"Mr Truly. That I can't answer."LR Trotter asked: Exactly what specific question, asked by who, at what hearing/testimony event is RoyTruly's response relative to?
RoyTruly's sworn statement/testimony is available at:
Albert Doyle is trying to convince me that an expert he never spoke to would automatically confirm Richard's work....
but they are waiting until they have better versions of Darnell and Weigman BEFORE talking to any experts...
I told him I'd post an image showing how absurd the "button" argument is based on the size of the area of that 8mm film's negative in that one area...
Look at the absurd size of the "buttons" on PM... extrapolate up to the wrist and the button is as wide... those must be some pretty big buttons...
Are buttons usually that close together? if so, the bottom 2 betrays an open space where 1 or even 2 more buttons should be... how come?
Why again, with better resolution do we not see any of the buttons on the woman in the doorway?
And those "buttons" in darkness and facing away from the source of the sun are lit by what exactly?
Do you see the WHITE heads of the people walking up the stairs - what is that the result of... Albert? Richard?
So I tried to find the largest BUTTONS I could... evenly spaced and no where near large enough...
what say you now?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
David, this is incorrect, the information you post about Harkness' Secret Service agents at 12:36. Are you sure you really read my material? It was Sorrels who noticed a black man guarding the rear door, circa 12:50. See VII p. 348
You act like a know-it-all on photogrammetry but you don't show me you know the first thing about it. Why don't you attempt a height measurement of PM, bigshot?
That TSBD landing width, I determined from photogrammetry of the reflection of the lobby radiator. That's in the PHOTOS section at my website. Using Tony Fratini's estimate of 2.5 feet for radiator height, I established that the reflection (which can be seen in the plate glass extending to the edge of the landing) was about 4.0 feet in length. We needed to clarify that question at the time because people were going with a guess of 3 feet.
Later, Gary Muir discovered FBI diagrams where they'd measured it at 3' 9".
The parallax error, as regards my Darnell-camera-position diagrams is negligible; we're not talking Watusi here. PM is so much shorter than 5'9" only a mind deep-in-denial could construe PM for LHO.
On your interpretation of my Darnell blowup, you completely misinterpret- you use the crude FBI TSBD building diagram to derive a landing width of 5 feet. And I forgot to mention in my essay that 1.5 feet is the separation, due to the observed "drinking motion" in Wiegman, between PM and the alcove wall.
2.5 feet is that 1.5 feet plus the minimum 1.0 feet width of a person's shoulders. Only ballpark mathematics (i.e. 2.5, 1.5) is required for a very precise understanding that PM is situated at the front part of the landing.
By the way, my PM understanding is secondary to my lunchroom expertise, and I owe it to Albert Doyle, who got banned from this forum for presenting the correct PM evidence and scoffing at the lunchroom hoax theory. But the Bolshevik Murphyites running this research community won't tolerate anyone dissenting their propaganda efforts. It's pathetic and anti-Jeffersonian, but drunkards gotta have their day, don't they?
David, you don't address the forensic fact that the contrast-enhanced buttons align in vertical symmetry; they're not randomly splayed about. You take the argument into illusory realms of picnic photos which are not applicable to the symmetry situation.
We can't work together if you continue posting overloads of information. Repeat- I have to work for a living. Soon it will be every single day.
Why don't you get started with a determination of PM's height? Go ahead, bigshot, try and refute my "junk science". Show your work. And if you put PM in the corner, give a solid explanation as to why the vertical border-strip is seen behind his east shoulder in Wiegman.
Don't mind me- just raging against the Murphyite machine. You robots have been getting away with Kampatronic slop for too long. Achtung, baby.
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=9332&stc=1]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9332&stc=1)
:
id you lead Marrion Baker up the backstairs?"