Those Front Steps

[Jack Trojan]

I still haven't read any of this thread to know what it's all about but it seems like a big waste of time to me. The bottom line is Mytton got caught faking images for his own nefarious LNer agenda and he keeps trying to defend himself with more lame-assed graphics. EOS.

Give it up bro. 

[Alan Ford]

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Mr John Mytton never puts together a gif without being up to something.

Let's look at his latest, shall we?   



What might Mr Mytton be up to here? He's just had his first and second scam visuals humiliatingly exposed------------





So! He takes a new tack.

1. He shifts the discussion away from this later Wiegman frame which formed the centerpiece of his original argument------------



------------because it blew right up in his face! 

He now only wants to talk about an earlier Wiegman frame, which has Mr Lovelady at higher elevation.

2. Watch the railing he has drawn in here:



He's made it fade out. Why? Because he doesn't want awkward questions being asked about the lady in black's position--------in Wiegman as well as in Darnell---------relative to that railing (because she's on the east side of it in both)! Why not? Because the presence of that immovable barrier in that entranceway limits Mr Mytton's ability to slyly move that lady around at will in his agenda-driven way, as he tried to do here:



But why--------------I hear you ask in unison!-------------would Mr Mytton even want to move the lady around? Simple! Because his own scam was based on positioning Mr Lovelady at a ludicrous distance from the center railing. 

Now! Leaving the lady in black and the center railing aside for a moment, the truly hilarious thing in all this is Mr Mytton's claim that he has managed in his latest gif to place Mr Lovelady up in the shadow.

Look at the distance between PrayerPerson and Mr Lovelady in the Wiegman part of Mr Mytton's gif:



Now look at where the actual shadow line was in that doorway at the time the Wiegman footage was shot and how close to PrayerPerson Mr Lovelady would have to be to be hit by that shadow:



It can't be done! No way, no how! 

Mr Mytton, as you would expect, has offered zero evidence to support the wild claim that Mr Hackerott has got the shadow line all wrong. Why? Because he knows damn well that Mr Hackerott has made meticulous calculations and so has not got the shadow line all wrong! (Nor for that matter has Mr Stancak!) 

Mr Mytton-------------in short-------------is a scam artist. But try as he might to distort the visual record and pull the wool over the eyes of men and women of goodwill reading this thread, everytime he renews his effort to explain away the dark vertical strip down Mr Lovelady as a natural shadow, he just fails spectacularly!

Shall we watch him dig some more? Oh let's!

 

[John Mytton]

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Mr John Mytton never puts together a gif without being up to something.

Already explained a bajillion times, when matching two images from different directions you have parallax problems. The lady in black who could move is insignificant when comparing to the permanent brick and mortar and Lovelady's position as compared to the shadow created by the permanent brick and mortar was the point of the exercise. Ouch!



This GIF which Royell admitted seeing "depth" shows Lovelady far away from the handrail. Double Ouch!



How about you stop running and finish what you started and just tell us how high does that railing go? And let's get this straight I never disagreed with Hackerott and in fact on multiple occasions said that Lovelady was far enough back to be in Hackerott's 3D shadow, so I was endorsing his shadow. The amount of twisting and turning and lying on display from you is quite disappointing. Triple Ouch!



Btw I notice you haven't mentioned your "paint the shadow onto Lovelady in order to hide Oswald who was behind" theory for a while? -snicker-

JohnM

[Royell Storing]

I still haven't read any of this thread to know what it's all about but it seems like a big waste of time to me. The bottom line is Mytton got caught faking images for his own nefarious LNer agenda and he keeps trying to defend himself with more lame-assed graphics. EOS.

Give it up bro. 

     Let em go. He is torching himself with every sea sick video and inch worm squiggle he posts. Hilarious

[Alan Ford]

And let's get this straight I never disagreed with Hackerott

So you agree that this is indeed the shadow line in the entranceway?



Wonderful! 

You also agree that Mr Lovelady steps down to a lower elevation between the early and the later Wiegman frames, so he definitely isn't on the landing in the later frames?



Wonderful! 

OK, now for the fun part, Mr Mytton!

Show us, using Mr Hackerott's reconstruction---------which includes what we both agree is the correct shadow line!---------where you believe Mr Lovelady is in this Wiegman frame:



A simple 'X' will do!



(But remember: you can't put him on the landing for this Wiegman frame, otherwise he would have to have been levitating in the earlier frames!)

Good luck, Mr Mytton! 

[John Mytton]

     Let em go. He is torching himself with every sea sick video and inch worm squiggle he posts. Hilarious

You had the same spiel when Lamson was here, it's just an endless list of nastiness without a single piece of evidence to support your ideas, I'm glad I don't wake up every morning and have to deal with your venomous desperation. sucks to be you!

Btw you said that the railing was the wrong length but ironically won't pinpoint your exact size, so knowing that you can't post an image to support your criticism I made this graphic so now you have no choice either tell us which number or retract what you said.



JohnM

[Royell Storing]

You had the same spiel when Lamson was here, it's just an endless list of nastiness without a single piece of evidence to support your ideas, I'm glad I don't wake up every morning and have to deal with your venomous desperation. sucks to be you!

Btw you said that the railing was the wrong length but ironically won't pinpoint your exact size, so knowing that you can't post an image to support your criticism I made this graphic so now you have no choice either tell us which number or retract what you said.



JohnM

    Exactly what is "nasty" about wanting you to be permitted to continue shooting yourself in the foot?