The First Shot

[Dan O'meara]

Please. The only thing you have “schooled” the forum on is your propensity for projection.

Of course it’s about Westbrook. This whole pissing contest arose because you categorically stated that Westbrook was “wrong” in her identification of herself.

Another dishonest strawman. I never claimed to identify anybody, you did.

Interesting hypocrisy here. What is your basis for this identification? Oh yeah, he identified himself in the Z film. Just like Westbrook.

No, as I keep pointing out, “was with” does not necessarily mean standing next to. You keep trying to blur the distinction to make your assumption a fact. It’s not about exact words, it’s about you mischaracterizing what she said to try to bolster your opinion.

You either have a memory impairment or this is more dishonesty. You said your “identification” was a certainty. Now look who’s using an “exact words” defense.

Exact quote, Dan:

“We know from the photo/film record that they can only be the three women in the Z-frame crop at the top. This identification is certain.”

You most definitely claimed certainty, whether you remember it or not. Not that your “they look the same to me”, and “prove me wrong” arguments constitute certainty in any regard.

No point in getting bogged down in this tripe.

Just to clarify some of your more blatant misrepresentations.
This "pissing contest", as you put it, arose because of my positive identification of Sharon Simmons as the woman in the blue headscarf.
This identification wasn't pulled out of thin air, for a laugh. It was the product of a personal examination of any evidence available concerning the identification of the three women in the Darnell clip with the three women in the Z-film.
It wasn't me who came up with this identification, but rather than just accept the word of other researchers I examined the evidence myself and came to the same conclusion.
As a result of this examination I am certain the identification of the Darnell 'trio' as the Z-film 'trio' is correct.
I present, in full, the evidence and the reasons for this certainty in REPLY#1296 [page 163]
There are no other alternatives regarding this identification.
To me, when there is only one possible alternative there is certainty.

From the certainty that Simmons, Holt and Jacob are correctly identified in the Z-film arises the certainty that Westbrook is wrong in her identification of herself as the woman in the blue headscarf in the Z-film. It is a consequence of the certainty that Simmons, Holt and Jacob are correctly identified.

I am engaged in a genuine attempt to correctly identify the witnesses we see lining Elm Street, you are, apparently, engaged in a "pissing contest". This is reflected in the constant dishonesty and misrepresentation that has permeated your participation in this debate. Anything to score a point, no matter how devious.
And if, as you say, this is a pissing contest, then someone needs to throw you a life preserver as you are drowning in piss.

[Charles Collins]

No life preserver needed, he loves it….

[Dan O'meara]

No life preserver needed, he loves it….

 

[John Iacoletti]

The “tripe”, as Dan puts it, is all the flaws in his handwaving arguments.  The rest of this latest tirade is a long winded version of “I’m right because I say so” — a giant exercise in ego, rather than any “positive identification”.

“Somebody said so” is a lousy reason to believe any claim, but when it comes to who Karen Westbrook is, “Karen Westbrook said so” beats “Dan O’meara said so” any day of the week.

[Dan O'meara]

The “tripe”, as Dan puts it, is all the flaws in his handwaving arguments.  The rest of this latest tirade is a long winded version of “I’m right because I say so” — a giant exercise in ego, rather than any “positive identification”.

“Somebody said so” is a lousy reason to believe any claim, but when it comes to who Karen Westbrook is, “Karen Westbrook said so” beats “Dan O’meara said so” any day of the week.

"tirade" LOL
Presenting how I reached my conclusions, including the range of evidence and the arguments emanating from that evidence [REPLY#1296 [page 163]], is hardly a tirade.
The reader will notice that, for pages of this thread, the single argument John has brought to this debate is "Westbrook said so". Remember, this is supposed to be some kind of senior researcher in this case and someone who believes he is the self-styled arbiter of factual accuracy. He has not provided a single scrap of evidence to support his identification of the woman in the blue headscarf as being Westbrook and has conducted himself in a deceitful manner throughout the whole debate.

[Jack Nessan]

By adding the three secretaries to the line by the sign and moving the other four secretaries by Templin. What happens to the rest of the women from Woodward to the four secretaries? There are now to many people listed for the number of people standing on the curb. Specifically, Woodward, Brown, Donaldson, Thornton, Berry. There are two or three more secretaries than people on the curb.

[Dan O'meara]

By adding the three secretaries to the line by the sign and moving the other four secretaries by Templin. What happens to the rest of the women from Woodward to the four secretaries? There are now to many people listed for the number of people standing on the curb. Specifically, Woodward, Brown, Donaldson, Thornton, Berry. There are two or three more secretaries than people on the curb.

How many people do you believe there should be between the woman in the blue headscarf on the right and the guy in the hardhat near the street light towards the left?