Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
81

Time to admit Molina is the guy on the steps Graves...Not Lovelady...
82
Yes, we have, 6-3-1.

Iacoletti, who can only see blobs and who has a really hard time distinguishing women from men, voted "no," of course, and, given the fact that Doyle is so xxxxxxx obnoxious, two people also decided to vote "no," leaving just one other cognitive dissonance-wracked person who chickened out and effectively voted ... "maybe".

-- MWT  :)
83
In any event, if indeed the reference to BobJackson (right rear of that car) is indicative of CameraCar3 (2nd steel blue '64 Chevrolet Convertible), is there any information about the arm waving/tossing motion of the GentlemanImage in CameraCar2 (1st steel blue '64 ChevroletConvertible)?

    Please remember the Camera Men in all 3 cars are Jammed into these vehicles amidst jostling with their cumbersome cameras, winding them, loading them, and even sometimes lighting & going through the motions of smoking cigarette(s). Their arms and bodies in general are frequently in motion.
84
In any photographic image that even mildly threatens to challenge his "The Evil, Evil, Evil CIA Did It" CT, all Iacolletti can see is blobs.

-- MWT  :)

    Multiple people on this Forum saying they do Not see what 2 of you Claim to see on Blurry Images has Nothing to do with the CIA or a Conspiracy Theory of some sort. Stop chasing after things that go bump in the night.
85
I proposed that there was an Oswald impersonator ..not another "Oswald'' per se'. I've posted this in several other threads.
Lee Oswald's family members need not have known about the fake.Nowhere have I stated said claims. Tracy supports the official report...I urge one and all to read through my posts that demonstrate Oswald was set up.
Again: Tracy has addressed here the claims made by Veciana. Specifically that his control officer (if there was one) was CIA officer David Atlee Phillips and that, most important, he saw Phillips with Oswald. That's the topic.

Then you criticize him - in his posts on Veciana - for not proving "the CIA" was involved, for not proving that Dulles was involved. Even though his specific topic was VECIANA and not Dulles or "the CIA."

I have no idea what your posts "demonstrating" that Oswald was set up has to do with Tracy's look into Veciana's claims.


86
General Discussion & Debate / Prayer Woman
« Last post by Brian Doyle on May 17, 2019, 02:54:35 PM »

A point of order is necessary here...

Stancak has once again badly cheated and gotten away with it...In his latest offering on the other forum Stancak has offered bad pseudo-science that falsely renders the heights of Prayer Man and Frazier in order to force them to match Oswald...

Stancak has drawn erroneous height lines that try to show Prayer Man came up to the 5 foot 2 mark on Frazier's chin...Stancak has distorted the true science he himself helped establish in order to do that...It was Stancak himself who helped establish that a human head is about 8 inches from top to chin...If Frazier was 6 foot 1/2 inches in height then the 5 foot 4 mark would land on his chin according to Stancak's own science...But if we go to Stancak's latest offering on that other forum Stancak has cheated and placed the 5 foot 2 mark on Frazier's chin and the 5 foot 4 mark on Frazier's lips...This can't be because Stancak's own science requires the 8 inch head length to land the 5 foot 4 mark on Frazier's chin according to his own science...

A point of order is necessary here...3 years ago I was booted off that other site without explanation after I started pointing out similar errors in Stancak's pseudo-science...That site's moderator obviously favors Stancak and doesn't hold him accountable to such gross errors...It is my opinion that that other site's moderator doesn't possess the skill to detect those fatal flaws in Stancak's work and has a bias towards preserving the already-debunked Prayer Man theory...So the research community is now actively participating in a deliberate violation of its own professed objective, academic research standards in order to preserve egotistical dominance over the Prayer Man theory even though enough information has been shown that credible researchers would have known by now that it was disproven...In short, the community now prefers bad claims over good and bans anyone who shows otherwise...

My observations here that are correct went totally ignored on this site and went unanswered...So in effect we have a case where the correct and provable evidence is deliberately, totally ignored and Stancak's false entries go unchallenged on the other board...So it can be correctly said that the other board protects bad claims and false analyses and actively ignores correct evidence by means of wrongful banning and censorship...The main offenders go right to this wrongful, anti-intellectual protection and only post in the other site's safe harbor where their false claims are protected and good evidence is deliberately ignored...

87
General Discussion & Debate / Prayer Woman
« Last post by Brian Doyle on May 17, 2019, 02:15:26 PM »
I'm telling you, I played with the freak frame and I believe it's a distortion, certainly not representative of the real person's face we are focusing on.  And no, no expert worth their salt would put there money on it being real because of the things I've mentioned before, the quality of the frame, the enlongated forehead and the heads position relative to it's neck/shoulders(it's completely sunk into the collar bone), also the Munster head has cropped off the hair in the middle of the freak's scalp, so this person you think has moved behind her is actually interfeering with something in the front top part of the freak infront of them, these are some big freakin' clues there.  And through my experience with this case alone, I know, you can get "an expert" to say pretty much anything these days, so start saving your cash.
Longer than Herman Munster's own forehead, that alone reserves me the right to use the term Freak.


That's ridiculous...A photo analysis expert would tell you it is a real image that was part of the Wiegman original and was a real woman's face (Sarah Stanton's)...

I already showed that the elongated forehead was seen to Prayer Man's east in a previous frame and was probably Shelley's forehead as he shifted behind Sarah...

Nice try but no Barry...It has to be real because it is where a face is on Prayer Man's body and can't be anything else..."Distortion"?...Pfft - for goodness' sake!...It is real because Frazier and Lovelady said Sarah was over in that spot so a female face only confirms it...And you violate photo science by suggesting a distortion occurs in the sharpest, clearest frame that is less likely to contain such a thing due to its clarity...That doesn't make sense and avoids what I am showing here...And there is nothing wrong with the head's position...It is Sarah looking down in to her purse and is exactly where it should be and isn't "sunken"...That's a bogus observation...

Please don't respond to my posts Mr Pollard...I don't feel you are offering serious responses...

88
I don't think he's on the step's, so why are you talking about it? Why do you think it's so important?

If you don't think Oswald was on the steps during Wiegman and Couch-Darnell "steps footage," where do you think he was?

In the Domino Room?

In the 2nd Floor Lunch Room?

In the Sniper's Nest?

It's not important??

.......

Why do you feel so important that you think you can make ambiguous "debate-winning" statements that you don't need to clarify for us as you walk away "in victory"?

E.g., "As opposed to footage showing Oswald was not where the WC narrative attempts to place him."

What footage are you referring to above, Whatever-Your-Name-Is?

Don't care to say, because other than possibly Prayer Person in Wiegman and Couch-Darnell, there isn't any (unless, of course, you're a devotee of the Harvey and Lee and ... Gasp ... Two Marguerites Cult), and you're talking about Cubi Point, or some-such place?

-- MWT  :)
89
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Prayer Woman
« Last post by Barry Pollard on May 17, 2019, 08:38:07 AM »

What you are saying isn't accurate...The frame with the woman's face is the best frame because you can see everything else in the image also becomes clearer and sharper...The reason for that is because the camera technology of the day would take a clear frame when the camera was steady...The frame Davidson used for his enhancement was such a clear, sharp frame and because of that Sarah's face emerged in it...Both you and Davidson have failed to answer this...And Davidson has an annoying habit of disappearing when you ask him to respond to these kind of facts that serve to make progress on the subject...

I think the elongated forehead is actually the forehead of somebody who shifted behind Sarah in Wiegman...It could possibly be Shelley's forehead as he tracks in order to progress down the stairs...

Barry, since you are showing a lack of credible response to the facts I am not going to answer further such replies...You have to explain on a technical basis what the clear face of a woman in the above frame is and you just can't say "freak accident"...It doesn't work that way at the technical level we are dealing at and you can't just say "freak accident" without explaining what exactly caused the obvious clear image of a woman's face to be on Prayer Man in that frame exactly where a woman's face should be...Any photo analysis expert who looked at the image would tell you it was a real face that was part of the original Wiegman celluloid...That face is Sarah's Stanton's and the forehead of Shelley behind it can't be used as an excuse to dismiss it...

So far Davidson has not returned to answer for this...

I'm telling you, I played with the freak frame and I believe it's a distortion, certainly not representative of the real person's face we are focusing on.  And no, no expert worth their salt would put there money on it being real because of the things I've mentioned before, the quality of the frame, the enlongated forehead and the heads position relative to it's neck/shoulders(it's completely sunk into the collar bone), also the Munster head has cropped off the hair in the middle of the freak's scalp, so this person you think has moved behind her is actually interfeering with something in the front top part of the freak infront of them, these are some big freakin' clues there.  And through my experience with this case alone, I know, you can get "an expert" to say pretty much anything these days, so start saving your cash.
Longer than Herman Munster's own forehead, that alone reserves me the right to use the term Freak.
90
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Rolling Readers & Murdered Leaders
« Last post by Bill Chapman on May 17, 2019, 07:46:24 AM »
You claim that LHO was a killer. Now support it.

My series was removed because it made the lies of the official narrative defenders much more difficult to get away with.

If you don't even know who the expert was you shouldn't be discussing this issue.

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.

Your series was removed because you broke forum rules.

Where exactly are you 'discussing' this issue? By refusing to repost your claims? And it's a resounding NO regarding Day and/or Studebaker as the expert(s) you are referring to, then? God forbid you should correct that.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10