Prayer Woman

[Brian Doyle]

My comments are backed-up by firm photographic evidence you are ignoring and calling "opinions"...

Any look at the Wiegman frame I linked will show you can see the vertical shadow run up the right side of Lovelady's body...You are lying to get around evidence that refutes you...

You've proven the credibility of the Murphy mob here Ray...Thank you...

(You are probably PM-ing with Stancak because your challenge sounds exactly like one of his idiotic explanations)

[Brian Doyle]

Here is the evidence showing a plainly visible shadow line running up the right side of Lovelady's body in Wiegman...This plainly visible shadow lies exactly where I claimed the same shadow line was on Frazier...

This proves that Ray's claim that there was only a horizontal shadow line on Frazier is provably wrong...The vertical shadow line seen on Lovelady has to be from the west wall of the portal...

This is photographic PROOF that Stancak has badly misdrawn the sun/shade line in his graphic and is therefore incompetent...Stancak has publicly stated on the Education Forum that I am an unacceptably insulting poster for suggesting he is an incompetent and that I am not fit to post amongst the credible researchers over there...However I have shown at least 2 cases of sheer incompetence here in his computer graphics that he said were "improved" and took a full year to produce...One, the shade line that is over a foot off and, two, the squared shoulders in Wiegman that he did not make a graphic for because his own model would have brought Prayer Person's left side in to bright sun as shown in his own overhead image (which he doesn't respond to when challenged and answers with the absurd response "You are only trying to find things that are wrong with it to discredit me")...               

[Ray Mitcham]

Brian, wake up. Stancak base his postings on the Darnell photo I posted above NOT the Weigman photo you are mistakenly discussing.

As far as discussing anything with anybody else,  with your childish insults, you are once again showing why you have been banned from so many forums.

You can't even answer a simple sun angle question. 

Care to try it yet?

[Brian Doyle]

Again Ray...You are making an extremely dumb point there because Wiegman is the exact same scene a few seconds earlier and therefore possesses the same shadow...

You seem to have difficulty comprehending what is being argued here...My point is that you have no right to demand we only look at the Darnell image because the Wiegman image is a credible comparison seeing how it is the exact same scene taken a few seconds earlier...
 
It is YOU who is not answering the question here and YOU have failed to answer why the Wiegman frame showing the same shadow line on Lovelady can't be used as a scientific comparison? In effect you are ignoring valid evidence and arguments and not answering for it...You are offering a fallacious argument...Just because Stancak used Darnell doesn't mean I can't refute it using Wiegman...Also, Stancak posted that he used a sun angle app to determine the shadow line...So you are not even right about that either...

[Ray Mitcham]

     Again Ray...You are making an extremely dumb point there because Wiegman is the exact same scene a few seconds earlier and therefore possesses the same shadow...

Maybe but we are discussing Stancak's posting not your ramblings.

           You seem to have difficulty comprehending what is being argued here...My point is that you have no right to demand we only look at the Darnell image because the Wiegman image is a credible comparison seeing how it is the exact same scene taken a few seconds earlier...

Why are you talking about Weigman, stupid? We are talking about the Darnell photo. the shadows on each are different. but then I wouldn't expect you to be able to see that.

 

          It is YOU who is not answering the question here and YOU have failed to answer why the Wiegman frame showing the same shadow line on Lovelady can't be used as a scientific comparison? In effect you are ignoring valid evidence and arguments and not answering for it...You are offering a fallacious argument...Just because Stancak used Darnell doesn't mean I can't refute it using Wiegman...Also, Stancak posted that he used a sun angle app to determine the shadow line...So you are not even right about that either...

You can't refute Stancak by using a different photo. You are just showing everybody how stupid you are.

As it happens Stancak has used the correct sun angle, but then if you disagree, tell us what you think the angle of the sun should be, or maybe people will think you are too stupid to answer,

[Ray Mitcham]

    Duncan:     I do not understand...

That's the first sensible thing you've said on here, since your return.

Tell us what you think the angle should be,  Brian.

[Brian Doyle]

Sorry, I didn't know margin-keeping was a requirement...

Ray is obviously ignoring evidence so I am not going to answer him...

I have proven my case with Wiegman and Ray's responses are not credible...

Anyone qualified enough to participate will know I have already answered Ray's question in what I already wrote...The shadow angle is apparent from what is seen in Wiegman and Ray has not offered any credible reason for ignoring it...His Darnell-only argument should disqualify him from discussion because it would be rejected, objectively, in most assassination forums as invalid and frankly silly...Not to mention that Darnell also shows the same sun angle I am claiming that Stancak has misrepresented...

Stancak has refuted himself with his own model...There's no doubt Prayer Person has shoulders that are squared to the landing in Wiegman...Go to Stancak's overhead graphic and if Prayer Person is brought square to the landing in Wiegman then, by Stancak's own illustration, his shoulders would swing over in to the bright sun shown in that model...The reason Stancak did not do a computer graphic for Wiegman is because he realized he refuted himself...Stancak will not answer this which proves he cannot defend his own publicly-posted work without making false accusations against his correct critics...But as James Gordon said:  "Go on Andrej...Take your time"... lol

And don't forget Stancak is publicly ignoring my catching him making Prayer Person's inseam over 2 inches longer than Frazier's - which is impossible for a person who was 3.5 inches taller in height than Oswald...Still waiting for an answer on that... 

The point at which I was banned in December 2016 from the Education Forum was when I tried to show the Altgens image of Lovelady on the landing...The Prayer Person crew was trying to say Lovelady was on the step...I was trying to show that he was on the landing because you can compare his height as seen in Altgens with those behind him...One look at Altgens and it becomes quickly apparent that Lovelady is not the 7 inches shorter than the people next to him like the step would require...Gordon saw this coming and banned me without explanation before I could refute his favorite posters whose seriously flawed evidence he failed to detect...Gordon describes all this business as "guarding quality of content" and the Education Forum membership cowars underneath it knowing the whole time it is bully moderation with an agenda other than what is officially claimed...

[Ray Mitcham]

Sorry, I didn't know margin-keeping was a requirement...

Ray is obviously ignoring evidence so I am not going to answer him...

I have proven my case with Wiegman and Ray's responses are not credible...

Anyone qualified enough to participate will know I have already answered Ray's question in what I already wrote...The shadow angle is apparent from what is seen in Wiegman and Ray has not offered any credible reason for ignoring it...His Darnell-only argument should disqualify him from discussion because it would be rejected, objectively, in most assassination forums as invalid and frankly silly...Not to mention that Darnell also shows the same sun angle I am claiming that Stancak has misrepresented...

Stancak has refuted himself with his own model...There's no doubt Prayer Person has shoulders that are squared to the landing in Wiegman...Go to Stancak's overhead graphic and if Prayer Person is brought square to the landing in Wiegman then, by Stancak's own illustration, his shoulders would swing over in to the bright sun shown in that model...The reason Stancak did not do a computer graphic for Wiegman is because he realized he refuted himself...Stancak will not answer this which proves he cannot defend his own publicly-posted work without making false accusations against his correct critics...But as James Gordon said:  "Go on Andrej...Take your time"... lol

And don't forget Stancak is publicly ignoring my catching him making Prayer Person's inseam over 2 inches longer than Frazier's - which is impossible for a person who was 3.5 inches taller in height than Oswald...Still waiting for an answer on that...

Brian has shown that he is incapable of showing the angle of the sun shining on the top of the TSBD steps. Yet he continues to state that Stancak is incorrect in his presentations. As he has shown in the past, Brian is completely incompetent. and his future postings should be viewed with that in mind.

[Brian Doyle]

Duncan:    I'd be interested in the sun angle you think this image shows? (Please remember Lovelady is at the center railing)


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login:

[Ray Mitcham]

Duncan:    I'd be interested in the sun angle you think this image shows? (Please remember Lovelady is at the center railing)


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login:

Don't ask Duncan, Brian,

Work it out yourself, if you are capable.