Heads Up!

[Albert Doyle]

Looking at this next photo image honestly ----->

You're displaying the patience of JOB, and I appreciate your attempts to engage Albert/Brian in an honest debate, but he's displayed over and over that he's incapable or unwilling of objectivity, or comprehension, or the willingness to consider anything other than his own agenda. Don't waste your breath/keystrokes.

Brian - his real name - won't win because we refuse to debate. It's pointless to debate someone that insists the sky is orange.

There are clearly some ROKC proxies being allowed to infiltrate this site and offer direct ROKC content on the Deep Politics forum.

Your post is just pure opinionating Mr Cross. Your last post to me cited David Josephs' post as having refuted me. When I pointed out the ridiculous flaws in what David wrote, like claiming no distance measurements could be made in Darnell, you cut and ran and couldn't respond, yet you describe that as your side being patient with me. You're personalizing this and making it about me. If you read my posts they directly deal with detailed evidence none of you opposers offer any answer to short of these opinionating posts. You just self-servingly refer to yourselves as automatically winning (ROKC style), and use that as an excuse to not answer points you are clearly unable to answer.

I have made a very clear case above that Mr Josephs' moderator-approved excuse-making, that no height comparison could be made in Darnell because of potential perspective distortion from varying lenses, is not sound when considered in relation to Darnell's known lens, it's predictable setting for such a news filming, and the obvious perspective seen in Darnell that any good film expert could probably determine just by looking at it. In short, David is referencing things that don't exist and can be easily disproven and using them as an excuse to not answer some very good arguments while brow-beating and talking down to those with the obviously better arguments. That's outrageously intellectually dishonest and it is myself who is practicing the patience here. Just ask yourself, Mr Cross, why you chose this overly general attack against me instead of answering the very credible details I posted in my last post? Clearly you are offering the regressive material here that doesn't live up to the best of what has been shown. You are also living in your own imaginary world if you pretend not to notice that Drew also recognized the legitimacy of my evidence and added some trigonometry that furthered it.

You further this offense by crediting a rather demented pseudo-analysis by Ford that has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever and is just an obnoxious attempt to offer an obfuscating counter-analysis in order to avoid answering my good evidence. Apparently, those who pretend credibility have no problem with Alan's demented offering as long as it can be used to back their side. Also, neither of you bother to notice that while pointing out that David has refuted me Alan is making distance judgments in his nutty analysis (which contradicts what you referenced and approved in Josephs without either of you accounting for it). Alan doesn't respond to the fatal problems in his analysis, he just repeats it and claims you are failing to answer his 'evidence'.

Where we are Mr Cross is you falsely accused me of not honoring David Josephs' refuting of my argument. When I showed that David's claims were ridiculous, you ignored it. Now you are back making that same claim again without anything to support it.

Where we are in this discussion is David used exaggerated reasoning to falsely claim no judgments of distance relationships could be made in Darnell. This is not correct as the reasoning I offered and you ignored showed. Drew also asked David to respond to this and David ignored it. One look at Darnell could see there is no disqualifying perspective distortion in the frame and that the image corresponds to a normal news camera lens setting for such a news filming. This could probably be easily found out but since, like yourself, Mr Josephs' intent is to preserve his egotistical position rather than seek evidence he is not going to honor or assist this simply obvious course. Also, I posted over and over that Unger showed a film clip that leaves no doubt Prayer Man is standing forward on the landing, as Unger agreed. MacRae's clip was even more apparent. This has been categorically ignored by those who describe themselves as practicing the patience.

You can't ignore our plainly-stated science and refer to David's disproven excuse and still maintain credibility. Simply crediting obviously bogus offerings as you are doing is also detrimental to credibility.

Time for an honest answer Mr Cross. The fact you would try to get away with offering that self-serving evidence evasion above in the face of the highly intelligent data and arguments it is responding to is ridiculous and lowers the quality of this board.


If you look at the photos I linked of Darnell's camera you can see his lens. Why did you offer this evasion above instead of discussing Darnell's camera equipment and how it can lead to a better understanding of the issue?


Drew showed that an independent mathematical determination could be made of Darnell's shot. This serves as an independent measure to which Darnell can be compared. You gentlemen totally ignored it. While calling for high science and claiming the photogrammetry was with you and we didn't understand it, as Drew showed it is actually with us and you obviously don't understand it. You have abandoned the previous level of rigor on this board and opened a direct door to ROKC-like trolling and evasion. It is obvious your only recourse is to protect this absurdity with your silly denial and uncredible ignoring of sound arguments that deserve answers. Your feet speak louder than your words Mr Cross and you have never once made any honest attempt to address what we're saying.


How dare you accuse me of what you are guilty of.



.