More lies from Josephs

David gets a kick out of lying about me because he knows I cannot directly confront him at the Ed Forum.

That makes him a liar AND a coward.

David Josephs wrote:Moving the subject farther away from the wall will create the greatest deviation from reality...  Doing this adds DEPTH to the photo (if the subject moves away from the way I assume the camera will move similarly).. whereby the measurement on the wall cannot be related to objects within the photo ANY LONGER...
I used the following to deal with something Parker once posted to try and prove FERRIE and OSWALD were the same size in the CAPS photo
Parker's image: with him stating - see... they're the same height....

Problem being the deceitful way in which he prepared the image... he narrowed the image and skewed it so Oswald and Ferrie would appear to be the same height
When you copy/paste either Oswald to Ferrie or vie versa... the problem with measuring in a 2d representation of 3d...  depth.
Obviously these guys are not as tall as the trees behind them in the background...but the distance to the object from the subject (the guy in helmet and glasses) shows he lines up with the tops of some of those trees).  Put the try against Oswald's back and you'd have a good estimate for HIS height in relation, but FERRIE at the front of the image is still going to look larger by comparison since he is closer to the lens.
The farther the subject from the thing used to measure, the greater the variance

 

Here is the post I made in 2015 and the pic used.

Greg Parker wrote:From Armstrong, via the hardlylee.nut website
"Banister and David Ferrie (who knew LEE Oswald from the Civil Air Patrol in 1955"
Okay. Simple -- the Oswald who was in the CAP was the big husky LEE.
So who the hell is this wimpy looking guy - the SHORTEST in the group...??!!!

Edited September 3, 2015 by Greg Parker

I have sent a request to the ED Forum mods to have the post removed and replaced with an explanation as to why it was.

If they do not, I will take the matter further and it will be widely known that the Ed Forum is quite happy to ban the use of the word "liar" while protecting a serial liar. 

I am quite happy for others to satirize me, or otherwise make jokes at my expense. 

I am NOT happy when others are given protection to LIE about me repeatedly.

The post has now been removed, so at this point in time I will take no further action.

What a blue streak of purple bullshit. The boy needs a new brain.

Jake Sykes wrote:What a blue streak of purple bullshit. The boy needs a new brain.

I studied brain surgery under Dr Lecter. I'd be happy to try a transplant for him.

I think he's going to take you up on the offer, but can't find a donor with a 13 inch head. Measuring up everybody. Nothing.

Good on them for removing it. They did the right thing this time.

Vinny wrote:Good on them for removing it. They did the right thing this time.

Vinny, they ignored a previous request to remove another of his lies. They only acted this time because I pointed to UK libel laws which make owners of forums liable if they are told about defamation on their boards and take no action to ameliorate it. That was the so-called "threat" that Kathy mentioned and left hanging without further explanation like it was a threat of physical violence.

greg parker wrote:

Vinny wrote:Good on them for removing it. They did the right thing this time.

Vinny, they ignored a previous request to remove another of his lies. They only acted this time because I pointed to UK libel laws which make owners of forums liable if they are told about defamation on their boards and take no action to ameliorate it. That was the so-called "threat" that Kathy mentioned and left hanging without further explanation like it was a threat of physical violence.

 Only it was no threat. It was a promise of further action being taken. Fortunately (for them), they did the smart thing.

Stan Dane wrote:

greg parker wrote:

Vinny wrote:Good on them for removing it. They did the right thing this time.

Vinny, they ignored a previous request to remove another of his lies. They only acted this time because I pointed to UK libel laws which make owners of forums liable if they are told about defamation on their boards and take no action to ameliorate it. That was the so-called "threat" that Kathy mentioned and left hanging without further explanation like it was a threat of physical violence.

 Only it was no threat. It was a promise of further action being taken. Fortunately (for them), they did the smart thing.

Yes, but the use of the word "threat" left dangling without explanation, makes it seem like I may turn up with an ax on their doorsteps.

Instead of saying threat,Katy should have said that they had been warned of legal action. That would be a accurate description.

Also the Prayer Man thread has been unpinned and locked.It is now buried on the third page. As time goes by it will be slipping back further and further. I guess many actually hope it will just go away.

Vinny wrote:Instead of saying threat,Katy should have said that they had been warned of legal action. That would be a accurate description.

Also the Prayer Man thread has been unpinned and locked.It is now buried on the third page. As time goes by it will be slipping back further and further. I guess many actually hope it will just go away.

Once again, the tin-foil hatters get rewarded.

What a disgraceful way to treat Sean's excellent research.

Vinny wrote:What a disgraceful way to treat Sean's excellent research.

Yes, but that is about par for the Uneducated Forum.

They've been chomping at the bit for a couple of years now to have the damned thing buried, forever. We've had a couple of different campaigns over there to keep posting to the thread to keep it on the main page (before they pinned it) but no one over there seems to be overly concerned about Prayerman or any other aspect of the case that might actually be productive.

More concerned with their own petty theories, axes to grind, or wounded egos to inflate, they will continue their pathetic little circus for the next half-century, I am certain.