2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter

Sun 19 Dec 2021, 9:14 am

Greg said I can demand my own rules so I would like to demand to post equally amongst my peers on the main board since anyone can see there was nothing wrong with my post that Greg copied and posted...Greg said I was banned from the main board but anyone can look at my post that showed the overhead-lighted water fountain console in the 2nd floor Vestibule and see it possesses factual information that is backed up by evidence and therefore there is no reason to disallow it...Bart Kamp answered my evidence by pointing to the water cooler in the hallway by the bathrooms, but that has nothing to do with the water fountain I showed in the Vestibule that you can see with your own eyes at minute mark 7:32 of this video:

"The girls on the stairs": Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles & Oswald's alleged escape 11/22/63

I had a debate with Mr Parker on the 2nd floor Lunch Room Encounter at the Google ALT.Conspiracy.JFK website and Greg bailed after I had disproven his allegation that the cop Miss Garner saw emerge on the 4th floor staircase landing was Lumpkin...Linda Zambanini had discovered film evidence that Lumpkin did not return from Parkland until 12:50 so therefore the police man Garner saw with Truly could not have been Lumpkin since Garner saw Truly and that cop emerge shortly after Adams & Styles descended...I proved this because Bonnie Ray Williams said he saw a white motorcycle cop's helmet arise above the boxes on the 5th floor shortly after Garner saw Truly & Baker...Zambanini found a photo of Lumpkin in the Plaza and he was wearing a fedora hat and not a helmet so it could not have been Lumpkin...Another reason why it had to be Baker is because if Lumpkin was the cop seen by Garner, and he didn't arrive back to the Depository before plus 20 minutes after the shots, then Bonnie Ray would have been the first person seen by Garner after Adams & Styles descended...There were other witnesses on the 4th floor who testified they saw Williams and the other workers arrive on the 4th floor at the plus 3 minutes after the shots time period...They arrived 18 minutes before Lumpkin so therefore Lumpkin is provably ruled-out...More proof is seen in the fact that Martha Stroud said Truly and "THE" police man...Since Garner was interviewed in June 1964 and the Lunch Room Encounter was well known in the Book Depository and in the media by that time when Stroud said "THE" police man she was specifically referring to Baker and Garner was aware of it...Since we have two separate witnesses to Baker arising on the stairs in synch with the Encounter on both the 4th and 5th floors we can safely assume the Lunch Room Encounter was real and was witnessed by others...No researcher can credibly say Miss Garner did not know the difference between plus 2.5 minutes and plus 21 minutes so we can safely dismiss Lumpkin as being the police man Miss Garner saw with Truly...Not to mention we have Oswald, Baker, & Truly all saying they met in the 2nd floor Lunch Room at plus 75 to 90 seconds...

The purpose of my confirming the Lunch Room Encounter's real-ness is to further buttress an amazing discovery I have made...My analyzing of Murphy and Kamp's Prayer Man case, along with Armstrong, made me realize there was much more happening in the Lobby than the Commission wanted you to know...This all started when I realized Holmes had overheard Oswald describing two stops by cops of himself...When Holmes said it happened in the "Vestibule" he had overheard Oswald describing the 2nd floor Lunch Room Encounter...There is a blueprint out there of the construction of the 2nd floor enclosure to the Lunch Room entry...On that blueprint the entire enclosure is labelled "Vestibule"...In his employment Oswald had overheard the management referring to that enclosure as "Vestibule" and repeated it in the conversation Holmes overheard...However, Holmes also heard Oswald say he went downstairs to see what the commotion was all about and was stopped by a cop on the first floor...We know this was the first floor because it was "downstairs" from the 2nd floor Lunch Room (Vestibule), but also because Oswald was told to step aside from the front door egress by that un-named cop...Truly said Baker said nothing in the Lunch Room when he cleared Oswald...Plus there was no reason to "step aside" in the Lunch Room...When asked where the stop occurred Holmes made clear "First Floor"...He had made the mistake of conflating the Lunch Room stop with the Lobby stop...The reason this originated from Holmes was because he was outside the DPD loop and therefore outside of its gag orders...He slipped-up and gave away too much information...

I knew I had discovered something brilliant because I realized that there was a reason why Oswald tried to leave before asking permission...That reason was he saw Lee in the white T-shirt come down the front stairs and in to the other side of the Lobby and knew he was in big trouble...Harvey reacted by trying to leave through the front door and the un-named cop saw his desperation and stopped him...Shelley was watching and he knew he had to act fast so he was the "superintendent" who jumped in and ID-ed Oswald to the cop...We know this wasn't Truly because it happened at around plus 4 minutes after the shots and Truly was still upstairs at that time...If it was Truly they would have said Truly instead of superintendent...And later on Truly would have spoken about it...No - it is quite clear that the reason the Warren Commission avoided this whole scenario like the plague was because it was Harvey and he was being bailed-out by Shelley because Shelley was a part of the plot and had to help him...The FBI and Commission never interviewed or sought-out that cop at the front door and they avoided it all together...They did that because they knew if Shelley's assistance were known then it would be found out that CIA Shelley helped Oswald around the police cordon and helped him out the loading dock where Buell Frazier saw him leave...Lee also saw the problem in the Lobby and ducked in to the utility closet under the stairs where he hid until Campbell came back and saw him there...Harvey then went to the Bus/Taxi Encounter that occurred at the exact same juncture as Roger Craig's Station Wagon Encounter...The plus 10 minute timing of both of these was not a coincidence, nor was Harvey going out the east side of the Depository and Lee going out the west side where Helen Forrest would see him...

This works like tight brick work and I'm afraid it cracks the case in the Depository...

Sun 19 Dec 2021, 10:39 am

So Brian,
Just wanted to check that the following is quoted accurately - you know before anyone joins you in any sort of debate.

You wrote in the "debate" with Greg Parker on Google ALT Conspiracy JFK's website the following,

"You ROKC nuts are rather unintelligent assholes because only demented fools and idiots would try to offer your weak bullshit while ignoring the fact that for your scenario to be true would require that all this happened 18 minutes later...You guys are not only sick pups but you're pretty fucking stupid too because you think your typical Parker-type bullshit"

"You see Parker you are a roaring asshole and coward who has mentally retarded himself by banning all your opposition on your troll farm and therefore atrophying yourself to credible argument."

"You see Parker lets you assholes argue dishonestly on his troll forum but unfortunately for you idiots you can't get away with that out here in the real non-troll research world.."

"You ROKC assholes are like morons who debate by not offering enough money to cover the bill...You're retards because you don't realize your offering there doesn't cover the bill...You're like an idiot who tries to pay a $100 check with 20 bucks."

I could go on - there's heaps more of these little gems - but my point is made I'm guessing. And you want to debate here with the members? Is that right? good luck with that.

Sun 19 Dec 2021, 10:42 am

Parker said I could make the rules...

OK, I will do that...

No switching the subject to try to get the points I made unanswered...

You must answer honestly to what was posted and stay on-topic...

If we were to go your route I would mention the Prayer Man people posting images of my house and address...Going to my father's obituary to dox personal information about my brother's and sister's...LeDoux calling my house and wanting to speak with my mother...And a photoshop of me and me mums in a psychiatric rubber room...And making false spamming complaints against me on Amazon and the Education Forum and getting me banned there...That's really dirty pool...

Fair Dinkum Mate...

Just answer the points...

Sun 19 Dec 2021, 11:00 am

Brian, this is not Stinky's Pissarium.

Requesting access to the whole site has nothing to do with deciding rules of a debate. And apart from that, it is not happening. Nor am I going to be sucked into an argument based on your grievances over anything. If you attempt it again, your membership will be terminated.

You are here because you have long insisted you want to debate certain matters. I am giving you that opportunity, despite your longstanding obnoxious behavior. But real debates have rules and structure. They are not mudslinging contests.

Here are some guidelines regarding online debates. If you are truly interested, pick your topic, decide on any further rules you would like, gather your evidence and let me know you are ready. I will give you three days to prepare. If you have not followed these instructions by then, I will assume you are no longer interested in a REAL debate, and your membership will be terminated.

https://debatingmatters.com/debating-matters-online/

Sun 19 Dec 2021, 11:06 am

Brian Doyle wrote:Parker said I could make the rules...

OK, I will do that...

No switching the subject to try to get the points I made unanswered...

You must answer honestly to what was posted and stay on-topic...

If we were to go your route I would mention the Prayer Man people posting images of my house and address...Going to my father's obituary to dox personal information about my brother's and sister's...LeDoux calling my house and wanting to speak with my mother...And a photoshop of me and me mums in a psychiatric rubber room...And making false spamming complaints against me on Amazon and the Education Forum and getting me banned there...That's really dirty pool...

Fair Dinkum Mate...

Just answer the points...

Last warning. Your personal grievances are not relevent and I am not going to be drawn into your warped reality. Karma is a bitch.

And before you can tell anyone to stay on topic, you need to actually pick a topic. I would advise you to look at the link I supplied and go away and think about this some more.

I have given you three days. Use them to pick a specific subject and gather your evidence.

Sun 19 Dec 2021, 11:20 am

Greg - my points here are clear and were politely put...

I would like Kamp to answer for the clearly-seen large water fountain in the Vestibule...A photo of it is on my Facebook Prayer Woman page...It proves Carolyn Arnold was telling the truth...This is not "mud-slinging" and deserves an answer...

You said I could make the debate rules right up front...

I will take you at your word so I am therefore taking up your offer and asking for casual debate...

Please answer my politely and perfectly reasonably-put points about Lumpkin...

My post is designed to show that once Lumpkin is dismissed, and I think he has been, that the police man seen with Truly automatically becomes Baker...

I must also add that it is somewhat unfair that the moderator and debater are one in the same person and also the person who threatens termination...It would probably be more fair to have a neutral peer moderator...I'm making the rules like you said - right?...

I also fail to see where "2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter" fails to meet the criteria for "choosing a subject"...I believe that has already been done...

Sun 19 Dec 2021, 11:42 am

Brian Doyle wrote:Greg:

Greg - my points here are clear and were politely put...

I would like Kamp to answer for the clearly-seen large water fountain in the Vestibule...A photo of it is on my Facebook Prayer Woman page...It proves Carolyn Arnold was telling the truth...This is not "mud-slinging" and deserves an answer...

You said I could make the debate rules right up front...

I will take you at your word so I am therefore taking up your offer and asking for casual debate...

Please answer my politely and perfectly reasonably-put points about Lumpkin...

My post is designed to show that once Lumpkin is dismissed, and I think he has been, that the police man seen with Truly automatically becomes Baker...

I must also add that it is somewhat unfair that the moderator and debater are one in the same person and also the person who threatens termination...It would probably be more fair to have a neutral peer moderator...I'm making the rules like you said - right?...

Brian, no one - including me - is interested in debating you. Not because you are "the man". It is because you have issues which you refuse to recognise, let alone do anything about.

I made the offer to give you an opportunity for a proper debate because you insisted you wanted proper academic standards. I volunteered myself for this torture, no one else. And it is torture Brian. Again - not because you are "the man", but because of your issues. I will not make those issues the focus here. But nor will I allow you to make your personal baggage the issue.

Given the opportunity to have an academic debate, you are backing away from those standards and insisting on a "casual" debate. You can go back to alt.conspiracy.jfk for a casual debate. A "casual" debate is not really a debate. It is just another internet argument. And let's face it - that is what you really want. Prove me wrong.

This is done properly, or it is not done at all, and you are already wearing my patience thin.

Do NOT reply until you have your shit together, you have a topic, and you have your supporting evidence.

Three days, Brian. Use them to prepare. If you are not ready, your membership is revoked. After the debate, if it goes ahead, your mmbership is revoked.

Mon 20 Dec 2021, 9:48 am

Brian Doyle wrote:Parker said I could make the rules...

OK, I will do that...

No switching the subject to try to get the points I made unanswered...

You must answer honestly to what was posted and stay on-topic...

If we were to go your route I would mention the Prayer Man people posting images of my house and address...Going to my father's obituary to dox personal information about my brother's and sister's...LeDoux calling my house and wanting to speak with my mother...And a photoshop of me and me mums in a psychiatric rubber room...And making false spamming complaints against me on Amazon and the Education Forum and getting me banned there...That's really dirty pool...

Fair Dinkum Mate...

Just answer the points...

First things first...when you joined the FOO your mother was your wife! You called yourself Albert. A team researchers discovered you ruse. And your problems operating selfie-sticks.
Amazon banned you for trolling under at least 4 different names.
Stinky banned you because he found you pungent.
The EF banned you because even though you were only suspended and could log back in (K Becket) you took off on a hate offensive as a fucking moron would.
As for here...all posts will be deleted until you provide the actual post where you claim Greg "practically agreed PM is Stanton" which YOU claim is on YOUR OWN FB PAGE.
Go find it.

Mon 20 Dec 2021, 11:15 am

steely_dan wrote:

First things first...when you joined the FOO your mother was your wife! You called yourself Albert. A team researchers discovered you ruse. And your problems operating selfie-sticks.

*** I used an alias when I first joined Deep Politics because I was doing serious Jimi Hendrix research where I could not expose my interest and participation in conspiracy research in public lest people expose it falsely like you are doing and use it against me...There are people who will take someone using an alias and try to put the worst spin on it in order to deny your research...All the more reason why people sometimes use aliases...The only reason my alias was exposed was because the Prayer Man people were trying to get me somehow...They had no care if they harmed my serious Hendrix research...I have seen Hendrix posters find and cite ROKC's slander against me and quote it to try to make me look like a nut...It has been used to slander my reputation and has caused me to be banned from Hendrix websites...I am the world's top Hendrix researcher in his death and have references...My research has suffered because of Prayer Man supporters who were just looking to hurt me with childish slander...After I was outed for using an alias I sent a PM to ever-absent Dawn Meredith and explained the reason...She said OK and said she would keep it secret...Again, that alias has nothing to do with my Prayer Man evidence...By the way "Steely Dan" is an alias isn't it?...

Amazon banned you for trolling under at least 4 different names.

*** That's absolutely false...Amazon banned me after a gullible moderator took several ROKC members seriously and honored their complaint that I was signing-on under different names to spam Stan Dane's book...I used an alias on Amazon for the same reason I did on DPF...I did not want any potential interviewees seeing my intense interest in conspiracy evidence and shying away from any needed interviews...Those Prayer Man people made false complaints against me right at the time I was posting Davidson's enhancement that showed Stanton's face on Prayer Man...I elevated the issue to an Amazon supervisor and explained the whole thing...There was no Amazon rule against having multiple handles and many people did...The false complainers took advantage of a gullible moderator and convinced them I was doing it for book spamming purposes...My appeal was denied not because they found I was guilty of multi-handles or spamming...I explained to that supervisor that there was no rule against multi handles and many used them...My multi handles were just my choosing different aliases and was perfectly innocent...Amazon denied my appeal saying I was "Too Spiteful" - which is a catch-all they use when they don't want to admit they screwed someone...Now Amazon has removed all review discussion...

Stinky banned you because he found you pungent.

***So now you are backing MacRae?...Duncan banned me because my correct evidence made his troll site look bad...I was the only one posting seriously so I didn't fit in...When he banned me MacRae posted that I could buy my way back on for $20...Duncan is not a well person...He presents himself as moderating strictly but then uses that false pretense to take the trolls' side against your good evidence...He literally banned me because he said that saying Davidson said it was a woman instead of saying Davidson said "It looked like a woman" was a banning offense...Personally I think he is mentally ill...Duncan's forum is for trolling discussion of JFK assassination evidence instead of straight discussing it...

The EF banned you because even though you were only suspended and could log back in (K Becket) you took off on a hate offensive as a fucking moron would.

*** That's not at all true...The PM record of Gordon's communications with me showed Gordon suspended me because he said I was refusing to follow the rules...I asked him in PM's to please show me what rules and which material violated them...Gordon replied that he did not have to and if I asked again he would ban me...It was quite obvious that I had violated no rules and Gordon could not cite any...He was just getting rid of someone who was in the process of refuting his site's favorite Prayer Man theory...Gordon lied and said he would let me back on in two weeks...After those two weeks he never did...Steely is not telling the truth here...I was banned and I could not post...About a year later I posted this on Debra Conway's page and Kathy Beckett saw it and responded "Well if you think you are better than us I'll remove you all together" and banned me...Miss Beckett is a consumate moron who should not be let anywhere near research moderation...She was dumb enough to follow it through with "Sometimes it is not what you post but the way you post it"...(In other words all that stuff they posted about rules was not meant seriously and Miss Beckett really moderates by feelings)..."Hate Offensive" - no such thing and you could not show that unless you call thoroughly refuting Stancak "hate"...

As for here...all posts will be deleted until you provide the actual post where you claim Greg "practically agreed PM is Stanton" which YOU claim is on YOUR OWN FB PAGE.
Go find it.

*** Ask Greg at the sake of his honor if he posted that Bart Kamp was a junk yard dog ROKC kept tied up and tolerated during that concession post...Mr Parker then followed-through saying he would help me fix up my own research site...Ask him if that is true or not...You guys have deleted a lot of your posts over there...I'll post that when you follow the same standard and post any evidence for what you slander here...You guys seem awfully interested in banning...Could it be the totally unanswered material I posted that not one member made any attempt to honestly answer?...My original post and its claims are being ignored here...Kamp was allowed to ignore a photo of Carolyn Arnold's water fountain and its implications...I've never lost a fair playing field Prayer Man debate where the opposition couldn't use banning...We both know that the only reason you are threatening to delete all posts is because you don't want that evidence you couldn't answer in public seen on your site...Credible people prove themselves not through banning and deletion but through good scholarship and arguments...I have never needed to delete anyone's good research in order to make my case...

Mon 20 Dec 2021, 12:21 pm

Brian Doyle wrote:

steely_dan wrote:

First things first...when you joined the FOO your mother was your wife! You called yourself Albert. A team researchers discovered you ruse. And your problems operating selfie-sticks.

*** I used an alias when I first joined Deep Politics because I was doing serious Jimi Hendrix research where I could not expose my interest and participation in conspiracy research in public lest people expose it falsely like you are doing and use it against me...There are people who will take someone using an alias and try to put the worst spin on it in order to deny your research...All the more reason why people sometimes use aliases...The only reason my alias was exposed was because the Prayer Man people were trying to get me somehow...They had no care if they harmed my serious Hendrix research...I have seen Hendrix posters find and cite ROKC's slander against me and quote it to try to make me look like a nut...It has been used to slander my reputation and has caused me to be banned from Hendrix websites...I am the world's top Hendrix researcher in his death and have references...My research has suffered because of Prayer Man supporters who were just looking to hurt me with childish slander...After I was outed for using an alias I sent a PM to ever-absent Dawn Meredith and explained the reason...She said OK and said she would keep it secret...Again, that alias has nothing to do with my Prayer Man evidence...By the way "Steely Dan" is an alias isn't it?...

Amazon banned you for trolling under at least 4 different names.

*** That's absolutely false...Amazon banned me after a gullible moderator took several ROKC members seriously and honored their complaint that I was signing-on under different names to spam Stan Dane's book...I used an alias on Amazon for the same reason I did on DPF...I did not want any potential interviewees seeing my intense interest in conspiracy evidence and shying away from any needed interviews...Those Prayer Man people made false complaints against me right at the time I was posting Davidson's enhancement that showed Stanton's face on Prayer Man...I elevated the issue to an Amazon supervisor and explained the whole thing...There was no Amazon rule against having multiple handles and many people did...The false complainers took advantage of a gullible moderator and convinced them I was doing it for book spamming purposes...My appeal was denied not because they found I was guilty of multi-handles or spamming...I explained to that supervisor that there was no rule against multi handles and many used them...My multi handles were just my choosing different aliases and was perfectly innocent...Amazon denied my appeal saying I was "Too Spiteful" - which is a catch-all they use when they don't want to admit they screwed someone...Now Amazon has removed all review discussion...

Stinky banned you because he found you pungent.

***So now you are backing MacRae?...Duncan banned me because my correct evidence made his troll site look bad...I was the only one posting seriously so I didn't fit in...When he banned me MacRae posted that I could buy my way back on for $20...Duncan is not a well person...He presents himself as moderating strictly but then uses that false pretense to take the trolls' side against your good evidence...He literally banned me because he said that saying Davidson said it was a woman instead of saying Davidson said "It looked like a woman" was a banning offense...Personally I think he is mentally ill...Duncan's forum is for trolling discussion of JFK assassination evidence instead of straight discussing it...

The EF banned you because even though you were only suspended and could log back in (K Becket) you took off on a hate offensive as a fucking moron would.

*** That's not at all true...The PM record of Gordon's communications with me showed Gordon suspended me because he said I was refusing to follow the rules...I asked him in PM's to please show me what rules and which material violated them...Gordon replied that he did not have to and if I asked again he would ban me...It was quite obvious that I had violated no rules and Gordon could not cite any...He was just getting rid of someone who was in the process of refuting his site's favorite Prayer Man theory...Gordon lied and said he would let me back on in two weeks...After those two weeks he never did...Steely is not telling the truth here...I was banned and I could not post...About a year later I posted this on Debra Conway's page and Kathy Beckett saw it and responded "Well if you think you are better than us I'll remove you all together" and banned me...Miss Beckett is a consumate moron who should not be let anywhere near research moderation...She was dumb enough to follow it through with "Sometimes it is not what you post but the way you post it"...(In other words all that stuff they posted about rules was not meant seriously and Miss Beckett really moderates by feelings)..."Hate Offensive" - no such thing and you could not show that unless you call thoroughly refuting Stancak "hate"...

As for here...all posts will be deleted until you provide the actual post where you claim Greg "practically agreed PM is Stanton" which YOU claim is on YOUR OWN FB PAGE.
Go find it.

*** Ask Greg at the sake of his honor if he posted that Bart Kamp was a junk yard dog ROKC kept tied up and tolerated during that concession post...Mr Parker then followed-through saying he would help me fix up my own research site...Ask him if that is true or not...You guys have deleted a lot of your posts over there...I'll post that when you follow the same standard and post any evidence for what you slander here...You guys seem awfully interested in banning...Could it be the totally unanswered material I posted that not one member made any attempt to honestly answer?...My original post and its claims are being ignored here...Kamp was allowed to ignore a photo of Carolyn Arnold's water fountain and its implications...I've never lost a fair playing field Prayer Man debate where the opposition couldn't use banning...We both know that the only reason you are threatening to delete all posts is because you don't want that evidence you couldn't answer in public seen on your site...Credible people prove themselves not through banning and deletion but through good scholarship and arguments...I have never needed to delete anyone's good research in order to make my case...

So whether it's Jimi or Jfk you are a bullshitting dickhead who will use a false name. Thanks.
Stinky admitted his role and Davidson called you a "piece of shit".
Can you name a single Amazon mod?..even if it's just to insult them.
As for the hate offensive...check your own FB page you fucking clown.
You still haven't found the imaginary post have you? you lying twat.

Mon 20 Dec 2021, 12:50 pm

steely_dan wrote:

Brian Doyle wrote:

steely_dan wrote:

So whether it's Jimi or Jfk you are a bullshitting dickhead who will use a false name. Thanks.

***My first post in this thread of respectful and polite evidence discussion is how I represent myself...I would say by normal, commonly-accepted objective debate standards that the fact no one could offer a word of response to the facts contained in it speaks for itself...There are those who will try to drag the discussion down in to ad hominem but anyone can see they are doing it in order to avoid the facts I was trying to discuss and get honest answers to...

Stinky admitted his role and Davidson called you a "piece of shit".

This is not true...I kept asking Davidson to please come forth and publicly state what he thought his enhancement showed...He was reluctant to do it because he admitted he did the enhancement in order to find Lovelady's height for his friend Sean Murphy...Davidson found Sarah's face by accident - which makes it even better evidence because he didn't have any confirmation bias and found it while looking for something else...The Prayer Man people challenged Davidson to post his metadata...When he did not one single one of them was able to answer it...There were two times when Davidson came forth and said he thought his enhancement showed the face of a woman on Prayer Man...My other research has proven that woman was Sarah Stanton...Davidson and his expertise are normally accepted by the research community - except for his saying Prayer Man was a woman...In the current Education Forum thread Davidson did not repeat his claim that his enhancement showed Prayer Man to be a woman...

When I posted Sarah's family photo Jim D posted on his Facebook page that to be honest when he first saw the Prayer Man image he thought the person being shown was too stocky to be Oswald...He was indirectly admitting he had seen the obesity shown in the family photo on Prayer Man...When I asked Jim to please go post that on the Education Forum he responded by putting me on Facebook block...

Mon 20 Dec 2021, 1:04 pm

Tick tock dickhead....where is the Parker post?

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 12:46 am

You aren't the slightest bit interested in " debate" or " research"( I've reached the conclusion that you haven't the foggiest idea how to handle evidence, or construct a rational argument) your only concern is prolonging this lurid psychodrama you've created for yourself. Attempting to drag others down into the fetid slime of the alternate dimension you've created for yourself.

Look at your opening " argument"..assumption piled on top of assumption.. Brian , not only haven't you come anywhere near proving the existence of HARVEY.. you're completely incapable of doing so. You lack the basic skillset.

You know absolutely nothing about the linguistic aspects, the contemporary socio political climate in the Soviet Union ( hell the A team researcher didn't even know when the Soviet Union was created...something I'd expect any self respecting 8 year old budding history scholar to know) You know nothing about school record keeping for example. Time and time again your gullibility and lack of rudimentary knowledge leaves you open to the predations of snake oil peddlers and assorted " witnesses"

Likewise you know absolutely nothing about the realities of covert operations. Your understanding fatally compromised not only by your emotional and intellectual shortcomings but by your over exposure, and indeed reliance upon the worst excesses of tin foil hattery.

If you knew anything about how the contemporary CIA actually operated, how it recruited and functioned, not to mention the over strict compartmentalization , you'd umderstand why, outside the few remaining militant true believers, the notion of Bill Shelley CIA agent is treated with utter derision.

I'm sorry Brian, I really am. Until you awaken from this delusional trance, until you start growing up and behaving like a mature adult you're ......I'm only wasting my time.. I've come to the conclusion you fucking love wallowing around in the reams of shite you disgorge..Brian, this fantasy you've constructed for yourself is a poor substitute for reality.

Your " research" is basically relying on highly dubious " witnesses"( witnesses you believe unconditionally since you seem to lack even the most modest critical thinking skills) and your own highly idiosyncratic opinions.

You don't even know what metadata is!

With all due respect to Chris all he did was apply a photoshop program to " enhance" a frame from a commercially available DVD... that you would ever dare to call that scientific says more about your lack of knowledge ( and scruples) than I ever could..

Of course you won't take Greg up on his offer.." casual" debate indeed...y you came here seeking martyrdom... you don't even know how to handle evidence..hell you can't even recognise what evidence is...

You pile assumption on top of assumption , assumptions without any real evidentiary grounds, cycle through your usual repertoire of hollow teenage braggadocio and insults ...
This latest outbreak of skill is absolutely symptomatic of how you approach " research"

Reducing it, or at least trying to, sheer absurdity. Arguing vociferously about some blurry old footage...hoping to goad someone into joining you , rolling around in the metaphorical gutter..

Likewise your claims about HARVEY and LEE...are you seriously trying to argue there were two near identical but non related doppelgangers wandering around inside the Depository? Yet again your gullibility and predisposition to believe the most outlandish crap has been exposed( no John Butler not like that..this month's reach around atop the Grassy Knoll has been cancelled due to COVID regulations..)

It's not just a matter of being unable to prove H and L, you lack the ability and the basic skillset even to understand why its utter nonsense...

I really hope you do take up Greg:s incredibly magnanimous offer. Being forced out of your adolescent comfort zone, with all the accompanying shrill hystronics would be a positive experience.

Blaming others for your mistakes will not only ensure that ultimately there will be no one left to blame...it all but guarantees there'll be no one at all... nothing and no one but a lonely unfulfilled oblivion of make believe..

Grow up for fuck sake and stop embarrassing yourself.

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 4:52 am

alex_wilson wrote:
You don't even know what metadata is!

*** Davidson's critics did not want to admit the plainly-seen face of a woman was what it was so they did their usual and tried to bluff him with a metadata demand...They thought Davidson couldn't provide one and they were going to use that as an excuse for denying the woman's face that was there right in front of them...Davidson provided screen shots of his digital software settings that showed all he did was adjust for brightness and contrast, bringing out features not visible to the naked eye in the original...What Davidson's settings did was exaggerate contrasts between light and dark to make things that appeared as invisible dark areas in the original visible...It is very simple to understand...Technology is capable of detecting light and dark contrasts that are so subtle they aren't normally visible to the human eye and make them visible by boosting them...Of course, the Prayer Man people accused Davidson of fabricating or producing artifacts, they have a whole litany of excuses they employ to deny the obvious...But it was quite obvious the woman's face appeared on Prayer Man's body exactly where a face should be and was Prayer Man's face...Some of the less honest insisted the screen shot of the settings wasn't true "metadata" but that is just an excuse because the true technical metadata they seek is available in the tabs for that same program shown in the screen shot so it can't be used to deny the woman's face...In any case, Alex's argument is wrong because if we ever get the original Wiegman film and scan it we will find Davidson's woman's face exactly like it is seen in his enhancement...What that tells you is the Discovery Channel source Davidson got his enhancement from was scientifically legitimate simply because it was true to what was on the original...Replication is science and once done is proof...That means all the excuses of film to video transfer artifacts etc are all wrong and can't be used to deny the woman's face...This will hold true for the buttons as well that were noticed by David Andrews and un-answered...When Davidson posted his screen shot of his settings no one was able to answer or refute it in any way...By the way, you can see Sarah's chubby cheeks on that woman's face...I suppose I'll get no answer to this like I got no answer to Lumpkin...

With all due respect to Chris all he did was apply a photoshop program to " enhance" a frame from a commercially available DVD... that you would ever dare to call that scientific says more about your lack of knowledge ( and scruples) than I ever could..

*** This is intentionally way too overly-general because it is trying to avoid dipping in to the scientific detail that explains WHY the DVD source WAS legitimate...Realize I am arguing this with one arm tied behind my back (two arms really) because Davidson was a friend of the now-AWOL Murphy and didn't want to be the one to refute his friend's theory...Gordon then looks at this and decides the man who has a huge handicap and is arguing against almost the entire research community should be banned and his research prohibited (Thanks Gordon - Great moderating there!)...Alex is bluffing here...This will be scientifically proven by obtaining the original and inputting it in to Davidson's enhancement software...When it produces the exact same woman's face as the DVD source Davidson used that is called "scientific replication" and will be considered "proof"...What Alex is trying to get around here is HE has failed to show why Davidson's DVD source was not legitimate...What is plainly obvious is Davidson's woman's face is such a strong feature on the Wiegman original that it survived intact on Davidson's DVD...There's nothing wrong with it and it shows Sarah Stanton's chubby face on Prayer Man...Davidson's woman's face on Prayer Man is 9 seconds after Billy Lovelady said Stanton was "Next to me at the far right of the entranceway as the limousine passed"...The Hughes film shows Prayer Man right behind (next to) Lovelady at that time...I asked Davidson to please apply his software to Hughes but since I am banned he did not reply....

I'm assuming I'm not going to get any direct answers to any of this like with the clearly-seen water fountain in the Vestibule...Mr Kamp said Carolyn Arnold was lying and based it on there being no water facility in the 2nd floor Lunch Room...Well, there's your water source so Arnold was telling the truth...

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 5:36 am

" Exaggerate the contrasts between light and dark"? Except for Mrs Stanton's grey hair that was magically left dark. Right?

What you are describing is not metadata!

Chris enhanced a frame from a DVD . Full stop. There's absolutely nothing scientific about that.

If you think some credible photo analyst will scientifically replicate his results go ahead and find one.

You've only had five years.

Your response is a perfect illustration of your wrong headed notions of debate and research.

No matter how loud and how often you shout, your opinions are not proof.

You don't get to be the arbitrator of credibility and good science. You've based your whole shoddy edifice on a theory you don't even understand. You want there to be a HARVEY and LEE therefore there is a HARVEY and LEE... that's pretty much the level of sophistication we're dealing with..

You need to do some studying and a whole lot of growing up.

Metadata! Chubby cheeks! Dealing with you is getting to be like dealing with Butler...you don't understand why you are wrong..

You aren't the slightest bit interested in debate.. already you're scurrying back over to acjfk... you're wasting your fucking life on a load of fantastical nonsense.

I suggest you take up Greg's incredibly generous offer. Choose a topic, and then present your evidence. Not your opinions..not he/she said, not fantasy photo analysts swooping down Deus ex Machina, not vanishing threads ( incidentally you are aware other people have actually listened to your so called interview with Wanda ?) Real tangible falsifiable evidence. Not what you think you see...

Brian I genuinely tried to talk you out of your trance. But it's clear to me now, you don't want help, for better or worse you're quite happy living in the little fantasy world you've built for yourself. I don't want to be harsh but you really don't have a clue. What Chris Davidson may or may not think he sees is not evidence.

I'm just enabling your delusions by replying. For your own sake go away and do some serious study. Learn about the subjects. Reach your own conclusions. Or else find a new hobby.

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 6:57 am

alex_wilson wrote:

" Exaggerate the contrasts between light and dark"? Except for Mrs Stanton's grey hair that was magically left dark. Right?

*** Davidson was sourced from Wiegman...The controversy over Prayer Man's hair color was based on Prayer Man in Darnell...I am trying to be polite but this shows you simply don't know what you are talking about...It is clear to me that the failure of Stanton's light hair color to appear in Darnell is because Darnell's film and camera do not record light hair colors in shade...You could consult on this and it is true that certain equipment and film-types will apply a dark color to light-colored objects in shade...Also, you don't really have proof that Sarah wasn't dying her hair at that time or wearing a wig, so the hair color claim is not conclusive nor does it cancel the multiple other evidence for Stanton being Prayer Man...I have never gotten a straight answer to why none of the Prayer Man people can show Stanton to Frazier's left in Altgens-6?...Both Wiegman and Altgens were taken around Z-frame 257 and Wiegman was taken at a 90 degree angle to Altgens, so it shows the obstructed parts in Altgens that are blocked by people...This stereoscopic view of Altgens/Wiegman fails to show Stanton to Frazier's left even though the Prayer Man people have been saying that is where Stanton is...It also fails to show the imaginary Stanton Stancak pulled out of thin air and placed in between Lovelady & Shelley...That spot where Stancak placed his imaginary Stanton in his cartoon graphic is seen in Wiegman Z-257 and there is nobody there but empty space...9 seconds before Altgens/Wiegman Lovelady said Sarah was over "Next to him at the far right of the entranceway" (NOT to Frazier's left)...So what we have here is Lovelady placing Stanton in the Prayer Man spot at the time of the Prayer Man photography and Altgens/Wiegman showing beyond any doubt that Stanton was not to Frazier's left 9 seconds later...When you add a legitimately-gotten woman's face on Prayer Man in Wiegman that is proof that Prayer Man is Stanton by all normal means...Mr Wilson, you have failed to answer that Davidson is valid photographic evidence that was soundly gotten by photo science...To say otherwise is to suggest that photo quirks resulted in a visible woman's face with perfectly proportioned facial features that just so happened to appear where a face should be on Prayer Man's body and that simply isn't believable...Additionally, Davidson showed that the woman's face repeated in multiple frames of Wiegman...Since, by its nature, pareidolia only appears in individual frames the fact it repeats in consecutive frames shows it is a real and existing object in the camera's field of vision...Again, the pareidolia excuse doesn't make the rest of the evidence for it being Stanton go away or excuse the Prayer Man people from having to account for it...To this day I have never gotten a straight answer from any Prayer Man supporter why Stanton is not seen to Frazier's left in Altgens/Wiegman...The answer is simple...It is because Stanton is to Frazier's right and is Prayer Man...The one good thing Stancak did was he showed Pauline Sanders' tiny face between Lovelady and Shelley in Altgens...Since there were only two women on the landing platform, and we have located Sanders, that makes Prayer Man Stanton since we have shown a female face on Prayer Man...

What you are describing is not metadata!

Chris enhanced a frame from a DVD . Full stop. There's absolutely nothing scientific about that.

*** There is and you are just plain wrong about this...The science in Davidson's DVD-sourced image is the fact that the woman's face is so strongly represented on the original Wiegman frame that it survived intact on the DVD copy...I already explained that I will be proven correct about this when the original is gotten and it shows Davidson's woman's face exactly like it was in Davidson...What that will tell you is it was a real and existing thing on the original...That is science no matter how many excuses you make...

Jim DiEugenio could get the scans next week if he tried...All he would have to do is ask Oliver Stone...Jim lied and misrepresented what Stone's producer Rob Wilson told me because he was trying to avoid getting the scans because he had already admitted to me that Prayer Man was stocky like Stanton...This is why Jim did not include Prayer Man in his documentary...It is also why Jim told James Gordon that he did the right thing in banning me...

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 9:15 am

Lying cunt. In your Stanton relatives interview you pushed the hair dye claim and were clearly told no.
Time for Greg to light the blue touch paper...

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 10:44 am

Brian,

I did indeed offer to make you your own website. And I would have, had you accepted the offer. But one of your charms is your absolute lack of grace.

I do not recall your other claims. I do know that in the past, you have taken things out of context or simply misquoted in order to try and "win" an argument.

Bart for example, is no ROKC junk yard dog.

Unforunately though, he was once bitten by an Australian despite being warned not to venture into Earl's Court after dark. Now, every full moon, he puts on his Vegemite warpaint and "turns". No Pommy Bastard is safe at such times from his sledging which does not let up until the crack of Dawn.

And Dawn has the biggest Crack in England.

You have 24 hours to decide your own fate.

Some suggestions...

You can reaffirm that you DO want to debate the 2nd floor lunchroom. I am not barring that as an option, but I did think it was a bad choice for you since you have already lost that one.

Your idea to debate Bart over the location of a water fountain is out - as already advised. You may as well debate what the floor was made of.

But there are other options.

Armstrong's theory or any major plank of that theory.

Should the FBI be trutsed?

Should eyewitesses be trusted?

The purpose of the trip to the Soviet Union.

Did Oswald really go to Mexico City?

Just how over-rated was Hendrix?

No shortage of possible subjects.

If a debate goes ahead, no one but you and I can post in it, unless we have a moderator. I think it would attract some interest. Look at the last debate Over 10,000 views. So much for your claim no one is interested in the debate forum. And that is what you claim you want, isnt it? Attention? How good would it be to kick my butt (academically speaking) in front of 10, 000 sets of eyes?

Man up, Brian, with your evidence, and let's do it. Otherwise you get your reserve wish of being kicked out without a debate or anything else. But don't think for a second if that happes, that anyone is going to buy your "poor me"/martyrdom schtick, except the few absolute dropkicks who already support you.

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 10:45 am

steely_dan wrote:Lying cunt. In your Stanton relatives interview you pushed the hair dye claim and were clearly told no.
Time for Greg to light the blue touch paper...

That doesn't eliminate the rest of the evidence that you ignored...If you are quoting Sarah's family members remember to quote Wanda saying "That is Sarah...She's the biggest one out there"...

In Darnell Prayer Man has an obese forearm, hand, and hips, as well as Stanton's 5 foot 4 height...There is no reflection of Prayer Man in the glass in Darnell...Greg is wrong on that...

You haven't answered the fact none of you can show Stanton to Frazier's left in Altgens/Wiegman...

Are you reserving the right to ignore and then call for banning before you have to answer for it?...It is pretty clear you couldn't answer the rest of my evidence...

Credible research analysis dictates that once you know it is Stanton, which we do from my other evidence you ignored, that the reason the light hair isn't seen is because of Darnell's film and equipment...

Kamp is being allowed to ignore film evidence of a large double water fountain console in the Vestibule...

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 10:53 am

I don't answer your lies.
I point them out.

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 10:57 am

Brian Doyle wrote:

steely_dan wrote:Lying cunt. In your Stanton relatives interview you pushed the hair dye claim and were clearly told no.
Time for Greg to light the blue touch paper...

That doesn't eliminate the rest of the evidence that you ignored...If you are quoting Sarah's family members remember to quote Wanda saying "That is Sarah...She's the biggest one out there"...

In Darnell Prayer Man has an obese forearm, hand, and hips, as well as Stanton's 5 foot 4 height...There is no reflection of Prayer Man in the glass in Darnell...Greg is wrong on that...

You haven't answered the fact none of you can show Stanton to Frazier's left in Altgens/Wiegman...

Are you reserving the right to ignore and then call for banning before you have to answer for it?...It is pretty clear you couldn't answer the rest of my evidence...

Credible research analysis dictates that once you know it is Stanton, which we do from my other evidence you ignored, that the reason the light hair isn't seen is because of Darnell's film and equipment...

Kamp is being allowed to ignore film evidence of a large double water fountain console in the Vestibule...

24 hours Brian.

This is not the "debate" you are having, unless you request it, And it will be with me.

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 11:49 am

A dickhead arguing bullshit. And lying. As expected., Fuck him off.

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 12:22 pm

I did indeed offer to make you your own website. And I would have, had you accepted the offer. But one of your charms is your absolute lack of grace.

*** A good psychologist would say you would not offer to make a website for someone you did not consider credible..."Grace" - you mean like calling someone "dickhead" or "lying cunt"?...

You can reaffirm that you DO want to debate the 2nd floor lunchroom. I am not barring that as an option, but I did think it was a bad choice for you since you have already lost that one.

*** There is a public record of you leaving the Google ALT.Conspiracy.JFK site when I posted the evidence that, according to ROKC member Zambanini, Lumpkin was caught on film arriving back at the Depository at 12:50 wearing a fedora...You cannot seriously suggest that Miss Garner or Martha Stroud were so confused about the time period involved that they mistook plus 2.5 minutes for plus 21 minutes after the shots...Additionally you have failed to answer that if Lumpkin was the police man witnessed with Truly by Garner that therefore the first people Miss Garner would have seen after Adams & Styles descended would have been Williams and the other workers who were witnessed by others arriving on the 4th floor at the plus 3 minute time period...Greg, you can't say I lost that one when this information and the public record of you leaving the discussion says otherwise...If it isn't Lumpkin then the only choice is Baker and Williams saw his motorcycle helmet...We know Williams saw the helmet because he said it made him feel safe the floors below were cleared by a cop and were therefore safe and that was why they raced down to the 4th floor...

Your idea to debate Bart over the location of a water fountain is out - as already advised. You may as well debate what the floor was made of.

*** I believe I have shown the credible image of a clearly-seen overhead-lighted double water fountain console in the Vestibule hallway and against the Lunch Room wall...The Depository construction blueprint that is available in the archives labels the enclosure for the Lunch Room entry "Vestibule"...Mr Kamp responded to that image by showing the image of the hallway water cooler by the bathroom...That was not a credible response nor is the hallway water cooler relevant to the one I credibly PROVED in the Vestibule...Bart's inability to answer proves that Carolyn Arnold was telling the truth...It proves that she wasn't lying about getting a drink of water and if she was proven truthful on that it follows suit that she was being truthful about seeing Oswald alone eating lunch in the 2nd floor Lunch Room where Truly & Baker would see Oswald 6 minutes later...Dougherty also told Gil Toff "Oswald was up eating lunch in the 2nd floor Lunch Room while I ate my lunch in the Domino Room" (source: Bart Kamp)...Normally accepted academic discussion standards would require an answer to proven film evidence...I am also the only person to notice this water fountain was not included on FBI's blueprint of the 2nd floor...I believe FBI omitted that water fountain intentionally in order avoiding spurring any conversations over it involving Carolyn Arnold...DiEugenio calls that a "Consciousness of guilt"...

If a debate goes ahead, no one but you and I can post in it, unless we have a moderator. I think it would attract some interest. Look at the last debate Over 10,000 views. So much for your claim no one is interested in the debate forum. And that is what you claim you want, isnt it? Attention? How good would it be to kick my butt (academically speaking) in front of 10, 000 sets of eyes?

*** I took you at your word when you said "You can even make the rules"...If we debate, just what you write here alone with your home field advantage contempt indicates that no debate can happen between us unless it is credibly moderated by an independent neutral moderator...The Prayer Man subject has had a total bias from the get go because 95% of the research community fell for it...DiEugenio wrote a positive article in favor of Murphy at his CTKA website and that was all many needed to see...Every main forum had a clear bias in favor of it as did 95% of their membership...It would be folly to try to argue the evidence under such unfair circumstances without a firm credible neutral overseer who finally made you answer the facts you have gotten away with ignoring or uncredibly questioning the validity of...I am even questioning the need for a debate all together seeing how I have pretty much already proven Prayer Man was Sarah Stanton in normal message board discussions (at least those that I wasn't unfairly banned from)...What is needed here isn't more rules-rigged debate where evidence is avoided by intentionally imposed technicality, like is seen at the Lone Nutter Jim Hess's speed trap...What is needed is a fair University level analysis and peer review of my already-presented evidence...The problem here isn't that the issue hasn't been properly debated...The problem is a hugely-biased research community has gotten away with ignoring valid evidence by means of ignoring and banning...The only reason you and Kamp are getting away with your previous Prayer Man claims is because the JFK conspiracy world is not attended by the regular pool of credible peer reviewers due to its political nature...So not only would that debate necessitate a credible neutral University level moderator, but it would also require skilled experts to validate my technical evidence claims that have been avoided by banning and ignoring...My Davidson arguments are good on a technical level for the reasons I've already explained...The are just being denied by people who haven't been stopped by experts...Again - my posts here are perfectly normal and anyone can see there is no reason to restrict them... With all due respect Mr Parker, your failure to answer what I've already written is the "butt-kicking" to which you refer...I can and will answer anyone anywhere under any rules or conditions...Your side on the other hand operates in public by means of banning, excluding, and ignoring (see: water fountain)...My facts speak for themselves and anyone can see they have been conspicuously ignored which tells any honest credible person all they need to know...

Man up, Brian, with your evidence, and let's do it. Otherwise you get your reserve wish of being kicked out without a debate or anything else. But don't think for a second if that happes, that anyone is going to buy your "poor me"/martyrdom schtick, except the few absolute dropkicks who already support you.

***

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 1:18 pm

Lying cunt.

Tue 21 Dec 2021, 3:16 pm

Got a suggstion for a neutral moderator, Brian? I'm all ears and if that person is truly unbiased and agreeable to doing it, that is fine with me.

20 hours left for your final answer. So far, what I see is you desparately trying to worm out of the debate, while you plant the seeds for your excuse at the same time.

It is like a boxer saying before a fight, "Ima gone knock dat guy out in tree rounds. Yesiree. Count 'em. Uno, der, tree. But if I lose, trust me, it was because he done cheated, I am carrying an injury, the judgs were all biased and 95% of the crowd is against me for reasons I don' understand. I am da champ. No one beat me. It is all rigged agin me. But you just watch. Tree rounds if it is a fair fight. You will know it is a fair fight if I win. But I don't think it will be fair, so maybe I shouldn't fight. Yeah. I don;t think I should. I'll just wait till they ban me from boxing again and then complain some more about what bastards thet are."

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.