"My New Thread"

[Michael Clark]

4 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Know what's really creepy, Michael?

 

 

 

 

Aww ... never mind.  Don't wanna get "moderated," again.

 

--  T.G.
 

P.S.  Counted my number of "edits" recently?

 

PPS   "Obtuse," huh.  Did you think of that big word all by your widdle self, or did someone help you with it?

 

 

David was Spot-on with his charterization of your, ahhhh, how shall I put - it, gasp.........offerings?

[Thomas Graves]

33 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

David was Spot-on with his charterization of your, ahhhh, how shall I put - it, gasp.........offerings?

 

Much better than your .... d-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-s ... ,  Michael.

Hint:  think ... "rodents"

EDIT ALERT:  I MEAN "VERMIN"

 

You know, those little, furry, long-tailed, and often filthy mammals that you accused Bernie Laverick and Michel Walton, and Tracy Parnell and I of being in this post of yours from back in December of last year?

• 
• Members
•  
• 3,289 posts
• Gender:Male

• Report post
•  
•  

Posted December 4, 2017 (edited)

It's just really disappointing that we can't have a decent discussion about a decent article without the same three hooligans throwing sucker punches, and kiscks to the head, like rabid dogs, thugs or vermin. 

This article stood clear of the the larger Harvey and Lee work, but a hurt-child and dedicated ramshackle couldn't leave it be.

lay dome some straight-up criticism, find fault with references citations or arguments, that's fine. 

Waltons hurt and despondency over his works bending ignored has created a disturbed child who needs to be removed from tha class of normal students.

Walton has whined about no one paying attention to his garbage before, and we all have to pay for his delinquent, childish acting out.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/7252-michael-walton/?do=content&type=forums_topic&change_section=1

Edited December 4, 2017 by Michael Clark

 

--  T.G.

Tell me, are you an aficionado of Andrej's very athletic but mal-formed Lee Harvey Oswald, you know, arch-backed (to ... uhh ...see better, or just to appear to be 5' 9"???), and kinda on the steps and kinda on the landing?

 

PS  lay dome?

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

12 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Much better than your .... xxxxxxxxs, Michael.

Hint:  think ... "rodents"?

 

--  T.G.

Tell me, are you an aficionado of Andrej's very athletic but mal-formed Lee Harvey Oswald, you know, arch-backed and kinda on the steps and kinda on the landing?

 

 

 

 

  On 5/10/2015 at 5:36 PM,  Someone said: 

I don't answer rhetorical questions, Professor.

I only ask them.

--Michael 

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Michael Clark

[Thomas Graves]

13 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

 

 

 

  On 5/10/2015 at 5:36 PM,  Someone said: 

I don't answer rhetorical questions, Professor.

I only ask them.

--Michael 

 

 

Michael,

 

So, you have no opinion one way or the other on "Prayer Man," but just wanted to "join the fray," right?  Especially since I'm in it, and you do always like to get a few digs and kiscks in?

Oh yeah, and to give poor Andrej some "moral support," although you don't particularly buy his "interpretation"?

--  T.G.

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

1 minute ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

So you have no opinion one way or the other on "Prayer Man," but just wanted to "join the fray," right?  Especially since I'm in it, and you do always like to get a few digs in?

Oh yeah, and to give poor Andrej some "moral support," although you don't particularly buy his "interpretation"?

--  T.G.

 

 

  On 5/10/2015 at 5:36 PM,  Someone said: 

I don't answer rhetorical questions, Professor.

I only ask them.

--Michael 

[Thomas Graves]

13 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

 

  On 5/10/2015 at 5:36 PM,  Someone said: 

I don't answer rhetorical questions, Professor.

I only ask them.

--Michael 

 

I've since edited it, Michael, by putting your "kiscks" in.

Can you "dig" it?

 

--  T.G.

 

By the way, thanks for helping to spark greater interest in "My New Thread" among the members and guests!

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Andrej Stancak]

Gentlemen:

can we cool it down?  I am thankful to Tom and Michael for their support.  It is important to know that someone is following the  3D doorway project. 

Thomas: you may not have spotted that the whole recent activity on this thread aims at changing the current mannequin that was based on Poser 11.1 default male model (inseam at 49% of body height) for a new mannequin matching Lee Harvey Oswald's body in all essential aspects. I have already suggested one mannequin last week - it was the mannequin named James Poser. This mannequin was adjusted to match Lee Oswald as he was photographed by the NO PD, and the body proportions are being checked by Chris.  You could see in my recent posts on this thread that this Oswald-like mannequin with relatively short legs and long torso fitted Prayer Man in Darnell very well, actually better than the default male mannequin because the long torso of Oswald-like mannequin did not require tilting Prayer Man towards his right that much as in the current model.

Once this step is completed, I will take the mannequin and compare it with other existing pictures (there are not many) showing the whole Lee Oswald's body from a front view. Then, I will import this agreed Lee Oswald-like mannequin in his Darnell posture into Sketchup and will change colors and triangulation and will also sculpt the shirt sleeves a bit. Of course, I will also sculpt the head shape, hairline and some facial features to match Lee Harvey Oswald. Finally, I will replace all figures in my blog post on Mrs. Sanders and Mrs. Stanton with the new Prayer Man mannequin if a figure contained Prayer Man. Only then will I be able to resume my work on Altgens6, followed by the reconstruction of Prayer Man's body height in Darnell and finishing with Wiegman stills.  

 

[Thomas Graves]

16 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

  .....

 

 

Andrej,

 

If it wasn't so sad, it would almost be funny watching you go through all these contortions (literally, figuratively) as you try your darndest to prove that "Prayer Man" was a  skinny five-foot nine-inch guy. 

 

Whose name just happened to be Lee Harvey Oswald. 

 

Wow, talk about coincidences!
 

In all honesty, it seems to me that it would have been so much easier for you if only he had been ..... (gasp) ..... 5' 4" or so, and standing with both feet on the landing!

 

 

Carry on, my friend ... 

 

--  T.G.

 

PS  If it's any consolation, "Prayer Man" doesn't have to be Oswald. 

I mean, look at it this way, Andrej.  Even if he wasn't "Prayer Man," it's still hypothetically possible that he was innocent!

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

I don't answer rhetorical questions, Professor.

I only ask them

=====

Put   on ignore and you'd be amazed how easy this thread is to read and enjoy...

Remains true for all threads...    do this to a select group and all of a sudden this place sprouts roses without having to worry so much about the thorns...

Options allow you to unhide the comments if one is up for that kind of obtuse abuse...   or to see if anything has changed...

Yo,   ....this would be called "alliteration" as opposed to onomatopoeias which would apply like so:

babble

1. to talk/post enthusiastically or excessively, 2. to utter meaningless or unintelligible sounds. imitative origin.

 

Here's a newsflash ,   many, many here are just as smart if not smarter than you think you are...  obtuse is a term used in math as well...   it still has to do with something not very pointed or sharp...  and from the replies to your invisible posts it is obviously SSDD...

 

Sun Shine and Day Dreams

 

 

 You've chosen to ignore content by  ..... Options     

Edited May 10, 2018 by David Josephs

[Chris Davidson]

7 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Gentlemen:

can we cool it down?  I am thankful to Tom and Michael for their support.  It is important to know that someone is following the  3D doorway project. 

Thomas: you may not have spotted that the whole recent activity on this thread aims at changing the current mannequin that was based on Poser 11.1 default male model (inseam at 49% of body height) for a new mannequin matching Lee Harvey Oswald's body in all essential aspects. I have already suggested one mannequin last week - it was the mannequin named James Poser. This mannequin was adjusted to match Lee Oswald as he was photographed by the NO PD, and the body proportions are being checked by Chris.  You could see in my recent posts on this thread that this Oswald-like mannequin with relatively short legs and long torso fitted Prayer Man in Darnell very well, actually better than the default male mannequin because the long torso of Oswald-like mannequin did not require tilting Prayer Man towards his right that much as in the current model.

Once this step is completed, I will take the mannequin and compare it with other existing pictures (there are not many) showing the whole Lee Oswald's body from a front view. Then, I will import this agreed Lee Oswald-like mannequin in his Darnell posture into Sketchup and will change colors and triangulation and will also sculpt the shirt sleeves a bit. Of course, I will also sculpt the head shape, hairline and some facial features to match Lee Harvey Oswald. Finally, I will replace all figures in my blog post on Mrs. Sanders and Mrs. Stanton with the new Prayer Man mannequin if a figure contained Prayer Man. Only then will I be able to resume my work on Altgens6, followed by the reconstruction of Prayer Man's body height in Darnell and finishing with Wiegman stills.  

 

Andrej,

Download for true size:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HrJ2P5zbl0Lm1Hc9Z4IRde6mbY4HxdIh/view?usp=sharing

Scaled Oswald to 66% so the tip of the shoes to the top of his head equals 69 increments/inches.

Then used your first Poser model (scaled to 92%) with 30 inch leg length designation as the overlay.

Blue lines are (head to chin) and (ground to 30inch) using tip of shoes as the starting point.

 

[Thomas Graves]

8 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Andrej,

Download for true size: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HrJ2P5zbl0Lm1Hc9Z4IRde6mbY4HxdIh/view?usp=sharing

Scaled Oswald to 66% so the tip of the shoes to the top of his head equals 69 increments/inches.

Then used your first Poser model (scaled to 92%) with 30 inch leg length designation as the overlay.

Blue lines are (head to chin) and (ground to 30inch) using tip of shoes as the starting point.

 

 

Chris,

 

Given the fact that you recently, on Greg Burnham's website, reiterated your belief that "Prayer Man" is a woman, one can only wonder whether or not you and Andrej are secretly collaborating on trying to prove that Sarah Stanton was wearing pants that day, and was ... gasp ... 5' 9" tall.

 

--  T.G.

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Andrej Stancak]

Chris:

please find here another model version of Lee Oswald's body. I had to change quite many dimensions to achieve a match. The right-hand panel shows a 69'' measuring stick along the body, and the middle panel is James Poser himself. The left-hand panel is the overlay of James and Lee Oswald at 50% with some landmarks which are important for future matching of this figure with Prayer Man. These landmarks include the top of the head, the bottom of the chin, shoulder level, cubital fossae, waist, "inseam", and knees. 

I wonder if you would approve this James Poser as a good model of Lee Oswald. Thanks.

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[Chris Davidson]

Andrej,

Good to see the inclusion of a measuring scale.

The size difference between this one and the previous block measured Oswald provided: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZM8qkE-KYbctkRXbl6T3zu0Ol-4A9Dx1/view?usp=sharing

Perhaps others have suggestions for alterations, but I'm fine with it.

 

[Chris Davidson]

On 5/10/2018 at 10:33 AM, Thomas Graves said:

 

Chris,

 

Given the fact that you recently, on Greg Burnham's website, reiterated your belief that "Prayer Man" is a woman, one can only wonder whether or not you and Andrej are secretly collaborating on trying to prove that Sarah Stanton was wearing pants that day, and was ... gasp ... 5' 9" tall.

 

--  T.G.

 

I don't consider overtly posting links to checks/balances for Andrej's work as secret collaboration.

Yes, I still believe it's a woman based on my photo enhancements. 

Enough said on my part.

[John Butler]

Andrej,

I think I understand the elbow pit reference.  The field of anthropology has a large data set on human measurement.  My memory is somewhat vague but, if you have one human body part then from that you can predict other body parts.  Say, if you have a femur you can accurately determine body height.  That can be reversed also.  Femurs can tell you the length of the leg and also if you have the leg length you will know the arm length.  It is a study that went on for centuries.  It turned a weird with phrenologists and the Norway study of the Master Race and determining by body measurements whether you were a member of the Master Race. 

As far as Sarah Stanton is concerned, there is a lot of literature discussing her in many places.  She is mentioned continually in this thread.  To understand her better perhaps solving this riddle can lead to a better understanding of her.

If Sarah Stanton was born in March, and she was on the landing of the TSBD after the assassination of President Kennedy, what would she be and what color would she be?