Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

I have to say it NOW? I don't operate like that. If you offer more evidence - the power point, which, I did not say it was flawed. I said that FOA didn't "doctor" anything. You brought up the power point. I have to research before I can respond. Isn't that only responsible?

Actually viewing the PowerPoint instead of just talking about it would be a good start.

And of course the FOA doctored the print. If they misrepresented the scale then it's a misleading presentation. And they know it to be so because we long ago informed Charlie Wilkes of the glaring error, the one who made the FOA presentation on the print, and neither he nor anyone else at the FOA corrected it. One can therefore only conclude a deliberate intention on their part to mislead.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If it was on their hands, it wasn't Rudy. His hands were bloody, remember?

Indeed

 

[Open Inquiry]

You made the claim that the PMF information on the footprint was flawed. You, therefore, must have some reason for this claim. If you haven't seen the powerpoint or have no other means of verifying the FoA claims regarding the footprint, then this is not a claim you should be making.

I think it was someone else who said the PMF information was flawed... I think you have my comment mixed up with theirs. I'll check.

Oh, and I did look at and read the power point presentation. And then inaugurated on my search for more info on both sides.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I think it was someone else who said the PMF information was flawed... I think you have my comment mixed up with theirs. I'll check.

Oh, and I did look at and read the power point presentation. And then inaugurated on my search for more info on both sides.

You might not have directly stated the PMF info is faulty...but by claiming the FoA info is accurate is, by default, claiming the PMF info is faulty.

You have seen both, so why do you choose to accept the FoA site info?

 

[Open Inquiry]

Actually viewing the PowerPoint instead of just talking about it would be a good start.

And of course the FOA doctored the print. If they misrepresented the scale then it's a misleading presentation. And they know it to be so because we long ago informed Charlie Wilkes of the glaring error, the one who made the FOA presentation on the print, and neither he nor anyone else at the FOA corrected it. One can therefore only conclude a deliberate intention on their part to mislead.

I did review the power point over an hour ago.

I don't think the people at FOA are disingenuous or liars. They would not want a guilty person to be acquitted. I'll ask Wilkes about the size of the foot.

 

[Open Inquiry]

You might not have directly stated the PMF info is faulty...but by claiming the FoA info is accurate is, by default, claiming the PMF info is faulty.

You have seen both, so why do you choose to accept the FoA site info?

I actually haven't chosen either one yet, as I indicated by saying I am doing further research.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I did review the power point over an hour ago.

I don't think the people at FOA are disingenuous or liars. They would not want a guilty person to be acquitted. I'll ask Wilkes about the size of the foot.

That is your sole rationale for accepting the FoA argument over the PMF argument?

And you come here "attempting" to encourage rational, logical discussion of the evidence?

Is this a joke? Is Ashton going to jump out any time now? C'mon out Ashton, I know I'm on Punk'd...

 

[Open Inquiry]

You made the claim that the PMF information on the footprint was flawed. You, therefore, must have some reason for this claim. If you haven't seen the powerpoint or have no other means of verifying the FoA claims regarding the footprint, then this is not a claim you should be making.

ETA: So, yes. NOW. Because you made the claim that the FoA site is correct concerning the footprint. What evidence do you have that the PMF site is incorrect?

Still look into it. Sorry. I don't rush to conclusions. It's not my style.

EDIT: For clarification and emphasis... I am not saying it is your style either.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think it was someone else who said the PMF information was flawed... I think you have my comment mixed up with theirs. I'll check.

Oh, and I did look at and read the power point presentation. And then inaugurated on my search for more info on both sides.

Great. Give us the info then from your research.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I actually haven't chosen either one yet, as I indicated by saying I am doing further research.

YOU said, and I quote

The footprint was not doctored on the Friends of Amanda site. That was something a certain person claimed but not true. The person who put up that photo analysis is not going to support a lie.

ETA: PMF claims the FoA info was doctored. You agree with the FoA info, claiming it was not, in fact, doctored. You have, therefore, chosen a side.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I did review the power point over an hour ago.

I don't think the people at FOA are disingenuous or liars. They would not want a guilty person to be acquitted. I'll ask Wilkes about the size of the foot.

You just made me choke on my tea. It's the way you tell 'em.

 

[Open Inquiry]

That is your sole rationale for accepting the FoA argument over the PMF argument?

And you come here "attempting" to encourage rational, logical discussion of the evidence?

Is this a joke? Is Ashton going to jump out any time now? C'mon out Ashton, I know I'm on Punk'd...

Did I say I accepted it? I said I am still researching.

Did I say that is my rationale.? No, it was a statement of bet... It was a vouch. (My opinion.)

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Did I say I accepted it? I said I am still researching.

Did I say that is my rationale.? No, it was a statement of bet... It was a vouch. (My opinion.)

And again:

The footprint was not doctored on the Friends of Amanda site. That was something a certain person claimed but not true. The person who put up that photo analysis is not going to support a lie.

 

[Open Inquiry]

You just made me choke on my tea.

I have not seen anything to suggest the contrary. But you are not required to agree.

I also don't think Amanda's parents would want a guilty person to be acquitted.

I don't know them, any of them. But from what I've seen, they, when the news first came out, were trying to discern if there was a chance she did this. Just my opinion.

 

[Open Inquiry]

And again:

Not my statement of rationale. Statement of opinion.

 

[Open Inquiry]

YOU said, and I quote



ETA: PMF claims the FoA info was doctored. You agree with the FoA info, claiming it was not, in fact, doctored. You have, therefore, chosen a side.

I don't know what PMF claims or why there should be polarized sites. I look at more than just this side and that side.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I actually haven't chosen either one yet, as I indicated by saying I am doing further research.

What further research is required? Rudy's shoe size is 46. In order to fit his foot within the print on the mat the FOA shrank it to a size 36. This is black and white (for a change in this case)...what more do you need to know?

 

[Open Inquiry]

I discussed at this forum to have my position challenged, btw.

 

[Open Inquiry]

What further research is required? Rudy's shoe size is 46. In order to fit his foot within the print on the mat the FOA shrank it to a size 36. This is black and white (for a change in this case)...what more do you need to know?

I thought Rudy's shoe size is 45. Not that it makes a big difference. Just saying... or asking, rather.

Anyway, these are curious claims and in good faith I do plan to ask about it. And look at more perspectives than two.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I discussed at this forum to have my position challenged, btw.

But...you don't have a position?

C'mon man! Make up your mind. Either you have a position or you don't.



You're claiming you have a position on the footprint. Then when challenged, you have no evidentiary reason to back your position so you claim you don't have one. Now you're claiming you have a position that needs to be challenged?

I am challenging your position on the footprint. What makes you believe the FoA site over the PMF site?