Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

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.

You don't need to chose a 'side', you just need to look at the data and make a decision about it. Regarding the footprint issue you have all the data you need.

 

[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 haven't seen the proof of shrinking the footprint. 36 would be too small for Raffaele too. This is why I want to more closely examine. I've heard arguments on both sides.

Actually I don't see why this is a piece of disputed evidence. I would think that something even clearer can be presented.

 

[Open Inquiry]

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?

I'm claiming I don't fully know yet about the footprint. You suggested looking at the power point presentation. It brought up a new point that I hadn't heard before. The length. I have find out more about that. I have heard other arguments. Don't respect a person's time and space to gather information? Which yes is more than looking at one presentation.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm claiming I don't fully know yet about the footprint. You suggested looking at the power point presentation. It brought up a new point that I hadn't heard before. The length. I have find out more about that. I have heard other arguments. Don't respect a person's time and space to gather information? Which yes is more than looking at one presentation.

And I quote, yet 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.

That is not a "well, I'm not so sure the footprint was doctored. Let me look into it further."

Regardless, there must be some reason you disagree with the PMF presentation. What is that reason?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I haven't seen the proof of shrinking the footprint. 36 would be too small for Raffaele too. This is why I want to more closely examine. I've heard arguments on both sides.

Actually I don't see why this is a piece of disputed evidence. I would think that something even clearer can be presented.

What do you mean you haven't seen the proof??? What is it in the PowerPoint that you don't understand? The measurements are all there and it's 'basic' maths. They scaled Rudy's print to a size far smaller then his true size in order to fit it into the print on the mat. What more 'proof' do you need, what exactly 'would' constitute as proof in your eyes? What proof is 'missing' from the PowerPoint?

 

[Open Inquiry]

And I quote, yet again:



That is not a "well, I'm not so sure the footprint was doctored. Let me look into it further."

Regardless, there must be some reason you disagree with the PMF presentation. What is that reason?

I did some research on the footprint awhile ago not referencing FOA or PMF and came to the conclusion it was Rudy's footprint. I am going back to that and comparing, asking new people. I am considering the Kermit argument and FOA's.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I'm claiming I don't fully know yet about the footprint. You suggested looking at the power point presentation. It brought up a new point that I hadn't heard before. The length. I have find out more about that. I have heard other arguments. Don't respect a person's time and space to gather information? Which yes is more than looking at one presentation.

Well share then...what are these 'other arguments'?

And you've looked at more then one presentation, you've seen both of them (at least you have according to your earlier post), so why are you going on about having to look at more then one presentation?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I did some research on the footprint awhile ago not referencing FOA or PMF and came to the conclusion it was Rudy's footprint. I am going back to that and comparing, asking new people. I am considering the Kermit argument and FOA's.

This shows just how willing you are to dodge the question and look for reasons to believe what you want to believe.

Welcome to the forums, the woo side is over there ---->


You, obviously, have chosen to believe the FoA side. Why?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I did some research on the footprint awhile ago not referencing FOA or PMF and came to the conclusion it was Rudy's footprint. I am going back to that and comparing, asking new people. I am considering the Kermit argument and FOA's.

Want to share it with us...a link?

'Asking new people'? Huh? 'What' new people?

 

[Open Inquiry]

Well share then...what are these 'other arguments'?

And you've looked at more then one presentation, you've seen both of them (at least you have according to your earlier post), so why are you going on about having to look at more then one presentation?

I was responding to your claim that looking at Kermit's was enough.

For one thing, the heel goes way off the edge.

 

[Open Inquiry]

This shows just how willing you are to dodge the question and look for reasons to believe what you want to believe.

Welcome to the forums, the woo side is over there ---->


You, obviously, have chosen to believe the FoA side. Why?

It shows the opposite. It shows I am not cemented into my position but am willing to investigate further.

I'm sorry but I don't dodge things. I wasn't thinking of the debate and research I had done previously per se. I was considering your point of view (as rec'd in the power point presentation) and the FOA one afresh.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Want to share it with us...a link?

'Asking new people'? Huh? 'What' new people?

Well now I've heard your side, for one. I've wanted to talk to people from PMF for a while.

And I'll see what people think by getting more opinions, asking around, thinking it through, about the problem of images on screens and how that affects matching prints to photographs.

 

[Kestrel]

They didn't show Raffaele any video or images when they questioned him, or threaten Raffaele with jail unless he dropped his alibi for Amanda,. If you feel you are able to provide actual evidence they did so, then please provide it and give us the link to where Raffaele has ever said this instead of giving us your unsupported assertions.

We know the police were telling Amanda and Raffaele that they had clear video evidence proving Amanda was at the cottage because they were also telling the press the same thing.

The actual video is the one we now assume is Meredith coming back to the cottage.

BTW - I never claimed they showed the video to either suspect during interrogation. If they had, the suspects would have realized that the police were lying.

 

[Open Inquiry]

For instance, did Frank Sfarzo doctor photographs, in your opinion?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I was responding to your claim that looking at Kermit's was enough.

For one thing, the heel goes way off the edge.

But you've seen both, the FOA presentation and the PMF one.

The heal going off the edge is taken into account in the PowerPoint.

But if it really bothers you, the print has an identical twin in the corridor revealed under luminol and that one has the heal in place. Download and view:

THE LONELY BARREN TREE

And

RAFFAELE'S BARREN TREE TALE

 

[Fulcanelli]

For instance, did Frank Sfarzo doctor photographs, in your opinion?

I don't have an opinion on the matter. He hasn't as far as I'm aware of.

 

[Open Inquiry]

But you've seen both, the FOA presentation and the PMF one.

The heal going off the edge is taken into account in the PowerPoint.

But if it really bothers you, the print has an identical twin in the corridor revealed under luminol and that one has the heal in place. Download and view:

THE LONELY BARREN TREE

And

RAFFAELE'S BARREN TREE TALE

Just in re the first part... I don't think PMF and FOA are a complete coverage of the bath mat print.

Thanks for the other site recommendations. I will check them out.

 

[Open Inquiry]

I don't have an opinion on the matter. He hasn't as far as I'm aware of.

I want to look more closely at what Kermit was trying to say.

EDIT: Apologies for edit. That (above) is the main point.

 

[Fulcanelli]

We know the police were telling Amanda and Raffaele that they had clear video evidence proving Amanda was at the cottage because they were also telling the press the same thing.

The actual video is the one we now assume is Meredith coming back to the cottage.

BTW - I never claimed they showed the video to either suspect during interrogation. If they had, the suspects would have realized that the police were lying.

Really? They were telling the press this on or before the 5th were they? Link?

Got a link to anywhere, either in Amanda's/Raffaele's diary/letters/bugged conversations with family/spontaneous statements/testimony on the stand of Amanda or Raffaele ever stating that during their questioning they were ever told by the police that the ILE had film of Amanda going to the cottage?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Just in re the first part... I don't think PMF and FOA are a complete coverage of the bath mat print.

Thanks for the other site recommendations. I will check them out.

They aren't sites, they're PowerPoints. You also need this one:

Barefoot Footprints Hallway