[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot
Date: 6/14/03
Time: 4:47:01 PM
Remote User:
Jasper wrote:
"John,
"You know nothing about scale and proportion. You know nothing about building models to precise engineering specifications. You don’t now what those precise tolerances and angles mean or what they tell you about the LIMITED POSSIBILITIES for the resulting design (the way the part HAS TO LOOK to function). The same principles apply to pulling the Bronco out of the driveway and parking it in the precise spot where it was parked. "Within a foot" won't get it. Coming from anywhere other than the driveway, the driver would have to have decades of professional experience to make a calculation precise enough (angle, distance from curb and distance from driveway) to hit all three of the right marks. You can reject this as fraud (ignore the photos and my diagrams). But if you don’t give “authoritative” reasons for doing it, why should anyone believe you?"
You are ignoring my central points:(1) no photographs were made of where the Bronco was when OJ originally pulled outof the Rockingham gate. You therefore have no starting point for your conclusion that the Bronco was not moved., and (2)The original data -- research material -- you had and have access to is simply not detailed enough for you to come to the conclusions you claim. You have only reproductions of repoductions of photos of the BRonco where it was found the next morning. You also have no idea of the actual turning radius of the Bronco in question, and such things as wear and tear on the steering system -- which you can not know anything about -- would have to be a factor in your calculations.
"You know nothing about the 1994 Ford Bronco’s critical dimensions, overall length, overhang, wheelbase, turning radius, H-point (you don’t even know what an H-point is) or anything that a Master Modeler at Ford Motor Company would know to make the calculation that I made in 1997...."
Anmd while you could have had the shop manual specification of a 1994 Bronco fresh off the assembly line, you can not know the actual dimensions of the Bronco in question after months of driving and wear and tear."
" You’re still using the prosecution diagram of the Rockingham estate..."
Actually, for my own purposes, I have never needed a truly precise diagram of the estate. I certainly have never been bothered enough to figure any dimensions down to the nearest foot.
"..so you don’t even have the basic information you need to make a rational judgment if you did know what you were talking about – which you don’t...."
I think I know more than you credit me for, and that you know less.
"For those of you who don’t know John and me, let me assure you that I am not angry with him. I’m just trying to speak his language (I think he likes it.)….
"Try this experiment. If you don’t have a driveway, find one. Back into it then pull out and park straight in at a slight angle a few inches from the curb (the angle of O.J.’s driveway to the curb made a natural 2-degree angle). Mark your tire locations on the ground with chalk...."
Here's my point: you don't have anything analogous to your chalk marks to denote the exact position OJ left the Bronco when he pulled out of the DRiveway.
" Now drive around the block and see how close you come to those marks. Anything more than a half inch off from side to side and six inches from front to rear is a miss. ..."
I can do it if I can see the chalk marks, if someone is directing me, and if I have all the time I want. Howeveer, what I challenge here is that you think you could ascertain the Bronco's position within six inches using the materials you had available.
"As for this – “total bullshit, second only to your recent statment that there was no evidence for several people having been in OJ's house…” What are you talking about? Please copy and post it so that everyone can see it. "
This referred to an error in confusing the antecedent of "they" in a your post about the gloves. I have already apoligized for this in the Iago board. BTW, I also granted your point that there is, in truth, no positive evidence that the gloves originated in Rockingham.
"I state my expertise to give the source of my relevant conclusions. If you can't respect that or you want me to pretend that I’m too brilliant to require special training, I can't do anything about it. The closest I can come is to make it as simple for you to check as I can. But as soon as I do that and the solution is obvious to you, it becomes irrelevant.
"You give an ounce of peanuts and demand a pound of gold. Your website consists of 49 pages in 12 point type with 1 ½ inch margins. Most of it is groundless speculation...."
I object to that. Oh, yes, it's 'specualtion' because it has to be, exactly as your theory is. But "groundless"? I document everything and make my sources easy to check.
"All of it is superficial (your idea of hard work). When is the last time you looked at it?"
yesterday, when I checked the hit meter. While there are dozens of typograhical errors, and I even once repeated several paragraphs word for word, this is not the type of error that effects my reasoning or conclusions. If I was to started getting, say, 50 hits a day, I wuld go to the trouble of cleaning it up. AS it is, I am just bored with it.
"If you can’t flip thorough Iago and see where the e-mails begin and end, how would it help to put them in the appendix?"
Your readers would then get your rimary messages quickly, and have the option of reading the emails if they chose, instead of, as now, being forced to wade through the chaff of the emails to get to the wheat or your conclusions.
" Finding things easily is what the website is for. Iago was on the web over a year before it was in print.
"The rest of your post? Total bullshit second to none. –Jasper "
There's a saying in the ARmy: "Opinions are like noses; everybody has one." Well, that's not exactly what they say, but I'd ratheer call you a 'nose'.