I’m pretty sure I’ve posted the second of these - that McQueary was initially unsure of what he saw, and this accounts for his actions at the time.
[I don’t think it’s strictly accurate to say I “supported” SA in this, because I think I posted this before he did, and because I was speculating. In any event, I think it’s probably true.]
On another note, I don’t think collecting evidence of who supports which position is meaningful. In addition to the position of ostensibly “defending child molestors :eek:” being an inherently unpopular one, the abuse that SA and others have come in for in this thread is itself a deterrent to possible supporters.
You’ve apparently misunderstood the SA post that you quote.
Best as I can tell, his claim (FWIW) is that this thread is dominated by a “relatively small coterie of hysterical lunatics” which skewers the results, but that when the same issues are raised in other threads (“before the board in general”) the results are different (“from those not already going ballistic in this thread”).
FTR I don’t think there is much in that claim either, but he does not appear to be claiming - as you present it - that “his supporters in this thread outnumber his detractors”. Therefore your claim that he said this “rather obscene lie” is incorrect (& your previous post on the subject appears to be misdirected).
[Note that the word “drug” in SA’s post appears to mean “dragged”.]
McQueary’s sworn testimony has been very consistent and far from unclear. It is the basis for the GJ report saying that he saw a boy “subjected to anal intercourse” and his later sworn testimony that he saw something “sexual, way over the line, some form of intercourse.”
The GJ’s paraphrasing of Paterno’s ten-years-after-the-fact paraphrasing of McQueary having reported “fondling or sexual contact” is the ONLY basis (and not a good one) for saying McQueary was unsure of what he saw. McQueary was SIX FEET AWAY. And of course Paterno had a motive to soft-sell what McQueary told him, given that the one of the huge motivations for the investigation was to figure out if Paterno acted sufficiently on what he was told.
Do you have a basis, other than the GJ’s paraphrase of Paterno’s paraphrase, ten years after the fact, of what McQueary told him, for saying McQ. was “initially unsure” of what he saw?
I do not think you do. And I default to McQueary’s consistent and uncontradicted eyewitness testimony of “some form of intercourse.”
Briefly, McQueary’s actions at the time were somewhat inconsistent with those of a man who just saw another man raping a kid; several people (Paterno, Dranov, Curley & Schultz) say McQueary gave ambiguous and/or conflicting reports on what he saw; McQueary himself was apparently somewhat traumatized at the sight; IIRC he got a brief look and the water was running.
[FWIW, I also think all this argues against SA’s attempts to argue the technical aspects of whether rape was possible, since I don’t know that McQueary was too focused on the finer details, and you can’t make too much out of what he said or didn’t say in this regard.]
None of this is relevant at this point - this was hashed out 10s of pages ago. My point here is that - agree or disagree - this has been my position, and your claim now that not a single poster agreed with SA about it is incorrect.
Drug is indeed (some places) the past tense of drag.
And his claim as to people in other threads bolstering his position is as you characterize it. Except it’s horseshit, as when I posted an IMHO thread asking what a reasonable person would think “fondling” meant as to a naked man-boy shower situation, and he lost 190+ to 2, with one person at best strongly supporting his notional position that it had a completely and clearly non-sexual affectionate connotation. He’s not posted any examples of someone supporting him in another thread (which would be misleading anyhow given that they’d not have seen his pedo-bear-approved ravings here or on the PennLive forum, but even so, no one’s jumped to his defense). He may have gone away for good, fingers crossed, as he hasn’t posted here in two days. Perhaps my musings as to the best endgame for his tortured life came to pass? More likely, he’s thinking how to post without dealing with my call-out on the “three foot tall boy” and “McQueary made it all up to get Sandusky’s job (which Sandusky no longer held.”
You can certainly quibble about each piece of evidence. The overall cumulative weight of the evidence to this point suggests to me that it’s more likely than not that McQueary was initially unsure of what he saw. I could be wrong about this, but that’s my opinion. I argued this at greater length earlier in the thread and don’t want to rehash it all again. As always, YMMV.
MMDV. He was six feet away. I did review your old posts, don’t agree, but we can be gentlemen about it. At least you’re not talking about three foot tall boys . . . .
The poster I linked to who was posting arguments identical to yours on the Penn Live board. I can re-post the link if you’d like. I’m assuming (I know) it was you because that special brand of lunacy and obsession with the biomechanics of tall man-boy rape can’t exist in two brains in the world, but here is your chance finally to deny it (and face ridicule, but you’re free to do that).
This is (par for the course) insane. You methodically and constantly, despite being called on it, introduce words and facts that are nowhere in the sworn testimony (“naked hugs,” “no apparent look of distress on his face”), and methodically and constantly, despite being called on it, try to nullify words that are in evidence. McQueary himself called it rhythmic. You don’t get to testify that it wasn’t really rhythmic. (He also separately said that whatever he heard “sounded like sex,” and you don’t get to testify no it didn’t, it wasn’t really rhythmic so it couldn’t have sounded like sex.).
And yes fuckwit, two or three is all it takes to form a rhythm, as any three foot tall boy who’s ever played rock scissors paper knows quite well.
I think we more or less simulposted but I’m glad to see great minds think alike at the continued jaw-dropping “logic” he uses to try to erase and discredit the McQueary testimony, getting rid of which obsesses him like the One True Ring. “McQueary said he heard ‘rhythmic’ slapping sounds.” “No he didn’t, he admitted it was only two or three, that’s not rhythmic, therefore Sandusky probably didn’t do anything at all.”
Point 1. McQueary testified that he heard “two or maybe three” slapping sounds. He indeed characterized them as “rythmic”, but that doesn’t mean they were in point of fact. After all, it’s pretty clear he was mistaken about what he saw as well as what he may have heard. How many times in your life have you heard two (or maybe three) sounds referred to as a “rythm”? None, I’ll wager, as would be the case with most anyone else.
Earlier in this very thread we had another poster acknowledging that he had wondered how Sandusky could have been raping the boy given his height relative to the boy’s. Fact is, anyone looking at the issue calmly and objectively and applying common sense would question how a 6’3" man could be having anal sex with a 10-year-old boy in the position McQueary described, and contrast to your limited imaginings I would bet millions of people have wondered the same thing. After all, the height difference does present a rather glaring discrepancy.
You’ve never known me to refer to Sandusky as “6’” tall, nor to the boy as “30” tall. In fact I’ve quite clearly stated the difficulty 6’3" Sandusky would have encountered in trying to achieve thrusting motions with his pelvis a mere two feet off the ground. So there are a couple of implications inherent in these two facts which I’m curious to see if you, with your hysterical, unreasoning and borderline moronic mind, are able to grasp.
Ah, hell, I’ll spot you the first one - no, I do not imagine that most 10-year-old boys are 6" from crotch to crown.
Now think real hard and see if you can spot the other one. It will be interesting to see if you’re up to it.
You have certification in the field of buggery? Some reason we should respect your all encompassing knowledge of the cornhole arts? So, how did you like Yale?
Here’s one of the six hundred really stupid annoying things about your posts: in addition to being littered with lies, speculation, and fabrication, the vast majority of them are completely fucking irrelevant to the topic of the thread or anything germane to proving a relevant fact.
Whether the slapping sounds McQueary heard (which he, who was a percipient witness, which you were not, nor a witness of any kind at all, called “rhythmic” and “sounded like sex”) were in fact “rhythmic” on your made-up diktat of what constitutes “rhythmic” – what in the fucking Hell do you think this has to do with whether Sandusky molested Victim No. 2? McQueary separately said he saw “some form of intercourse” from six feet away and the GJ summarizes his earlier testimony as “boy subjected to anal intercourse by Sandusky.” That is what Sandusky is rightfully being prosecuted for, and Paterno rightfully condemned for not acting on. For fuck’s sake even a moron like you should be able to figure out that no one is on literal or moral trial because he did, or did not, subject McQueary to sounds that were, or were not, “rhythmic” under your contrived new definition of a word chosen by an eyewitness. I mean, what the fuck does that have ANYTHING TO DO with (other than to completely confirm) the real issue, that Sandusky was molesting the boy?
I’m convinced you know its irrelevant. You can’t win, you’ve been humiliated and exposed as a liar again and again, so you start angels on the head of a pin “arguments” about tangents and hypotheticals, and people get suckered into participating in the side show and you hope you can ultimately wave away the fact that McQueary has never been directly quoted/testified as having anything other than THAT HE SAW SANDUSKY HAVING INTERCOURSE WITH A BOY.
Huerta, put yourself in McQueary’s position. If you walked in on a man and a boy taking a shower together alone in a public locker room at night, after hearing a few sounds that sounded like two people having sex, and stood six feet away from them, which explanation seems more likely?
The man was raping the boy.
The old man was giving showering lessons to the boy, and during a time-honored game of “keep-away with the soap” the boy slipped. Reacting suddenly to this motion, the man bends down toward the ground, grabs the boy around the waist and pulls him toward his own pelvis region in order to keep the boy from hurting himself.
Look deep within your heart, please, and decide which one is more probable. I think you too will agree that nothing was amiss here. McQueary overreacted and saw what he wanted to see!
