Average height for an 8 year old boy = 45 inches
Average height for a 10 year old boy = 51 inches
51-45 = 6 inches > 3 inches.
CITE.
Immaterial differences.
ETA: Other cite: 8 year old -> 50 inches, 10 year old 55 inches (seems more consistent with other websites)
Well, generally, anecdotal evidence is not evidence… but if someone says such-and-such is impossible, and another person says they’ve done it, you’re left with two possibilities: either that person is a liar, or you are mistaken.
Oh, now you’re squeamish.
Another material difference: Mr. Dibble said he was 8, whereas Sandusky’s victim was 10.
And why are we talking about heights? What is the difference in where the penis is? Actually, while we’re at it, I think I enitrely missed the post where you showed your calculated values for crotch heights. Could you share your work with the rest of the class, please? I’d really like to know how you tracked down the height – and especially the crotch height! – of a victim whose identity isn’t known yet! And did you measure Sandusky’s crotch height from TV and extrapolation or what? Did you call his tailor? His wife? I mean, I know you didn’t simply estimate them. We’re talking facts here – facts so precise that three inches in height is “not insignificant.” I know you couldn’t simply have estimated, because then you might be off by as much as three inches as well, and then wouldn’t your whole airtight case just implode?
I suppose you’ll share your calculations with us right after you get around to posting quotes from Guin and AustinJane showing their support for a “lock them up even if they might be innocent” policy. Or all these Nazi comments Huerta supposedly made.
Not much rhetorical weight is needed in order to rebut baseless speculation, which was all you offered in support of your bizarre conclusion that the anal rape situation was somehow “highly unlikely”.
Yes, but look at the “evidence” it’s competing with:
“Ok, line up 100 boys…”
Your posts involve speculation, not evidence.
You keep referring to Sandusky as a “tall” man or a “six-foot-high” man, when in point of fact he’s 6’3". And I still contend that a man of 6’3" in height would have a very difficult time squatting low enough to engage in copulatory thrusting motions with his pelvis two feet above the ground. And I think such a scenario is made even more unlikely by the fact that Sandusky was almost 60 years old at the time and likely in nowhere near the kind of condition a person would have to be in to carry out intercourse in that position. And then when you add in the fact the floor was wet and slippery, the locker room unlocked and apparently subject at any time to someone wondering in to take a shower or access their locker, it makes such an act seem even more unlikely. Why would Sandusky choose to try to carry out anal rape in such a precarious and uncomfortable position in such an unlikely, unsuitable and publicly accessible place?
Then when you consider that McQueary made no mention whatsoever to Curley or Schultz or the Grand Jury of having seen squatting or thrusting motions from Sandusky or any sign of emotional or physical distress from the child, and add to that Sandusky’s history three years earlier of having hugged a child in the shower, I think it’s unlikely bordering on impossible that anal rape is what McQueary saw. And then of course we also have the fact that no one has come forth to claim to claim they’ve been able to duplicate the physical acrobatics required of Sandusky under such a scenario, which I would think they’d be happy to do given the unpopularity of my analysis of the situation. So all in all I think all in all your rather breezy dismissal of my argument is lacking in both accuracy and common sense.
I can’t believe even this dolt didn’t see that coming. But I have to add that Mr Dibbs noted that he was “small” for an eight year old. Knock another inch or two off the eight year old average, puts him right about in the bottom quartile, a rough approximation of “small.”
Are you ignorant or just extremely stupid?
I am 6’3". I literally just got out a measuring tape. It’s about three feet up to my pelvis. It’s more than easy enough to lower down another foot and have a field day.
You must be the kind of guy who’s never been able to figure out how to hook up with a woman much shorter than you, I imagine. Experience helps, son.
Not on my watch fucking moron.
There is no evidence that anyone testified to or saw a lack of emotional or physical distress. McQueary did not testify one way or another to the expression on the child’s face and that’s because there is no relevance to discussing the child’s facial appearance or divining his emotional state when McQueary clearly, consistently, and only reported seeing “intercourse.” The color of the shower brush also wasn’t part of McQueary’s testimony. That does not mean that you have proof that it was purple.
And for the umpteenth time retard – “anal rape” (which Sandusky, a practiced analrapist, was almost certainly engaged in, there is no evidence that when McQueary saw a naked man having “intercourse” from behind with a naked boy, it could have been anything other than anal rape) is not, as it turns out, what establishes Sandusky’s and Paterno’s moral culpability. “Indecent exposure” and “sexual contact with a child” are the sole grounds for their culpability. That the “sexual contact” almost certainly consisted of “rape” matters not one whit to the legal and moral calculus.
You’re so stupid. So so so stupid. You’re attempting or pretending to “prove” what isn’t true (Sandusky didn’t rape Victim no. 2) and even if it were somehow fantastically shown to be barely true, which it is not, it would not have any relevance or weight in exculpating Sandusky of criminal and Paterno of moral failure.
My necessarily casual observations have led me to believe that most people’s anuses are situated at approximately 45% of their total height. This equates to around 24" to 25" for someone 5’1" tall. So 6’3" Jerry Sandusky would still have been having to carry on thrusting activity two feet off the ground, which I consider to be nigh on impossible. Plus we don’t know other particulars such as their relative positions, how the assailant was supporting his weight (for example, leaning against something), whether he was actually six feet tall, etc. In short I really don’t think there’s anything conclusive to be gained from comparing what happened to Mr. Dibble with the physics involved had Sandusky actually been raping the boy in the shower that night.
You retard. Describe in detail the nature and extent of your training in “physics.”
A simple question: Do you seriously expect that Sandusky, or his lawyer, or an expert hired on his behalf will adduce your stupid “physics”-based theory at trial as an affirmative defense? Can you really believe they’d be that stupid?
If not (and I’ll bet a significant amount of money Sandusky will not dare introduce such a laughable bit of “physics”), why are you so assiduously (oh, wait, look at the first three letters of that word) championing a theory that is more even more aggressively batshit stupid and evasive than a serial pedophile would have the gall to try and invoke?
He’s trolling. Or just severely retarded.
It’s more than possible for a 6’3" man to lower his pelvis another foot. To imply otherwise is just stupid. Ignore him.
Are you 60 years old? Are you in good shape? Have you been “having a field day” on a wet and slippery floor with your ass two feet off the ground. There’s considerably more involved than simply crouching, you know.
Still, you imply that you’ve successfully carried out an act of intercourse crouching down with your pelvis two feet off the ground. Is that correct? And if so, why? Back and leg exercise? I can think of fewer more unpleasant, awkward and uncomfortable ways to try to have sex. YMMV, but I doubt Sandusky’s does.
Not very bright, are we?
Certainly it does. The law provides considerably more serious consequences for rape than it does for inappropriate touching. The effect on the victim is considerably different as well.
I’ve explained numerous times about McQueary’s ambiguity and why Paterno likely acted as he did (which was properly, btw) and I’m not going to go through it again now.
Okay, mods? At what point does this relentless horseshit become trolling? 100 pages? 200? Could we please get a ruling on this? Many thanks.
Your Honor, the witness is being unresponsive.
More like I’m not going to bother with such obvious rubbish, lol. You’re going to have to do better than that.
Where did you get 5’1" from?
It might be noted that I’m not the one who keeps the thread rolling. Almost all my posts are in response to something said to or about me. I submit it is posters like you, who can’t seem to keep themselves out of a thread they claim to find abhorent while simultaneously hurling insults, arguments and accusations my way who are keeping alive. I’ve even gone so far on several occasions to stay away from the thread for two or three days, and I’ve offered to let the thread drop if everyone else would. I had no takers.