And I note that Starving Artist continues to ignore the actual experience of Mr Dibble (if I’m remembering the correct poster) who had taken part in a very similar “experiment” as a young boy and could testify that it was all too possible.
Oh, no, he basically said (Post 4341) that Mr. Dibble was misremembering. This from the guy for whom personal experience trumps all data.
Meanwhile, I wonder where NoLittlePlans has gotten to. Must still be reading through the rest of the thread, eh?
He said he had no appetite for discussing a real case and preferred his cosy thought experiment (at least, I hope it’s a thought experiment) - of course, that was after he insulted me by creating a false equivalence between what was, I assure you, a very detailed, clear memory on my part vs. his own half-asleep half-glimpse of a burglar in the dark. That and anyway, there were “significant material differences” :rolleyes:
Wow is this weak. Just incredibly, massively weak. “Standing” in the common parlance means on two feet- not sitting, not squatting. Yes, it’s very possible to “stand” and do the paper towel test. You are very very wrong. It would probably be easier just to go ahead and admit it.
Or the fact that I have investigated many sex assaults and I see absolutely nothing impossible about it. He is getting more and more deluded and unhinged about it and its more than a little disturbing.
Bryan Ekers - The phrase “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” was not of my creation. It was thrown at me as being McQueary’s description to Joe Paterno of what he saw. My question in regard to it was that if he couldn’t identify whether it was fondling or not, or what of a sexual nature is was exactly, then there was room for error as to whether it was indeed sexual or not. In other words, it could have been a hug like the preceeding one two years earlier.
I don’t believe he did anything more than squat. It certainly would not be easy to squat down with your pelvis two feet of the ground and thrust away repeatedly at a paper towel tube held aloft an appropriate distance to the fore.
Yes, so fucked up as to have been completely vindicated by subsequent events.
Which would explain why I said “I take this to mean…”
And I note that once again you don’t know what you’re talking about, as I have indeed addressed it further and which you have subsequently been advised by other posters. One shouldn’t make declarative statements based on assumption…but then again that has been hallmark of my opponents since the very beginning of the thread.
I’m somewhat unsure why you chose to characterize my declining to discuss your case in such an inaccurate manner, but any attempt at marginalization will suffice I suppose. Further, any insult you perceived is of your own creation - I was merely relating how eyewitness accounts can vary from reality, a phenomenon any police officer - even Loach, perhaps, if you were to ask him outside my presence 
- would readily verify.
And of course there were material differences! Was your assailant a 6’3", 60-something year old man standing fully upright behind you? I know for a fact from your previous description of the assault that this was not so.
I agree. Your post is very weak indeed. I’m surprised you posted it.
As you yourself just admitted, standing means “on two feet - not sitting, not squatting.”
But the paper towel test requires that the pelvis be two feet off the ground, which cannot be done - especially if you’re 6’3" tall - while standing “on two feet - not sitting, not squatting.”
Capish?
Just so we’re clear here, you are saying that your sex assault investigations have informed you that a man 6’3" in height can simply stand upright with his legs fully extended while simultaneously performing anal rape on a boy of ten, in which his pelvis would have to be some two feet off the ground?
Sorry, but this does not compute!
I have little doubt that you are disturbed, but perhaps you’d be so kind as to point out just what it is that I’m supposed to be so deluded and unhinged about? Is it my aversion to hysteria? To a lynch mob mentality? To my belief in due process no matter the crime or who may have committed it? Is it the fact that in your mind a person who properly loves children and hates child molesters would eagerly latch onto the proposition that rape occurred whether it actually did or not? You know, just what is it, exactly? Because as events have transpired I know damn well it isn’t because I was wrong about Joe Paterno or the shower room incident.
You people in your continued denial and your continued attempts to prove me wrong about something are just too funny. Whereas the mob mentality on display earlier in the thread was fascinating in a troubling way, the desperate denial and continued efforts to deflect away from the complete lack of evidence of Joe Paterno’s culpability in any kind of conspiracy to allow child rape to protect his football program, and the jury’s acquittal on the shower room rape allegation, is fascinating in an amusing way. You are helpless, cowardly, dishonest dolts, and your lamentations are music to my ears.
Nope, you’re incredibly, massively wrong. Squatting doesn’t mean bending the knees- it means your butt is inches away from the ground. You can stand even with your knees bent to some degree. So yes, the paper towel test can be done while “standing” on two feet- even for a tall man. Not squatting. You are wrong, and obviously invested enough in your wrongness that your identity could not take the hit were you to admit to yourself that you might be wrong.
Which still doesn’t answer the question.
It’s exactly what you said in your post - you doubted it was the same in the specifics, and you didn’t want to discuss a real case but preferred your thought experiment. That’s what you said. prove me wrong.
No. You may not have intended to be insulting, but you were insulting, and that’s enough.
By making a stupidly dissimilar comparison. But it was irrelevant, anyway, since like you said, you weren’t going to discuss the specifics of my experience. Except to dismiss my experience as my misremembering, of course. But that’s not discussing the specifics, no sir.
This would be relevant if my experience was hung up on idiotic minutiae, but it’s not. Simply put: older, taller men can fuck prepubescent boys of no great height in the arse in a standing position without any difficulty. And that’s without the benefit of a wall to prop against.
Irrelevant. The variance in heights of 10-year-olds, the variance in fitness of 60-year-old men, the ridiculousness of your self-inserted “fully upright” addendum to the known facts, all render my own experience both pertinent and, dare I say it, expose the house of straw you’ve had to build to defend your hero.
See what I mean, folks? Reason has left the building!
It probably also goes to the theory (spewed out and then mercifully dropped by SA, but not forgotten) that since Paterno grew up in ye olden times when society was perfect and the hippies and sodomites hadn’t yet invaded the land, Paterno couldn’t have truly understood what was going on in the shower. They didn’t have kiddie-raping in Paterno’s day so it was just incomprehensible to him that that’s what was occurring.
Good luck in asking for support from “folks” around here. If “reason has left the building”, it left when you claimed that a tall man can’t physically rape a boy while “standing”. And you still, apparently, believe it.
Wow.
I just did exactly that, again it was easy.
I also just tried it with feet at normal standing width, again very easy, no problem at all.
Well, I suppose if one wants to presume words have a completely different meaning for the sake of this discussion than they usually have, we might assume that by “standing,” McQueary really meant that Sandusky was squatting with his feet and legs spread wide and his pelvis two feet off the ground. You may want to make that leap, but as for me I’ll demur.
Okey-doke. I said absolutely nothing about preferring not to talk about a “real” case, and preferring instead my “cosy” thought experiment in its place. This was an intentionally dishonest characterization whose intent was to trivialize what I’d said.
I suppose that depends on who gets the say, eh? Given that no insult was intended, I’m not all that inclined to take the blame if you decide to take it that way. As I said, mistaken eyewitness testimony is a well-known and well-accepted fact of life. You have no logical grounds to infer an insult from my pointing that out, unless you want to take the position that you never make a mistake and everyone should know it to begin with.
I submit that your calling it a comparison at all is stupid. I did not compare the crimes, I merely used the break-in to illustrate the fact that eyewitness descriptions can err considerably from reality.
Yet another error in thinking on your part. I did not dismiss your experience as misremembering; I did suggest that it was a possiblity.
Oh, please.
I would be easier to believe this if you could somehow explain how a 6’3" man’s pelvis could be approximately 34 inches off the ground and 24 inches off the ground simultaneously, concomitant of course with the considerable difference such a shift would make in his ability to balance and the muscular activity required to keep himself upright while also engaging in the act.
Straw man. The relevency lies in the fact that these differences are material, which is what I said and what you just quoted was intended to answer. The rest is simply wrong.
Paterno himself alluded to this very thing as he was close to death and struggling to speak when he rasped out, "I never heard of rape…and a man…"
What he clearly meant was that he never heard of a man raping a boy in the behind, and I’d happily wager that he never had.
How do you know which parts of McQueary’s eyewitness description can be relied on and which parts can’t be relied on?
You use some of it to try to prove a point while at the same time saying that it’s not reliable.
Remember, “folks”, when it comes to a point Starving Artist, who has no medical or forensic credentials whatever, is defending, an anecdote involving a hypothetical test that he never even tried is somehow a more believable interpretation of events than the statements of a former police investigator and a person who was raped as a child himself.
If that’s not good enough, just keep repeating “significant material differences” to yourselves.
Oh, I suspect there are plenty of people reading this thread who, while they aren’t posting, haven’t been overcome by the crazies. It was to them my remark was intended.
And yes, I do. Or at the very least I don’t think a man of Sandusky’s age and height could.
And don’t forget - McQueary testified to the grand jury that Sandusky and the boy turned to look at him, yet he made no mention of any sort of discomfort or stress in the boy’s expression. This is yet another reason I found the rape scenario unlikely. In fairness though, his testimony changed at trial and he testified they never saw him. So this may or may not be a cogent factor. IIRC, another witness who was a friend of McQueary’s testified at the trial that McQueary visited him that night and was far less specific in his account of what he saw than he was in his later testimony. It seems that McQueary had perhaps put a bit of a shine on his testimony for the grand jury while presenting his case less descriptively to Paterno and the friend who tesitified, then backed off at least somewhat during the actual trial. So who knows what he actually saw vs. what he wants people to infer from his obvious desire that they believe Sandusky was raping the kid without his having to outright lie and say he saw full-blown intercourse.
SA, I’ve got two recent posts you haven’t responded to, are you going to?
Wait a minute…are you saying that when McQueary said “standing” he could be mistaken?
Take a look at the post just above where I question some of McQueary’s story to a friend the night of the incident vs. his grand jury testimony vs. his trial testimony.
Still, McQueary’s version of events is the only thing this entire thread is based on. I’d be perfectly happy to discount it entirely, but then the thread would evaporate too. 