I don’t know why, but this discussion brings me great enjoyment.
I assume you mean 5’, not 4’.
You are so wedded to your wrongness that to admit defeat would probably cause a mental breakdown. Make the boy a long-legged- type, and make the rapist a short-legged type, and you easily get a slight knee bend. And it’s eminently reasonable that what you call a “squat”, someone else might just call a “stance”, even if the knee bend is a little past “slight”.
All the more comical considering there is actual video evidence widely available for free on the internet of such sex happening. It’s very hard to believe that you don’t realize this- anyone can find such evidence with a few minutes of googling. You’re sticking to your ridiculous idea out of sheer stubbornness. Or perhaps you don’t like looking at naughty videos… you just like discussing the anatomical possibilities of anally raping little kids.
It’s hilarious and sad that you are so sure- you actually think you know what did or didn’t happen in that shower. You’re sure.
That’s the best part. Your certainty. It continues to amuse me, after all this time.
I think we can soon let Sandusky go free, and thus relieve his suffering. All we need to do is feed him a few dozen loaves of moldy bread and half a hundredweight of rotten bologna. Then we can be sure he’ll never rape a child again. And we can do the same for all other serial child molesters, saving society ever so much expense, to say nothing of the suffering. We will call it The Starkers - Arpaio Cure!
And your first 8 months of defense allowed squatting but said it was physically impossible for a 6’3" person to squat to that level.
The stress on the back and the legs would be just too much.
Once I proved you wrong by squatting to that level easily you changed your story and started talking about whether there was evidence that the knees were bent.
You proved no such thing and I said no such thing. If you can prove I said it’s impossible for a 6’3" person to squat to that level, I’ll leave this thread and never return. And I’ll suggest to you that if you can’t prove I said such a thing, that you leave the thread and never return, for you have a history of lying that I’m tired of having to contend with/ignore.
Be that as it may however, squatting necessitates movement of the rear…uh, rearward…thus making copulatory movement even more difficult/unlikely/impossible to achieve with someone standing in front of but not straddled by you. This is how I knew you were lying. Plus McQueary makes no mention of having seen squatting, the boy being centered between Sandusky’s legs, or of copulatory movement.
Additionally, Sandusky’s age and likely state of physical conditioning makes copulation in such a difficult-to-maintain position highly unlikely even if he were able to get into that position in the first place.
In other words, I haven’t abandoned my position on the difficulty Sandusky would have encountered in attempting copulation in that position; it’s just that my opponents have chosen to focus attention on making false claims as to degree of knee flexion required and so on.
It is encouraging though that thanks to me we have been able, and continue to be able, to discuss the mechanics of the alleged crime in such a way that allows for a reasoned interpretation of the likelihood as to whether or not what McQueary claims to have seen was actually anal rape…provided he did indeed see what he claims, which I’ve begun to have doubts about and is countered by the claims of the self-identified victim who himself says he wasn’t raped that night (although he says other abuses occurred on other occasions).
So, one hates to drag out the word ‘Winning’ once again, but…
If you can show that he’s 6’3" and the same age and condition that Jerry Sandusky was at the time, and that said fuckage is occurring 24" to 30" off the ground, and that the posture of said fuckor might reasonably be described by the impartial viewer as “standing,” then I will concede that it might have been possible for Jerry Sandusky to have been engaging in anal rape the night Mike McQueary claims to have witnessed him doing so.
However, I think other elements of McQueary’s description (“rhythmic” sounds which consist of only “two or maybe three” sounds; a lack of discomfort, stress or embarassment in the boy’s expression; his description, as I allude to just above, of Sandusky “standing” behind the boy, etc., plus like I also said in the post that spurred you to call me a moron, the person claiming to be the boy in question and suing the school accordingly said himself that he wasn’t raped that night.
So at the very best…the very best!..you might win a concession that Sandusky might have committed an act that no other evidence supports and which the alleged victim himself denies.
Not much of a victory if you ask me. But go ahead, post away! I’m sure iiandyiiii will delighted to watch whatever you come up with.
Ha! He’s already backtracking. Which is not surprising, considering that probably every male over 13 years old (except, perhaps, for SA) is either a tall man who has had sex with a short person in such a position, or has seen such an event on the internet. Soon it won’t be about the squatting- he’ll be saying it was the “rhythmic sounds” or whatever that proves it wasn’t rape. So much fun watching him spend so much effort on defending statements so obviously ridiculous.
A quote from the article ( emphasis mine )
“And while he’s a convicted sex offender in Pennsylvania, he would like to be treated like every other convicted sex offender.”
Sandusky believes he would be safe in the prison’s general population, Rominger said.
“He said to me he can understand where some of the concern comes from, but he’s not happy being stuck in a cell 23 hours a day,” Rominger said."
I say…BRING IT ON. If Jerry gets his way he’ll have plenty of opportunity to study the physics of anal rape.
Sure, keep telling yourself that- it must be very important to you Most of the rest of us are either tall dudes who’ve had sex with short partners before (or the short partners!), or have seen it on the internet.
You’ve only been “winning” in your own mind. Of course you won’t ‘backtrack’, since it would result in you actually recognizing your own stupidity, which ain’t going to happen. You are the most willfully ignorant idiot I have ever seen. Seriously, dude, You are the prize. No one has ever come up to the level of your willful ignorance.
