Yes, because you’re failing to take into account the age and likely state of physical conditioning of Jerry Sandusky at the time, plus the degree of strength, balance and endurance that he would have had to exert in order to successfully carry out copulation in that stance. These are all aspects to the act that I’ve spelled out quite clearly as being contributing factors in the difficulty Sandusky would have faced in attempting intercourse in such a position.
With regard to the issue of “impossibility,” I came up with the paper towel tube test to illustrate for the disbelieving the very difficulty a person would encounter trying to have intercourse in this position, with the tube itself intended to assure that people didn’t do what appear to have done, which was simply to squat down, pump a couple of times, and call it a win. No, the purpose was that it was to be held out from the body as the entry to another person would be positioned and that forward thrusting movements identical to what would be required in an actual act of sex in that position be carried out and maintained for the length of time necessary to complete the act.
After some weeks went by and none of my otherwise eager-to-prove-me-wrong adversaries seemed able to come forth and declare honestly that they’d successfully passed the paper towel tube test, I boastfully proclaimed sex under those conditions had been proven “impossible.”
Now, in light of the fact that you and your comrades have all been proven wrong about Paterno and Curley and Schultz and their motives, and that a jury has agreed with me that McQueary’s account does not support a conviction of rape, you are desperately seeking to eke out some sort of victory over me by trying - usually by verbal sleight-of-hand - to “prove” me wrong as to whether sex in that position is impossible.
Trouble is, my assertion pertained to Jerry Sandusky specifically, and unless you can somehow demonstrate that he could have performed the act under those circumstances and in that state of conditioning, you simply have no way to prove whether it would have been impossible for him to do so or not.
So, frustration is yours once again! You simply can’t prove me wrong on that issue and you never will!
Well it’s hard for me to keep track of all of your backtracking.
You repeatedly said " a 6’3" man " and you encouraged us to try the test ourselves.
If it’s only Jerry Sandusky that would have a problem why did you keep saying “a 6’3” man" as if the height was the problem? And why did you encourage people that aren’t Jerry Sandusky to take the test if your statement really only applies to Jerry Sandusky?
So am I to understand you that your real point is something like:
Jerry Sandusky could not possibly have done that because Jerry Sandusky could not do it. The proof is that Jerry Sandusky couldn’t squat and thrust with a paper towel tube.
Real solid proof there SA.
If I am misrepresenting your position, please clearly post the exact factors regarding who can and can not squat and thrust into the paper towel tube.
Sorry, I apparently overestimated your ability to carry thought from one post to another. Jerry Sandusky was the 6’3" man who was the subject of the original description as to how difficult intercourse would be in that position, and I didn’t feel it necessary to keep repeating his name over and over and over every time you wanted to play word games or dumbshit iiandyiiii wanted to brag about having seen videos of “tall” men banging “short” people, thus allegedly proving me wrong. Specificity as to height was mentioned only to highlight his duplicity, with the idea in mind that those with brains would realize the reference was to Jerry Sandusky.
But the point remains I never said “squatting and thrusting” was physically impossible, and you perfectly well know it. You also know perfectly well I’m not the one “backtracking” here.
Well that’s fine. I’m not discussing the merits of his “scientific research method”. I’m just discussing whether in fact you found an instance of him claiming what he denied having claimed.
In any event, despite the claim in post #5766 being about squatting alone, he does now appear to deny that he ever said it was impossible to squat and thrust either. So I’m going to let this drop.
Oreally? Let’s look at some, you know facts and your statements
From the Wiki entry on Jerry Sandusky
Did you get that? Most of the kids were molested AFTER the investigation that JP was an integral part of occurred. Big Joe isn’t looking so good now is he?
Also about the rape that never occurred
Since all of the victims of crimes were children and children are unable to give consent to sex, that make each of the eight counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse rape. Deviate would be anal, I assume and since the kids are underage, statutory rape, but rape none the less.
So your original point was that it was “nigh on impossible” for only Jerry Sandusky to do it.
Your point did not include any other people, right?
When you posted this:
“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"
I assumed you meant it was “nigh on impossible”.
Did you not really mean it was “nigh on impossible” when you said it was “nigh on impossible”?
I don’t know if it’s been asked or not–and I’m not wading through 118 pages to find out either–but here’s a question that occurs to me: given the complete management cockup, indicating that it’s institutional behavior to screw up the management that bad, why hasn’t the school been closed down?
The Freeh report is largely supposition and guesswork. Lots of conclusions are drawn but little direct evidence is cited. And some is outright fiction. Note the NY Times allegation that "the university’s handling of the 2001 report of Sandusky raping a young boy is “one of the most damning episodes laid out by Mr. Freeh’s investigation…”.
Trouble is, Paterno was not told it was rape; McQueary testified he did not see thrusting movement or penetration, illustrating what I recognized from the very beginning which was that he merely thought he’d seen rape; the Sandusky jury acquitted Sandusky of that rape in that incident; and most importantly of all…there was no rape! This from the horse’s mouth itself, the now grown man who was the boy in the shower that night.
Neither Paterno nor Schultz nor Curley were mandated reporters in this instance according to Pennsylvania law, which I quoted earlier in the thread, and they were not in point of fact legally obligated under the law to notify either the police nor the Pennsylvania Dept. of Human Welfare of what was in effect the hearsay they’d been informed of. They apparently believed themselves to be so obligated, thus the concern that their decision to try to force Sandusky to get treatment for his predilections rather than involving the charity and welfare dept. right off the bat. Still they were perfectly willing to do so, and in fact were going to use the threat of those very things to force Sandusky to get help for what all they of at the time was some sort of squirrelly behavior in the shower with kids.
And the report can criticize Paterno for anything it wants, but Paterno was not in charge of Sandusky at the time and had not been for three years. Plus he had no idea of what Sandusky was really doing. None of those guys did! So to condemn him for not alerting the entire football staff to prevent him from bringing another child into the Lacsh building is to do nothing less than condemn him for not consulting his crystal ball and seeing into the future, and the same applies to your trying to pin ten years’ and eight anal rapes on him as though they were his fault for not foreseeing and somehow preventing them. Hell, people get raped and murdered in this country every day by people who’ve been released from prisons. Where’s your indignation that the prison’s fortune tellers didn’t foresee their crimes and prevent them as well? It’s utter nonsense!
In short, the Freeh report, despite the fact that it undoubtedly contains some elements of fact, is largely an overwrought, emotionally-driven pile of crap that draws largely upon guesswork and supposition and Monday-morning quarterbacking to arrive at its conclusions and a good many of its findings. Mostly it’s an opinion piece cooked up by the likes of many of the people in this thread, eager to view the slightest piece of evidence in the worst possible light and to see vile motives and intentional skullduggery where absolutely none exists.
Again, it’s a piece of crap and I’d be surprised if more than a fraction of it will ever be proven in a court of law.
Good question. The Board of Regents couldn’t seem to flagellate itself enough as it is, eagerly assuming all responsibility and apparently willing to bankrupt itself over the criminal behavior of one man long before anyone knew anything about the university’s true culpability, if any at all. They couldn’t accept quickly enough that Joe Paterno and its administrative staff - and by extension the university itself - were all responsible, even before the barest facts had begun to emerge and no one really knew anything about what any of them had done in actual point of fact, and when this is all said and done Penn State will probably be known as the purveyor of the biggest PR disaster in the history of the country. So they might as well shut it down, there won’t be much left by the time they get through paying off judgements against them from everyone who comes forward claiming Sandusky abused them.
And I’m trying to get you to be honest also, by addressing these seeming contradictions. Do you at least see why someone reading those two statements would think you just contradicted yourself?
“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"
“But the point remains I never said “squatting and thrusting” was physically impossible”
You’ve rarely been either in this thread and you’re being neither now. You’re playing silly word games…again. And Starvey only plays that long enough to make it obvious what you’re doing each time you start up again. We’ve reached that point now with your alleged squatting/thrusting/6’3" man confusion, and now that I’ve explained it so that only a dunce could still be confused, any further explanation would be pointless.
So, ta. (You might want to alert Enola, she loves when I say that.)
Other posters, would you agree or disagree that these two statements by Starving Artist appear to be contradictory?
“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"
“But the point remains I never said “squatting and thrusting” was physically impossible”
The entirety of this thread is based on fantasy out of your own head. Stupid and ignorant re-imaginings of reality that involve benign naked man-boy shower play, lining up 9 year olds, fucking paper towel tubes, squatting and thrusting and the floor to anus height of typical adolescents. Your interpretation of PA law is no different, excepting that it’s less manifestly skeevy.
SA, I think it’s time that you moved on from here. Just imagine yourself like Mary Poppins or Nonny McPhee, but with a paper towel tube. There’s a board somewhere else that needs you. You’ve done everything you can for us already.
Hey who knows more about this case? A special investigative team headed by a former head of the FBI or SA? A group that interviewed over 400 people and reviewed 3,500,000 documents or 1 yahoo with a paper towel tube and an Internet connection?
