David Josephs Wrote:And the "reason" you remain wrong is that you dismiss the reality related to photographic limitation and pixelization.

We DO explain these anomolies Albert... they are a result of photoshop manipulation with light curves, brightness and contrast as well as a number of other tools you obviously remain oblivious about and can't seem to use google to learn something.

I posted this once before and will do so again to illustrate my point

THERE IS NO KNEELING PERSON THERE... but I can sure make it look like that...
BLACKDOG MAN IS NOT A WOMAN AND BABY... yet I can make it look like that too.

When all we have is less than a square MILLIMETER of information on an moving film, details like buttons and glasses are impossible... these images come from photographs with larger negatives and much better resolution and I can STILL make objects appear which are not there...

So please Albert... give it up. I appreciate Duncan's attempt here to take the focus away from this being Oswald by claiming he sees a woman... reconcile the movements of Lovelady from Hughes to Darnell..

Why does he appear in the PM location when the limo turns the corner yet is not there just a few seconds later?

Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:Sorry to butt in here, but may I re-iterate my belief that Mr. MacRae has created 'Prayerwoman' tongue-in-cheek, not realizing the heights to which Mr. Doyle has hoisted it to ?

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:Sorry to butt in here, but may I re-iterate my belief that Mr. MacRae has created 'Prayerwoman' tongue-in-cheek, not realizing the heights to which Mr. Doyle has hoisted it to ?

I don't think that's true, but if you were smart you would realize even if he did the things I am saying still hold true. This is really a matter of competency unfortunately.

David Josephs Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Mark A. O'Blazney Wrote:Sorry to butt in here, but may I re-iterate my belief that Mr. MacRae has created 'Prayerwoman' tongue-in-cheek, not realizing the heights to which Mr. Doyle has hoisted it to ?

I don't think that's true, but if you were smart you would realize even if he did the things I am saying still hold true. This is really a matter of competency unfortunately.

Initially I had that impression too... was it Duncan who claimed the temple white dot was a pair of glasses or someone else?

Regarding your diatribe Albert... I explained it, I posted images explaining it and all we get from you is:





I've offered enough here... your FAITH in this solution cannot be overridden by evidence... FAITH has no place is a discussion about evidence.
And you really have no place promoting a solution you can't understand while making no effort to do so.

bu-bye now....

Quote:The reason you're wrong, David, is because the buttons are in uniform order where they should be on the coat. If they were the product of pixel irregularities they would be random. The odds of them randomly appearing in the correct uniform order of buttons exactly where they should be is astronomical and you haven't answered the better argument here. Those buttons are there and they appear where buttons should be, and you haven't given an adequate explanation for it.

Bob Prudhomme Wrote:"Never argue with a fool; they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

~~Mark Twain~~

Albert Doyle Wrote:What David Josephs can't answer and chooses to embarrass himself over instead is the fact that the 4 prominent buttons seen in Darnell have to be real and have to be there because pixel blemishes could not possibly show up in perfect order right where buttons would be.



This is just researchers who look at evidence in a political manner refusing to yield to the science they keep referring to but don't heel to themselves when shown.