Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[Albert Doyle]

well Albert why don't you tell me what the resolution of the image your working with, where it came from and how many analog and digital generations it's down, well go from there, okay?

Those irrelevant technicalities you are obfuscating above make no difference to what I'm showing. You're using them to avoid acknowledging what is plainly already there. While some expert may be able to provide them, you still haven't answered for the hair tones that are visible in Darnell that show woman's hair. Use any excuse you like. You're just uncredibly ignoring the evidence and the arguments for it. It strikes me as phony and dishonest seeking of excuses instead of evidence.

What I'd really like for you to tell us/me anyway, is how can you determine hair, texture and color in a seriously degraded black and white, no lineage declared image. I mean I've only worked with film, photos and video for over 50 years Albert, I'm always willing to learn new things.

I already have. If you have comprehension problems that's not my fault. We both know there's clearly visible dark tones around Prayer Man's head in Darnell. I've already adequately explained that the dark tone at the top of the head where we know there is hair registers the tone for Prayer Man's hair in Darnell. You can't argue that tone isn't the tone for Prayer Man's hair. It can't be anything else.

You're avoiding the arguments Mr Healy. And there nothing 'degraded' about the Darnell blow-up. It might be a photo with poor resolution but it is an accurate representation of Darnell's still as displayed on a computer. So far, while dishonestly trying to make excuses for why the Darnell blow-up isn't worthy you have yet to provide anything that shows why the things I'm pointing out aren't valid. I'm not the one who should be answering the questions here Mr Healy. Those dark hair tones are plainly visible in the existing blow-up. You have yet to provide a reason why we can't reference them. You're obviously making excuses to avoid acknowledging the simple things I'm showing. None of your excuses justify avoiding an interpretation of the plainly visible hair tones in Darnell.

So let's start with your images resolution, size in pixels, share with us what they are... and of course, where did you find the image? The internet? Format? YOU want credibility Albert, speak up. Opinions are fine, Albert... but you know what they say about opinions... they're like a******, everyone has one...

Please explain to me how this obvious, obnoxious, trolling attempt at photo high brow is a justifiable excuse for avoiding a simple evaluation of Prayer Man's dark hair tones in Darnell? The things I'm talking about are plainly visible without all those deliberately constructed excuses. The issue here was discussion of those visible hair tones. You failed it with your first reply and now you are failing it again with your deliberate excuses. The burden here is not on me to answer obfuscation but on you to answer the original argument that you have no excuse for avoiding.


The plain simple fact is you can see dark hair tones that extend to Prayer Man's neck and also expand out like a woman's hair style. Pixels and generations have nothing to do with this and you haven't answered it.