Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[Michael Cross]

Sigh. But you don't KNOW. Your conclusions are based on supposition.

Now tell me how I'm wrong when I'm quoting YOU.

The original Darnell frame might show the exact same features as what Duncan is showing.



Nobody seems to want to give a straight answer to what the notch in the forearm is? It is clearly visible and isn't due to degraded images or pixels.


So, where is the evidence the photo was altered?

you gotta be kidding me? The frame image is crap, PERIOD! Lets see a histogram of the original frame. Then how many generations from the in-camera original frame is the frame you are currently studying? Tell us how long the in-camera original frame PM/PW arm is in pixels. Geez, and yet, within this degraded image you see clarity, a notch in the forearm at most 2-3 pixels in width...

Lets see, internet/forum-board imagery jpeg/gif regardless of image size, is 72dpi), then there's the compression issues and artifacts... We'll start there, the dimension of the image you're currently reviewing? And how many generations from the original frame? Feel free to have Dunc give you a hand (if he's not to busy starting another forum...

Thank you David. Albert's objectivity has left the building.