18-01-2017, 11:40 PM
Albert Doyle Wrote:You're not being rational Jim.
You should practice the level of science you usually aspire to. That highest level of science is Davidson's photoshop enhancement of the Wiegman Film. When MacRae enlarged that image it showed the clear face of a woman. When the Murphy-ites were shown the image they admitted it was a woman but then claimed it was an illusion. The bias is so strong for Murphy that they were allowed to get away with it. Meanwhile that level of science you normally practice would admit that Davidson did justify his methods by posting his metadata and none of the pro-Murphy challengers were able to respond. Davidson backed-off because he's a politically sensitive person who doesn't want to cause any trouble with the members. He accidentally discovered the woman's face while doing photo enhancement for other purposes (which only legitimizes his findings because he wasn't trying to produce the result). Sorry Jim but you have to answer to the highest, best level of normally practiced science in the research community. That science is Davidson's metadata and it deserves respect and recognition. If we were to honor that science it would show that Davidson's publicly-posted and unanswered metadata did prove his methodology in producing the woman's face. What that proves is the face was part of Wiegman's original film and does therefore prove the subject in question was a woman - therefore refuting Murphy.
I got permanently banned from Duncan's site because he allowed obvious trolls entering demented input to attack my evidence. He then sided with them saying they were under no obligation to answer anything. When I pointed-out to Duncan that he had just done what he himself haughtily protested over and accused Gordon of doing to him on the Education Forum he banned me because he knew I was right. Duncan's problem was he was trying to serve both sides at the same time. He was obviously doing it to cater to his advertizing revenue by attracting the most members for rating purposes. Duncan made a deal with the devil and traded his soul for clicks. It is unfortunate that Duncan isn't reliable because his site offered some of the best photographic evidence.
In any case it is clear to me that Stancak did make a cartoon graphic for ****** *** in his latest overlay image on the Education Forum. I think that when he applied it he realized it showed that ****** *** had to be standing on the landing. Jim, you are ignoring what I am posting. Stancak's overlay graphic is the exact same overlay of the portal features I was referencing in my verbal arguments. Stancak managed to put to visibility what I had been pointing-out in words. When he did he realized it proved what I was saying. That's why he didn't make a cartoon graphic for ****** *** in that same image even though he did for Frazier. I'm trying to tell you it is proof he knows what I am saying is true and it is wholly dishonest 1) To not point it out, and 2) Not allow me to point it out. Stancak has just proved my case for me with his own graphic and nobody is honest enough to point it out to him while I am restricted without explanation. Also, people forget that Stancak never answered my last post to him or its evidence. While I was subjected to a martinet level of rules and requirements by Gordon, after Stancak was allowed to not answer, the standard Gordon presently enforces in the same thread is one of casual conversation by persons who are obviously unfamiliar with the evidence. It's a hugely unfair double standard but one that works for the Murphy-ites.
I have further confirming original image photo proof of my claim. When I go to the Education Forum the posting box saysQuote:You are currently restricted from posting content.I sent an e-mail to Gordon asking why that went unanswered.
Come on. I expect better from you...Ask Stancak why he didn't make a cartoon image for the person in question.
.
You are truly a sight to behold, Mr. Doyle. You're a part of the times, i'm afraid. Rather prophetic, I must say.