Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[Albert Doyle]

I can't find either Duncan's original with Tan Coat Woman or Drew's bright spot image.


Maybe someone can reproduce them.

[Drew Phipps]

Here is the post with the picture in it:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...lved/page7

Here is the actual image:



I caution you against reading too much into that, as I have before.

[Albert Doyle]

I'm not sure. If you look at Tan Coat Woman the hair part seems to be on the wrong side.

[Ray Mitcham]

Here is the post with the picture in it:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...lved/page7

Here is the actual image:



I caution you against reading too much into that, as I have before.

If it was the woman in the long coat, why would she, apparently, roll her sleeves up? Anybody know a woman who would rolls the sleeves of an outer coat up?

[David Josephs]

:hock::


That is without a doubt one of the worst cases of junk science I've ever seen... The size of the entire frame is unbelievably small with this portion of that frame even smaller.
There is no way that a tiny crushed out shiny spot can be equated to a specific item like the corner of a pair of glasses without wildly speculating.

So tell us... how many of this person's teeth are capped? What color is her lipstick? Can you see the can of FOSTERS this person is holding in the right hand - the pop top is shining white at the top left of the can...

You mean we are a not told what type of earrings she has on?

That you cannot see the handbag hanging from her left arm?


::laughingdog::

If you turn your head to the side, squint and shake your head a little - it still doesn't work.







At best those little spots are artifacts and the limitations of the resolution possible. This person is not wearing glasses.

I once suggested this person was wearing a watch on the right wrist - due to that slight white spot right there - but there is no way to substantiate that guess...

[Michael Cross]

:hock::


That is without a doubt one of the worst cases of junk science I've ever seen...

Agreed, and the CERTAINTY on display brings motive into question IMO.

[Albert Doyle]

That is without a doubt one of the worst cases of junk science I've ever seen... The size of the entire frame is unbelievably small with this portion of that frame even smaller.
There is no way that a tiny crushed out shiny spot can be equated to a specific item like the corner of a pair of glasses without wildly speculating.

David can't answer what the bright spot is. He obviously sees it so none of the Healy trolling or complaints about pixels or blurriness stand.


Wild speculation? What else could it reasonably be in that spot besides an eyeglass frame?

At best those little spots are artifacts and the limitations of the resolution possible. This person is not wearing glasses.

Says David. Meanwhile we have an eyeglass frame right where it should be. Not to mention long hair.

I once suggested this person was wearing a watch on the right wrist - due to that slight white spot right there - but there is no way to substantiate that guess...

I don't see a watch there. I think you would have a much more definite indication if there was.



(That Foster's can is hysterical!)

[Albert Doyle]

Agreed, and the CERTAINTY on display brings motive into question IMO.

Mr Cross, what are the plainly-visible white spots MacRae is calling buttons? You can't say you don't see them, they're right there.


Oswald did not have a buttoned coat.

[Michael Cross]

Mr Cross, what are the plainly-visible white spots MacRae is calling buttons? You can't say you don't see them, they're right there.


Oswald did not have a buttoned coat.

Albert, I don't know how many more ways you can be told that the images in which you devine these ludicrous details have been heavily altered in Photoshop or a similar program. There is NO WAY FOR YOU OR ANYONE TO MAKE THE CONCLUSIONS YOU CONTINUE TO MAKE. Nothing you believe is grounded in verifiable fact. David Joseph's has POSTED images of pm that look nothing like the tripe you rely on -because he didn't alter them.

[Jim DiEugenio]

That was really interesting Dave.

I am surprised no one did it before.

But you seem to be right.

Someone doodled around with the evidence.