You're right; I didn't sign-up just to comment on that image.simonshack wrote:Thanks, Gabelager - I also found this latest image analysis rather useless.GabeLager wrote: I was simply pointing-out that his analysis of the photo in question was, quite frankly, weak and ill-conceived.
But I don't suppose you signed up to this forum just to comment on that image?
We do encourage our members to contribute with findings of their own. Please do so before you start reviewing / opining about other members' contributions. Thanks.
You may start by responding to the "p.s" message I sent you in my welcome mail :simonshack wrote: ps: I'd be curious to know what your personal definition of a 'smoking gun' is.
If you are proficient in image analyses, I trust you will agree that - just like 9/11 - the Boston affair has its fair share of problems on that front.
No reason not to make my reply to your email public:
Hi, Simon, thanks for the prompt reply.
My personal definition of a smoking gun is an individual piece (or collection) of evidence that any reasonable person would conclude to contradict the "official story". As I said, I'm already convinced of foul play, image manipulation, and outright fabrication. But our "target audience" is the very group of people that ridicule this type of research (out of ignorance, not malice) and refuse to employ rational thinking or logic where events of this nature are concerned. My girlfriend, for example. She thinks I'm nuts, and an ass***, when I bring-up these topics. I would love to be able to show her a piece of evidence that she can actually understand (not to imply that she is unintelligent; she's very smart, but she won't be willing to look into FotoForensics), without reading a 53-page thread, to which she replies, "Holy shit. You were right!"
In any case, I'll move the discourse over to the forum so that others may benefit from the discussion.
Thanks!