Latest Vlog _ Jeremy's Polygraph Test

[Stephanie]

David is not genuine in his arguments, he is being purposely stupid and slow to understand. I don't believe he's being honest.

Agreed! I've observed this for sometime.

[Stephanie]

Somebody is very obviously seeking attention.  Please don't indulge him/her/it.

  I missed this.. Oops.. 

[David1819]

They most certainly are the same photograph, although a higher resolution image has been used to create the manipulated 'redder' image.

You are being purposely obtuse. It is not something I claim, it is a fact and the evidence of which is in front of you.

Your posts remind me of somebody else. 

You missunderstand what I am saying. If you have two copies of the same photo then photoshop one of those photos then it is no longer the same photo as the origional. The crime scene "photo" then becomes a forgery.

Come to think of it, since his campaign is now a registered non profit company trying to obtain donations from the public if they publicise photos or any such things they know to be false that could be illegal 

[Caroline]

You missunderstand what I am saying. If you have two copies of the same photo then photoshop one of those photos then it is no longer the same photo as the origional. The crime scene "photo" then becomes a forgery. Then we agree!

Come to think of it, since his campaign is now a registered non profit company trying to obtain donations from the public if they publicise photos or any such things they know to be false that could be illegal  - That would be up to EP as they have the originals, I guess they don't think it's worth it.

[Steve_uk]

I don't see David as having a particular agenda. He has always been courteous and posts what he believes to be the truth. It's only like believing many things posted online like the Sheila and the monastery story and other titbits which even the most discerning posters can fall for.

[guest2181]

You missunderstand what I am saying. If you have two copies of the same photo then photoshop one of those photos then it is no longer the same photo as the origional. The crime scene "photo" then becomes a forgery.

No!!!! 

You are misunderstanding, although I can't see how you don't get it. Even Lookout gets it.  Which leads me to believe you are not being genuine.

Both images are from the same original photograph at some point, in the same way as if I took a monochrome photocopy of it, it would still come from the same photograph.

One copy is a lower resolution, because Mike took a photograph of a printed photograph. So the resolution of the image is reduced, however it is still sufficient to see that the blood in Sheilas mouth is dry and clotting, and blood which has flowed from her mouth is dry and cracked.

Another copy has been taken directly from the negatives by the defence team whilst GDS was involved, it has then been cropped to cut out the obviously dry blood. It has then been edited to increase the warmth, vibrancy and saturation, which makes the reds appear brighter as if it is fresher blood.

It is not difficult to understand and it is undeniable that this is the case.
If you want to pretend to be stupid and argue that black is white, then that's up to you. 

[Jane]

No!!!! 

You are misunderstanding, although I can't see how you don't get it. Even Lookout gets it.  Which leads me to believe you are not being genuine.

Both images are from the same original photograph at some point, in the same way as if I took a monochrome photocopy of it, it would still come from the same photograph.

One copy is a lower resolution, because Mike took a photograph of a printed photograph. So the resolution of the image is reduced, however it is still sufficient to see that the blood in Sheilas mouth is dry and clotting, and blood which has flowed from her mouth is dry and cracked.

Another copy has been taken directly from the negatives by the defence team whilst GDS was involved, it has then been cropped to cut out the obviously dry blood. It has then been edited to increase the warmth, vibrancy and saturation, which makes the reds appear brighter as if it is fresher blood.

It is not difficult to understand and it is undeniable that this is the case.
If you want to pretend to be stupid and argue that black is white, then that's up to you. 

I get the impression that whatever colour David believes the waters to be, he tries to muddy them. The only certainty I have of his intention is that it leaves me bemused.

[nugnug]

You missunderstand what I am saying. If you have two copies of the same photo then photoshop one of those photos then it is no longer the same photo as the origional. The crime scene "photo" then becomes a forgery.

Come to think of it, since his campaign is now a registered non profit company trying to obtain donations from the public if they publicise photos or any such things they know to be false that could be illegal 

yes if they did it knowingly it would be.

[guest2181]

I thought Scipio did a fair job of challenging Mike's arguments.

I didn't read most of his posts simply because life is too short, he would write an essay to explain something that other members had previously explained succinctly in half a dozen words. Part of his tactic was to wear his opponent out by flooding the boards with volume rather then necessarily content.

Not that I mean to take anything away from him, I agree that he did a stellar job in challenging Mike.

There 'seems' to be less emotion in the disagreements that occur on the forum these days. I'm rarely hounded or attacked now, whereas at one time I couldn't post a single word without being rounded on (not that I was entirely blameless  ).

[nugnug]

other than making up rubbish wich has allready been proved i couldent see what he did.

[David1819]

I didn't read most of his posts simply because life is too short, he would write an essay to explain something that other members had previously explained succinctly in half a dozen words. Part of his tactic was to wear his opponent out by flooding the boards with volume rather then necessarily content.

Not that I mean to take anything away from him, I agree that he did a stellar job in challenging Mike.

I really don't get what motivated him, he was ALWAYS posting non stop except for Sunday when he attended Church. 

[guest2181]

I really don't get what motivated him, he was ALWAYS posting non stop except for Sunday when he attended Church. 

Yes I agree with you on that. I think he said he just likes to argue.

I guess "what's their motivation", can be applied to all of us though, at least to some degree.

I've invested a great deal of time on this forum over the last five or six years (as have others), I'm not sure what my motivation is, originally it was to find out for myself whether JB was guilty rather than simply accepting what I was told, but I came to my own conclusions a long time ago.

I do find the forum to be addictive, which is why I make myself have a break every now and then. In fact I only popped in again for a quick peek, but that was about 300 posts ago. 

[David1819]

Yes I agree with you on that. I think he said he just likes to argue.

I guess "what's their motivation", can be applied to all of us though, at least to some degree.

I've invested a great deal of time on this forum over the last five or six years (as have others), I'm not sure what my motivation is, originally it was to find out for myself whether JB was guilty rather than simply accepting what I was told, but I came to my own conclusions a long time ago.

I do find the forum to be addictive, which is why I make myself have a break every now and then. In fact I only popped in again for a quick peek, but that was about 300 posts ago. 

I believe your motivation is probably similar to mine. In that part of your mind is never 100% satisfied with the evidence and that there is always a shade of doubt somewhere that is compelling you to always seek new information in the hope it can be solved completely.

I believe this applies to most rational people interested in the case. Then you have the emotional fanatics that take their belief in guilt or innocence to the point of Zealotry, what motivates them I do not know.

[Caroline]

I believe your motivation is probably similar to mine. In that part of your mind is never 100% satisfied with the evidence and that there is always a shade of doubt somewhere that is compelling you to always seek new information in the hope it can be solved completely.

I believe this applies to most rational people interested in the case. Then you have the emotional fanatics that take their belief in guilt or innocence to the point of Zealotry, what motivates them I do not know.

I don't think there is ANY doubt in Hartley's mind.

[lookout]

Anyone seen Part Two of Terry Mullins polygraph testing ?

This guy trained at Maryland  Institute of Criminal Justice, USA.