...if he wishes to dispute sworn statements and testimony by witnesses, unless he can provide indicative evidence confirming the validity of said dispute, his statement is just an opinion that said witnesses are either lying or mistaken.
You have openly admitted to me in this thread that you are not interested in talking about or even looking into why witnessees in general are more often than not, full of crap. That is not opinion Larry, it's been researched, over a lifetime and it's been proven time and time again but it's clear to me, since it's all you have, you dare not do what is expected of you, as a competent student but here, once more I'll give you a lead.
https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/loftus/loftusCV.pdfNow you show me something as to why I should trust that these people are not just repeating what they heard elsewhere or telling the law exactly what they want to hear?
I make no claim of expertise and/or experience in image manipulation, nor do I desire such, but I stand on my previous statement confirming, paraphrasing, "I am unable to embrace the authenticity of the PrayerPersonImage 'FacialFeatureEnhancement' often attributed to ChrisDavidson, nor do I afford any 'EvidentiaryValue' for said 'Enhancement'.
You know nothing about it and want to know nothing about it, so your opinion is less than worthless, Something we agree on. See?
BarryPollard's reference to a "never corrected mistake" needs to be explained.
I already gave you your quote in that last post, you "... thought the "NOT HER" comment was about scarflady". I told you you were mistaken at that time but you never followed it up or commented on it again.
In any event, the referred to "interview" contained much indicative evidentiary information that indicates that SarahDeanStanton is indeed the person represented by PrayerPersonImage.
I'm glad you think so. Maybe one day when you feel up to it you'd like to reveal exactly what you are referring to because I have absolutely no idea.
