Replies

I think you are putting too much confidence into your perception of a difference. I recognize they are viewed from different angles, (The two side by sides above that you mentioned) and I have learned from experience that silhouettes do not compare easily with different angles. The only way to make accurate comparisons between three dimensional objects is to view them from the same angle, and then it is only the outline that you can be sure about. Centrally located surface features change as a function of their distance from the center of rotation, and so are seen against a background of similar pixels, making it very difficult to identify the same pixels between one image and another.

I don't know what your experience is with three dimensional graphic manipulation, but I have done quite a lot of work creating and manipulating three dimensional graphics and textures. I write code in C++ using Microsoft's DirectX graphical engine, and I also have experience in Autocad and 3Dstudio max. (And I also program in Assembly and Machine code.)

If you think you can accurately and easily match three dimensional vector points from different angles, you are fooling yourself. Pixel data does not give you dimensional information unless it is referenced by a Z-buffer.

While we are on this subject, I have seriously thought of creating a three dimensional representation of Stanley Ann's face and rotating it through the various angles to create a synthetic aperture composite of the three original images. It would result in a serious sharpening of the image because pixels would be created by the interpolation of the pixel data contained in all three images. Now that Gilberts has positively identified the Origin of the photographs, It is no longer worth putting so much work into such a thing. (Believe me, I have plenty of work on my plate currently.)

Looking at images of two noses taken from different angles does not tell you conclusively that they are different noses unless the differences are substantial. In this case they are not.

The real telling point is that both girls possess a crooked tooth in exactly the same location in their mouth. This is not extremely rare in and of itself, but when the two women look so much alike, and the location of the photographs has been conclusively established as the Davis residence, it becomes an exercise in extreme fact avoidance to overlook the obvious. The odds that they could be different women are just too unlikely to be taken seriously. Ergo, it is a virtual certainty that it is the same person.

Sugar, those high heels in those nudie pix had a name in those days for the girls that wore them: hooker heels.

For that matter, they still are.......

I don’t agree and I’ll leave it at that. You seem obsessed to have these be the same female. I don’t see them as the same and have never assumed they were. Enjoy the conspiracy games.