Replies

FN said that “dental records” are not the same as looking at a couple of old photos.

A) You're making a specious argument because no one ever said that looking at a couple of old photos is the same as dental records, however, B) your own citation said:

The uniqueness of a set of teeth is a powerful tool in confirming the identity of someone unknown ...

So if the teeth match between the two photos, then it is a powerful tool in confirming the identity of someone unknown; and C) dental records often INCLUDE photographs as well as charts to show the distinguishing characteristics. Congratulations in helping debunk your own counterargument. The important thing is to get at the tooth, the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth ... ummm, well the truth. Fred's motivation is to irrationally discredit the FMD narrative because he thinks it will be inconvenient, but this is a specious agenda because the photos he denies don't prove the FMD is the father, so there's no real need to deny the obvious.

Here you go, I made you a composite without any red circles, I really didn't need to use Joel Gilbert's poor excuse for an image of what the model and Stanley Ann Dunham's teeth look like, the original untouched photographs available all over the web do it much better. They have always been two different girls, and you and Joel know it. Next, I expect that Joel will remove his pathetic attempt at trying to turn two girls into one. It wouldn't be the first time he changed something in the DVD or on his website after it was first shown. And I didn't need photoshop to make the composite, if you learn to use FOTOFLEX anyone can do it. All it does is create a group image such as the one of the very handsome, dapper Frank Marshall Davis, with whom Gilbert claims Stanley Ann Dunham created you know who. Seithecrap identified him as an attractive dapper man. Seizethecrap desperately needs glasses. Here he is, every seventeen year old girl's dreamboat:

The image in which he's shown smoking is from around 1948, so by the time 1960 came around, you need to jump a couple of spaces.

Here’s something for rational people to consider.

When two or more people are debating or discussing an issue, if one of them uses deceit, changes the terms of the discussion at his whim, changes the point of the discussion when he’s lost a point but pretends he didn’t lose, attacks others for what he is doing, and so on - it’s a pointless waste of time ‘to continue the discussion.

You aren’t rational, you don’t play by any kind of rational rules, and it is obvious you have no interest in finding any kind of truth; your purpose is merely to attack those who are.

I mean, at this point you’re the ethereal version of someone with spittle and froth flying while you jump up and down and scream, and fling handfuls of poo.