Rocky
Re:Magician's Trick
Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:14pm
198.60.11.5

Dan,

Are you sure you aren't the magician here? I appreciate the article in Scientific American. It's another media piece, regardless of where it was published, Scientific literature is from peer reviewed sources and can be replicated by others. This article was their opinions, but they have nothing to say about photographic analysis or facial recognition. See - you are pointing at something else, just like a magician.

I also did some follow-up with Chris. I find it disingenuous for you to write an article debunking facial recognition and photographic analysis AFTER you had received a copy of the analysis and before his and Brett's article was published. Preemptive shot there?

We call that bias in science, and yours is clear.

I have no pony in this race. I read the analysis and am satisfied with it's results. And like any good scientist, I will reevaluate that result once I am presented with follow-up data that shows otherwise. I suspect as the technology continues to improve, we will see even strong evidence that the analysis is correct.

As to your questions about expert testimony from the Washington Post article, I find, in terms of the analysis, the answers to all three are yes.

I get it. If that photo is actually Butch and Sundance, much of what you have been claiming these past many years has been in error.

Good luck.

Rocky

  • Re: Magician's TrickDaniel Buck, Fri Jun 21 3:08am
    Rocky, "We need to fix forensics. But how?" Washington Post, 20 June 2019 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/20/we-need-fix-forensics-how/?utm_term=.8784299e0973 The writer solicited... more
    • Re:Magician's Trick — Rocky, Mon Jun 24 5:14pm
      • Re:Magician's TrickDaniel Buck, Mon Jun 24 6:29pm
        "I also did some follow-up with Chris. I find it disingenuous for you to write an article debunking facial recognition and photographic analysis AFTER you had received a copy of the analysis and... more
Click here to receive daily updates