Brian,
Have you ever thought about just letting this issue go? You seem obsessed with it to the point of becoming unhinged. Over a month ago, you reached out to me via Sandy Larsen on EF to ask me to post stuff for you on EF. I then emailed you and your reply was not, "Hi, nice to meet you" but instead "Can't talk...eating...later." Fool that I am, I let you then send me another email but I do regret it and should have listened to my instincts after receiving a reply like that. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses who knock on my door trying to recruit me are nicer than your reply to me was, Brian.
I did post a few things for you and the next thing I knew you turned against me, calling my posts over there "blather." And I, too, don't think that's LHO up on the steps for xxxxxx sake.
So Stancek and others continue to manufacture fake or dubious evidence over on EF trying to prove it's Oswald. Big deal. And seriously, you actually think this image:
Shows it's a woman when it shows absolutely nothing of the kind but a bunch of pixelated blobs? It looks like a xxxxing Rorschach test, Brian. Get real.
What was shocking for me, too, after following this thread is that you claim Chris Davidson is an expert on photo analysis. Chris Davidson? You must not know about the truly hilarious post he updates over on EF about his ridiculous mathematical formulas (dis)proving that the Z film is fake. It's so funny that Greg Parker's people made a parody of it...you should check it out.
To be honest, you're actually starting to sound like Jim DiEugenio, who has a very hard time ever admitting he's wrong about anything.
IMO, it's time to pack up and move on to something more interesting with the Kennedy case, Brian.