I did not blend them. I superimposed to show there was very little difference in certain features. Can you spot a difference in the nose, mouth, and jawline of the two men?
I have no problems with subjective disagreement, but lazy statements like yours are terrible counter arguments.
A superimposition that slowly fades one of photos in or out is the blending i speak of. It is not a good way to prove someone is someone else or is related to someone else. It is an old trick that tricks the brain into seeing more similarities than it would otherwise individually because the brain is seeing two images instead of one and it wants to make it one image. It is really poor evidence. And ironically for you it is the laziest way to prove two people are related.
lol dude that's not blending. Superimposing is nowhere near the same. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
If the faces were different, then the superimposed image would have a bunch of conflicting imagery and it would look like a mess. It wouldn't look like anyone. I've done it with many other faces. Try it yourself.
Dude did you read where i described what i meant by blending? Superimposition of course is used when there are similarities to further drive those similarities home. It doesn't lend itself to noticing the differences. Science seeks to eliminate possibilities to find results not seek things that match. This is why things like bite mark forensics can be so easily attacked In court. And even as good as fingerprint evidence can lead to someone like attorney Brandon Mayfield in Washington being falsely identified as being suspected of terrorism across the world because his fingerprint “matched” the actual terrorist. Sorry bud its just not a good way to determine two people are related absent other evidence
I did not blend them. I superimposed to show there was very little difference in certain features. Can you spot a difference in the nose, mouth, and jawline of the two men?
I have no problems with subjective disagreement, but lazy statements like yours are terrible counter arguments.
A superimposition that slowly fades one of photos in or out is the blending i speak of. It is not a good way to prove someone is someone else or is related to someone else. It is an old trick that tricks the brain into seeing more similarities than it would otherwise individually because the brain is seeing two images instead of one and it wants to make it one image. It is really poor evidence. And ironically for you it is the laziest way to prove two people are related.
lol dude that's not blending. Superimposing is nowhere near the same. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
If the faces were different, then the superimposed image would have a bunch of conflicting imagery and it would look like a mess. It wouldn't look like anyone. I've done it with many other faces. Try it yourself.
Dude did you read where i described what i meant by blending? Superimposition of course is used when there are similarities to further drive those similarities home. It doesn't lend itself to noticing the differences. Science seeks to eliminate possibilities to find results not seek things that match. This is why things like bite mark forensics can be so easily attacked In court. And even as good as fingerprint evidence can lead to someone like attorney Brandon Mayfield in Washington being falsely identified as being suspected of terrorism across the world because his fingerprint “matched” the actual terrorist. Sorry bud its just not a good way to determine two people are related absent other evidence