SpitfireIX
Philosopher
For goodness sake, a) you've been repeatedly asked to, and declined to, provide evidence for this claim in the past, and b) crucially, accusations are not proof. Even granting, arguendo, that such an accusation was made, it proves exactly nothing without evidence. The accusation could have been made due to ignorance or misunderstanding of Vinci's methods, or maliciously, in an attempt to discredit his work.
Further, as Stacy pointed out, you've gone from falsely claiming that Vinci was "reprimanded" to simply claiming that he was "accused."
And, even if you don't accept that the first and second toe prints are merged on the bath mat, the big toe on the bath mat print looks nothing like Raffaele's big toe. It looks an awful lot like Guede's if you do accept that the first and second toe prints are merged, though. I realize now that you came up with the idea that the print shows a "hammer toe" because you think there are only four toe prints, as there are in Raffaele's reference footprint. But, again, there are actually five toe prints; as Vinci illustrates, the first and second are merged. And, again, before you start, even if you don't accept that, the big toe print still looks nothing like Raffaele's.
No. You just pulled that out of an orifice, as usual, in a lame attempt to cover up your scientific and technical ignorance. But even if it were true, what you wrote still doesn't make any sense. What, exactly, is a "super-tiny" millimeter? How would it compare to, say, an extra-large millimeter?
This is of a piece with your BS claim that in British English the word "mischaraterise" is now only used by politicians caught lying, in an equally lame attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you were being called out for repeatedly mischaracterizing so many other posters' statements and arguments.
No. This is just one of your desperate attempts to twist the data to fit your theory, rather than alter your theory to fit the data. You (falsely) claim that Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up a large amount of incriminating evidence, yet they left a footprint that you (incorrectly) claim incriminates Raffaele and pointed it out to the police, just to supposedly bolster the "'random burglary' narrative." This is completely illogical.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
What Stacy said.
Finally, some old business. I realized that I should have mentioned, because I don't think I ever have in this thread, that that reason I'm qualified to evaluate technical drawings and measurements is that I'm a mechanical designer, with an AAS in mechanical design, a BS in mechanical engineering technology, and an MS in industrial technology.
