Salza and Siscoe Attack the Findings of Sister Lucy Truth! See their claim below and our response to it. We are getting somewhere, friends!
|Another case of Pre-Mature Adjudication.|
From John Salza to a friend,
See the email below regarding Chojnowski's so-called proof. His forensic expert actually concludes that the two people little Petey claims are two Lucias are actually the same person (see claim III). Needless to say, such a report not only proves nothing, but it contradicts the fake Lucia theory.
Dr. Chojnowski: Since I do not want to be sued for releasing more of Salza's correspondence, I will just publish our response to this claim of both John Salza and Robert Siscoe.
This is a cumulative case that draws upon three sources of evidence: historical, photographic, and handwriting. Spend some time on the website (sisterlucytruth.org) reviewing the eight (8) different expert reports and consider the implications of the iProbe report in more detail. We have more to release as well.
Facial recognition is an emerging field. The literature regarding facial recognition is extremely clear that the best facial recognition occurs with both a human and machine review. In this case, we have two machine-assisted reviews and a human review by the top super-recognizer in Australia. We actually have one additional human review which we may report upon soon. All three reviews present an anomaly of two different "Sister Lucias". That's the main takeaway which is apparently being ignored. Also, please note that the facial recognition software employed is not looking at PROFILES--a major issue in this case, articulated below.
Within the iProbe report, there is a degree of match between B and C. This is not entirely unexpected since we are dealing with low resolution, mostly black and white photographs that are 60+ years old. Notice how even Subject A and Subject B (both are certainly the real Lucia) are rated as only a "moderately likely" match. However, if you look more closely at the distribution of match scores between B and C, you will see a wide degree of variability within the scores (some showing a strong no match). Certainly not conclusive nor a very strong match.
Problem is that when you add in the higher resolution photographs more recent in time (Subject D), we see a "large majority" of the match scores below .5 when compared to the Subject B set. The report therefore suggests that Subject B and Subject D are not the same person. Yet, Subject C and Subject D have an extremely strong match with all scores exceeding .6.
This presents a clear anomaly within the data.
The other machine-assisted facial recognition report concludes that there are two different individuals. This then highlights the importance of the human reviewer. A super recognizer--the highest rated individual in Australia with this ability--concludes the images present two different people. Thus, ignoring the full scope of the evidence within the facial recognition domain is erroneous and flawed methodology. The strong majority of the evidence actually suggests two different individuals.
The conclusion is bolstered by a plastic surgeon and maxillofacial surgeon concluding the images present two different people given the anatomical features--features which include profile analyses. The plastic surgeon actually identified fraudulent, doctored photographs of "Lucia" and Paul VI emanating from official organs. Those two conclusions are also echoed by a forensic criminal sketch artist that teaches at Northwestern University, holds the Guiness Book world record for most cases solved by her sketches, and went to dental school. She draws faces based upon only a skull in certain cold-cases.
And all of that evidence takes on another dimension when we move to handwritten evidence which reveals a discrepancy beginning post-1967. Isn't that something? The photograph AND handwritten evidence both show an anomaly entering the picture around 1967. Strange. We had extremely high quality writing samples to work from, hundreds of pages.
The last bucket contains the historical issues, differences in behavior, and contradictions between statements given by the post-1967 Lucia when compared to the pre-1967 Lucia.
Where there's smoke, there's fire.