reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
It's Wayne's "Light Warrior" offensive ramping up, I believe. First, a couple of scouts came in to gauge the lay of the land, and prep for
bombardment. The objective, as far as I can discern, is not to sew the seeds of doubt so much as it is to derail the thread, and get it shut down.
That tells me two things:
1) Our assessments have been spot on the target, and damage to the "UV in a Radio 'scope" story, as well as the credibility of the original
perpetrators, is occurring. They seek for damage control, and the only way to do that is to shut the thread down, and cut off the flow of information.
Seeds of doubt won't work for them, because with all the credible evidence present, those seeds won't be able to take root.
That's my BDA on our efforts here. Target locked on, fire for effect.
2) Wayne is a man of his word, at least in this respect. He threatened a "Light Warrior" assault, and here it is!
I believe ladySambuca was none other than Judy herself, and so, by extension, was SunFlare (interesting astronomically oriented name, that!). I base
that opinion on the picture she posted, which I "could not refute". I couldn't "refute" it, because it actually IS a picture of Judy. To be sure,
it has been doctored and tinkered with to make a presentation of non-factual "evidence", but in the main, the face WAS hers, and the face hadn't
been messed with all that much, so the background and such are is the actual photo as well. Under magnification, it can be seen that the hair
"strays" don't appear to have been cropped around, so the background for the head is likely the original picture.
The neck area has been tampered with, as has the chest area. Efforts have been made to conceal seams in the picture from crop-and-paste operations. It
was sort of laughable that efforts were made to conceal the adam's apple, because even as James, van Greunen's adams apple wasn't all that
prominent, as can be seen in the photo of he and Janice. I only made an issue of it to see what would happen, and it appears that the bait was
Then there's the matter of the missing metadata. I couldn't be sure that wasn't unintentional, but brought it up to see what would happen. What I
got was an admission that it had been removed intentionally, to "protect " an identity which any IT person should reasonably know would never have
been in jeopardy from that data set.
The picture is far more recent than the 16 years old claim alleged, going by the appearance of Judy's age, as compared to the other photos out there
in the "wild" of her. As speculation, removal of the EXIF information may well have been done to conceal that it was taken with a digital camera,
recently, rather than produced by scanning an old print. The EXIF data would have given the lie to that, and so was removed. It would NOT have said
"this photo was scanned by LadySambuca, whose real name is Clyde Farnsworth, and who lives at 1313 Mockingbird Lane, with an IP address of
The really interesting upshot, and perhaps a tale told, about this is that it's a relatively recent picture of Judy, not yet released into the wilds
of the internet before this. LadySambuca would have to get that from SOMEWHERE.
And Judy can produce photos of herself at will.