GrayShadow
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2020
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 139
A couple things that I am confused about on this thread.
First, I am not understanding why many think the initials necessarily point to “HM” rather than “WH”. I acknowledge there is some ancillary information/knowledge that might influence this point of view. But please forgive me, I am missing the rationalization here. Please expound as to this position so that I understand.
Second, while I do not contest the observation renaming the images or their blur/copy modifications, I would suggest that the original image ‘may’ have included the (partial) image of a glove holding the belt. If so, that would provide a relative concept as to the width of the belt. Nothing has been stated, officially, as to the ‘size’ of the belt. Was it a dress belt worn with a suit, approximately one inch wide? Or was it a garrison/utility belt of approximately three inches wide as has been surmised? A hand in the glove holding the belt when photographed would most certainly lend credence to its size. THAT may be rationalization as to the ‘photoshop’ and renaming.
Regardless the reason the images were renamed, there is something about the original naming and the modifications. Our interests notwithstanding, this certainly indicates a gross error on the part if Suffolk County LE and its IT group. [Personally coming from an IT career, I am going OMG!!]
The belt has been stated as evidence regarding the GB4. It has also been speculated that the belt is for a ‘large’ individual. IF that is to be believed, the GB4 were, by all reports, to be rather petite young women. When suggestions report the belt was from a ‘large’ male, why is that necessarily a large male compared to a young woman of petite stature? I mean where does anything indicate the belt belonged to a ‘sumo wrestler’ versus an ‘average’ person or perhaps a simply ‘overweight’ individual? I am NOT challenging here but rather questioning the commentary around a ‘large’ person. ‘Large’ needs perspective.
My point here is that we need to be looking at this ‘more objectively’ and ‘less subjectively’.
No, do not read into my statement as saying LISK/Gilgo/et al might be a woman. I am just suggesting to all that there is a tendency to follow and agree with a posted thought without stepping back and thoroughly analyzing and challenging that thought prior to ’buy in’.
In that regard, please, PLEASE analyze and consider my post here. It is after all, my opinion. Seriously, think about it and weigh in with your personal knowledge and experience.
I feel WS has something to offer as long as we keep open and analytical thought at the forefront.
First, I am not understanding why many think the initials necessarily point to “HM” rather than “WH”. I acknowledge there is some ancillary information/knowledge that might influence this point of view. But please forgive me, I am missing the rationalization here. Please expound as to this position so that I understand.
Second, while I do not contest the observation renaming the images or their blur/copy modifications, I would suggest that the original image ‘may’ have included the (partial) image of a glove holding the belt. If so, that would provide a relative concept as to the width of the belt. Nothing has been stated, officially, as to the ‘size’ of the belt. Was it a dress belt worn with a suit, approximately one inch wide? Or was it a garrison/utility belt of approximately three inches wide as has been surmised? A hand in the glove holding the belt when photographed would most certainly lend credence to its size. THAT may be rationalization as to the ‘photoshop’ and renaming.
Regardless the reason the images were renamed, there is something about the original naming and the modifications. Our interests notwithstanding, this certainly indicates a gross error on the part if Suffolk County LE and its IT group. [Personally coming from an IT career, I am going OMG!!]
The belt has been stated as evidence regarding the GB4. It has also been speculated that the belt is for a ‘large’ individual. IF that is to be believed, the GB4 were, by all reports, to be rather petite young women. When suggestions report the belt was from a ‘large’ male, why is that necessarily a large male compared to a young woman of petite stature? I mean where does anything indicate the belt belonged to a ‘sumo wrestler’ versus an ‘average’ person or perhaps a simply ‘overweight’ individual? I am NOT challenging here but rather questioning the commentary around a ‘large’ person. ‘Large’ needs perspective.
My point here is that we need to be looking at this ‘more objectively’ and ‘less subjectively’.
No, do not read into my statement as saying LISK/Gilgo/et al might be a woman. I am just suggesting to all that there is a tendency to follow and agree with a posted thought without stepping back and thoroughly analyzing and challenging that thought prior to ’buy in’.
In that regard, please, PLEASE analyze and consider my post here. It is after all, my opinion. Seriously, think about it and weigh in with your personal knowledge and experience.
I feel WS has something to offer as long as we keep open and analytical thought at the forefront.
