The "evidence" presented was in no way substantiated. People are posting this evidence about a dress that's supposedly the real dress, we have no way of knowing that to be true.
Well, we know now that it was actually a blue and black dress. But why would any natural lighting make a white dress /that/ blue? Maybe I just don't get out enough?
In the shadow of a sunny day, white can appear that shade of blue. I think we don't recognize it as such, because we know the context of the situation. We have no context of what kind of environment the photo was taken in, how stuffty the camera is, etc...
It just seems to me that the "evidence" we all seem to be taking as conclusive and all-telling, is completely unsupported. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not incline to believe that any pseudo-science explanation is correct, or some dress is the real dress, just because someone said it is.