This is becoming comical.
I'll try this once more, and only once more. If it required DNA confirmation to have an opinion about photos posted to invite comparisons and opinions, then having a fish forum where people can post photos and ask what fish they have would be pointless in the first place.
If you filter out the extraneous commentary, the basics here are simple if you focus on them. Some here who are experienced with this species, aware of the science literature on this species, or aware of aspects of the science of genetics have pointed out that variation can exist between individuals, geographically separated populations, or juveniles compared to adults. This is relevant to the topic at hand and justifies reconsidering how quickly one should conclude they've been 'burned' because a Midas cichlid from one vendor doesn't look exactly like a Midas cichlid from another vendor.
This doesn't constitute coming to a scientific conclusion that requires DNA confirmation. It's simply sharing information that might help the original poster understand his fish better, no matter which of the vendors he prefers based on his experience. It doesn't require DNA confirmation of an individual fish to point out there are scientifically documented variations within this species.
Beyond that, some have expressed opinions on the particular fish in the photos, some of them fairly diplomatic, others more blunt. You have your own opinion, fine. And, in my opinion, you had a valid point that it's possible the original poster sees something in person you can't see on the screen that caused his original doubts about the fish. But, if you're not here to argue, go back through the thread and see who introduced the element of arguing into what had been a peaceful thread up to that point by recklessly accusing members here of being 'fan boys, jumping on Wikepedia, and instantly becoming biologists'. Here's a hint, it's on page 8 of this thread.