The Gordon Arnold Competition -Year 2

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Aug 14 2008, 10:32 AM' post='152357]

I believe I was premature in my judgement that the existance of Badgeman is now a definite possibility based on my study, which I think you basically agreed with given the variables of heights between 1963 and the year in which the Tony Cummings photograph was taken.

I will now change my stance/wording to a more realistic and logical one.

Well, don't be so hard on yourself. After all, you had years to develop your thinking about Badge Man being real and only a day or so to decide not to believe him to be real so to not have to admit that Arnold's size is compatible with Badge Man's.

I believe that there is a possibility of the possibility of Bageman being real due to the proven existance of Tony Cummings seen behind the fence in what appears to be the Badgeman general location in a Moorman recreation.

The important part which is relevant here is that if Tony is the correct size to be Badge Man ... and if Badge Man and Arnold are close to the same size, then your idea that Arnold is too small is shown to be flawed.

In other words, the study proves the existance of Tony Cummings and not Badgeman.

In order for the posiible existance, and I emphasise possible existance, of Badgeman to be proven. a clear recocnisable scaling of a human upper torso must be matched to that of the Badgeman image, preferably in another recreation.

Duncan MacRae

I already did this and have asked Roberdeu to email me the side by side illustrations that were posted long ago. If he finds them in his files ... I will share them once again.

Bill Miller

Edited August 14, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Hey, everything is subject to reconsideration by me, It's the way I work, and if you think that's a bad habit, then so be it.

Talking about observational development skills, how long did it take you to spot Blobby Hatman in Willis ?...You have one of the finest photographic collections of Blobs I've ever seen

I first spotted it when I read Josiah Thompson's book "Six Seconds in Dallas". The image on the best early prints are quite defined and dark, unlike the latter degraded images on faded prints that some boobs have chosen to reference when calling it a 'blob'.

No, that's a totally different ball game, two different sets of circumstances altogether, height, distance levels, size of figure etc etc etc, and besides, I have yet to see a match between a real human and Badgeman who still remains unproven.

Are you talking about a twin for Badge Man or someone who falls within the same size range like Cummings did when standing at the fence where Badge Man was located? If its the latter, then its been done.

I appreciate you doing that..It all helps to progress the issue.

Duncan MacRae

If you don't wish to wait for Don ... you can always do a forum search on Lancer and probably find it. Doing actual research isn't as bad as you must think it is. It might even prevent you from having to change your mind so much of the time when it comes to your ridiculous never-ending claims.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

So why post blobs when you can post clearer images?

I swear you must need rehab or something to say the things you do. Thompson showed the Hat Man at the fence in his book 'Six Seconds in Dallas'. The Willis photo was taken just seconds before the Moorman photo and witnesses had said that a shot was heard, as well as smoke seen drifting from that location at the same time Moorman had taken her photo.

Bowers had said that these men were standing and watching the parade coming down the street, so I thought it wise to look for the Hat Man in the Willis photo. I used the best print that I have seen to date and it was the blow-up found in 'The Killing of a President'. I first made calls to Groden to see how that print was made and Robert assured me that it was the real image and not from a computer.

I then looked near the fence because that was the most logical place to look for Hat Man if smoke came through the trees at the time of the fatal shot to Kennedy. The foliage at that spot was sparse and it took just seconds to see the dark silhouette standing behind the foliage. This persons shape can be traced against the distant sky. The light spots are the leaves of the foliage between he and the camera.

As to why I posted that image ... because its the best one I have ever found. Its not like I took a latter print that was so deteriorated and opted to use it over the best print like so many critics of Jack and Gary's Badge Man work have done. If one didn't know the facts pertaining to these images, then they might say something stupid like I had chosen to use a bad print to show what you call a blob. So far there has only been one person who has talked that foolishly and that's the guy who who thinks that ruining an image to the point of destroying the BDM image will somehow produce a better image of someone alleged to be standing next to him.

I'm not talking about someone who falls within the range, i'm talking about a real human being fitting exactly in to the badgeman image.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but you have repeatedly said that the Gordon Arnold figure was too small to be real. Your position on Arnold was exactly why I asked if you believed Badge Man was real. When you started talking about how you changed your mind on Badge Man being real and had only kept it hush-hush ... I then introduced Tony Cummings who is a real person who stood exactly where Badge Man had ... and was photographed from Moorman's location.

The purpose of doing this was to show that Cummings was within reason the size of Badge Man. Not exactly the same size, but within reason enough so not to rule Badge Man out as a real person due to his size. As I am sure you are aware now ... If Badge Man's size falls with reason to that of a known human being, and Arnold's size is close to Badge Man's, then that lets a lot of hot air out of your claim that Arnold is to small to be human. It doesn't take an "EXACT" match to show that someone is close enough to the size of a real known person to rule out the 'to small theory' that you pulled out of your ... er' ... uh' ... back pocket!

If you don't wish to wait for Don ... you can always do a forum search on Lancer and probably find it. Doing actual research isn't as bad as you must think it is. It might even prevent you from having to change your mind so much of the time when it comes to your ridiculous never-ending claims.

If Don can't find it, no one can, he's a top man

Don is a good researcher, but there are many researchers that can do a forum search. Miles does it all the time when trolling ... even you have found old post and linked them. So its not that you are incapable of doing it ... you just are not interested in doing anything that may cut your own throat.

Now, while we await on the information from Don, you have failed to reply properly to my question as to why Badgeman's partner is not as valid as Badgeman. You said I used a degenerated image, then I responded by telling you that you were wrong, and that I used a copy of Jack's best print. Would you care to respond with a better thought out reply, rather than make outlandish claims about the poor quality of Jack's print ?

If you are talking about your pasting a copy of Badge Man next to Badge Man ... it is not what I was talking about.

Bill Miller

Edited August 14, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Royce Bierma]

Ok, go on post it to remind me how ridiculous it was

Duncan MacRae

Be careful, Duncan ... for I'm about to test your sincerity when it comes to your search for the truth.

The figure seen in the Badge Man location is 6'3" Tony Cummings. Tony Cummings is a real person, so we can shut down that avenue of retreat before getting started. Tony Cummings appears to be within the realm of Badge Man's size when it comes to he being seen over the top of the wall. The only thing we cannot see is exactly where Cummings standing height comes to in relation to the wall.

At this time I will ask Duncan to tell this forum where Cummings feet come in relation to the concrete wall. I ask that he also gives his reason(s).

Bill Miller

Bill is right about Tony Cummings. I met Tony in Dallas in 2005 when Bill and I were down there for the Lancer Conference. Tony and Bill did some reconstructions of the Moorman photo and others, and Tony stood behind the fence. I watched them do this.

Just for the record,

Roy Bierma

[Don Roberdeau]

Good Day.... Just as in the GAC "year one," a small "year two" minority is still, trying, to peg the BS meter....

RELATED

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/HSCAretainGK315_6.gif

http://members.aol.com:/DRoberdeau/JFK/BON...PINGarnold.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/addi...noldCLAIMS.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/NOTa...llCORNERnix.gif

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/NOTa...d7aniMILLER.gif

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

Discovery: ROSEMARY WILLIS Zapruder Film Documented 2nd Headsnap : Westward, Ultrafast, & Directly Towards the "Grassy Knoll"

Dealey Plaza Professionally-surveyed Map Detailing 11-22-63 Victims locations, Witnesses, Photographers, Suspected trajectories, Evidentiary artifacts, & Important information & considerations

President KENNEDY "Men of Courage: 4 Principles" speech, and a portion of fellow researchers articles and my research & discoveries, 1975 to present

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

National Terror Alert for the United States:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

---- Sherlock Holmes, "A Study In Scarlet," (1887) by A.C. DOYLE

Edited August 15, 2008 by Don Roberdeau

[Bill Miller]

Thanks Don, magnificent detail as always, your study In conjunction with mine proves beyond all doubt that Arnold is not real in the Moorman location.

I suspect Bill will still argue the point though

I have put your analysis and my analysis side by side. The beers are on me

Duncan MacRae

I thought you liked Don .... I don't think it is nice of you to compare your stuff to his. Don merely mentioned that Hudson would be about the same size if his butt was pressed against the outside of the wall as he was standing on the steps. Just as Cummings would look much larger with his rear-end pressed against the wall compared to how he looked back at the fence. (Oh yes, thanks to Royce Bierma for substantiating Cummings location) Another example would be how much larger the fence would appear if it was right against the wall, as well, but its not because its back where Gordon Arnold stood.

Now if you think Don has complimented your half-baked claim, then please do not just say it - explain it in detail.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Don merely mentioned that Hudson would be about the same size if his butt was pressed against the outside of the wall as he was standing on the steps.

Did I say he said otherwise ?

Now if you think Don has complimented your half-baked claim, then please do not just say it - explain it in detail.

Bill Miller

Don didn't compliment me, he produced a welcomed study

Now......Instead of whinging, why don't you shove the Gordon Arnold butt up against the wall, like Don did with Hudson, and see what you come up with.

Post it on the forum for all to see, then maybe we can progress further.

I need a translator......... I mentioned Don merely saying that the distance Hudson was from the camera to the steps and also to the outside of the wall is about the same distance. Then you said, 'Did I say otherwise?' I think you did say otherwise when you made an implication in the following ... 'why don't you shove the Gordon Arnold butt up against the wall, like Don did with Hudson, and see what you come up with?'

My question is this .... Don compared Hudson with Hudson ... If Arnold is back the fence, then why would one wish to compare him with someone at the wall and what relevance would it have for you to even suggest it???

The you say this to Don, " your study In conjunction with mine proves beyond all doubt that Arnold is not real in the Moorman location." So tell me how Hudson standing with his butt against the outside of the wall help prove that your laughing stock of a study is correct????

For instance, where are your figures showing how you dealt with the camera looking at Arnold in Turner's interview at one angle and in the Moorman photo at another so to compute the two correctly? In other words - I can take your photo from head to toe from slightly above you and again while looking up at you while keeping the same distance from the camera and a side by side paste job of the two Duncan's will show different heights in the image. Please share with me the formula you used to compute this???

Bill Miller

Edited August 16, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

My question is this .... Don compared Hudson with Hudson ... If Arnold is back the fence, then why would one wish to compare him with someone at the wall and what relevance would it have for you to even suggest it???

I'll give y

Another clue....... Calculate the distance between Hudson's original position and Don's pasted Hudson at the wall position...then calculate YOUR estimated distance that Gordon is standing from the wall. Put the 2 together, and once again I'll ask you to post your result...but I know you won't, and you know that I know the reaon why you won't.

Duncan MacRae

Dear bone-head,

Don said to me before he even posted what you are talking about that the distance from Moorman to Hudson when Emmett was on the steps is the SAME as it is had Emmett been standing in front of the wall. The distance from Moorman to the fence where Arnold and Badge Man were is further away. So what you are asking is ridiculous and once again shows that you do not know what in the hell needs to be done. Now I have asked you several pages again to show where Cummings feet would come down on the wall and to use the same formula that you used to be critical of Arnold. If you are so eager to admit when you are wrong, then why have you been avoiding to answer this question??? Personally I believe that you see the problem you have, so you do all you can not to show Cummings height in relation to the wall as you did Arnold. The reason for this is quite simple ... you have a real human being that if you apply the same half-baked sloppy formula to showing Tony's height against the wall ... Tony will also appear to be too short to be human.

So dance some more - Mr. Bojangles!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I suggest that you read what I have requested of you again, because it is obvious that your brains are lacking the mental capacity to understand anything on reading it the first time around, unless it has pictures to go with the text.

My request when you find someone with a higher IQ than your own to explain my request to you is as follows.

Measure the distance between where YOU think Gordon Arnold is and the wall.

This Arnold claim is your brain-child, thus why are you asking me to do what you should be illustrating to validate your point. You obviously think you are smarter than I ... that you don't need to consult people (experts) more qualified than yourself so to validate your claim, so should you not be the one who explains it to me.

I am really confused as to how you are able to create idiotic illustrations of monkeys next to Arnold ... pasting cartoon soldiers onto Arnold ... etc., and yet you keep avoiding showing us where you believe Cummings feet would come in relation to the wall. Have you a valid reason for not doing what has been asked of you for several forum pages now??????? All Don has done was point out that a person who is 'X' amount of feet from a camera regarless of which direction should look to be the same height in the photo. Of course this doesn't take into account any variables such as looking at an object on an even plane Vs. at an uphill angle, but in theory Don is correct. However, Don doesn't address the camera lens of Moorman's and how it reduces the size of alike objects at different distances from the camera.

You've been asked to apply the same formula to Tony Cummings that you applied to Gordon Arnold and so far you are trying to do any and everything but that. I and others wish to see how you approach for claiming Arnold is too small to be human works on a real person standing only a foot or two from Arnold's location. Other than a simple half-baked (for a better term) cut and paste job ... I have not a clue as to what other formula you used to get your conclusion about Arnold, so let us test it on the real life Tony Cummings and stop with the stalling. You certainly would not expect to pull this nonsense on the experts if you were to present your findings to the public ............ or is that the reason you have never tried to contact Turner or anyone so to advise them of their alleged mistake! (hmmmmmmmmmmm????)

Now I have asked you several pages again to show where Cummings feet would come down on the wall and to use the same formula that you used to be critical of Arnold.

Bill Miller

You are stretching the limits as to how thick you wish to appear to this forum.

YOU took the pic!!!!...YOU...should have an exact calculation....YOU tell the forum

]Duncan MacRae

You didn't ask Moorman for any calculations pertaining to her picture before making your claim about Gordon Arnold, so I want to see you do the same with my photo. I want nothing differently done .... apply the same formula to Tony in my photo that you did in Moorman's ... nothing more - nothing less!

While i'm here..On a Totally different topic. I asked you a while ago that if you ever have a book published, will the crayons come along with it, or do we need to buy those seperately to colour it in? [/b]

Plenty of free time to post moronic remarks and no time to promote your claim by answering my questions. Its little wonder that you didn't want to discuss your claim with any experts ... Turner ... or anyone else. It appears that your only interest is playing to an imaginary audience for even Miles hasn't been involving himself in your predicament at this time.

Bill Miller

Edited August 17, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

You are the one disputing my claim, so it's up to you if you want to supply the proof that I am wrong. I didn't ask you to butt in to the thread, that was your choice. So far you have did nothing but whinge and you have produced nothing since August2007

Actually, I recently produced the Cummings at the fence photo and asked you to use the same formula on him as you did Arnold. In getting you to address Tony's height against the wall compared to Arnold's would bring into question the validity of your conclusion that Arnold was too small. Unfortunately you have gone out of your way not to cooperate so not to have to face your mistake. One would think, like with most claims (scientific or otherwise) that they would invite such testing if for no other reason than to validate their points. Your so-called self-proclaimed desire to admit you are wrong when shown to be wrong leaves a little bit to be desired.

I am really confused as to how you are able to create idiotic illustrations of monkeys next to Arnold

That was Miles, not me

Thanks for pointing out that it was Miles who was posting the IDIOTIC monkey comparisons to Gordon Arnold. My memory was telling me that it was YOU who recently posted an orangutan next to Arnold's image ... and I still believe it was YOU. If I am wrong, then I apologize. If it was YOU, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

... etc., and yet you keep avoiding showing us where you believe Cummings feet would come in relation to the wall. Have you a valid reason for not doing what has been asked of you for several forum pages now???????

Yes...YOU were there...YOU did the study....YOU should know the answer to your own question..YOU obviously do not have that answer or you would have supplied it by now.

Duncan, you claimed to have eye-balled Gordon Arnold where he'd come to the wall. I asked that you seek the validation of an expert and you replied that you said that you didn't need to do that ... that you were capable of seeing it without the help of someone more knowledgeable than yourself. So I ask that you use what ever formula you used to do the same with Cummings. I cannot see the world through your eyes (thank goodness) any more than I can understand how some boob can deteriorate an image to the point of erasing half of the BDM while thinking he has brought out an image of someone right next to BDM. It is said that you understand insane is to be insane. So this is a request that only you can fulfill because only you know what formula that you used for making the claim that Arnold is too small. Let me know when you are sincere about testing your claim by showing us where the real life Tony Cummings comes to on the wall ... for this is the only way to show if the formula you used on Arnold is reliable or not. (Of course you know this already and I suspect this is why you won't comply)

All Don has done was point out that a person who is 'X' amount of feet from a camera regarless of which direction should look to be the same height in the photo. Of course this doesn't take into account any variables such as looking at an object on an even plane Vs. at an uphill angle, but in theory Don is correct.

Don's study calculation is not a theory..it's a fact!!!

Well it may appear to be a fact to a simpleton like yourself, but look at a fence post from ground level and then from an even plane and while its still the same post ... the height will change in your field of view. (And that is a fact!)

I and others wish to see how you approach for claiming Arnold is too small to be human works on a real person standing only a foot or two from Arnold's location.

What others?...don't they have the ability to post for themselves?

So is the new modus-operandi ... you don't respond unless you get a list of names of other members asking the same? How many names needs to be on the list?? You are aware are you not that lots of people read this thread and the same amount of people do not post saying that you are correct. So would not an honest reasonable person who is participating on an 'EDUCATION FORUM' want to cooperate and do all he could so to test is work??? Do you not realize that in the real world outside of this forum you could be asked to do the same as I have requested and what will you do then???? Your desire to evade and avoid shows doubt about your ability to not only understand how to test your claim, but also your desire to want to be accurate.

Other than a simple half-baked (for a better term) cut and paste job ... I have not a clue as to what other formula you used to get your conclusion about Arnold, so let us test it on the real life Tony Cummings and stop with the stalling.

As above...it's YOUR job

And if my job is asking for your cooperation to share your formula with us by demonstrating it on Cummings at the Badge Man location by marking where his feet would come in relation to the wall as you did Arnold .... then you feel your job is to not cooperate so not to allow anyone to show that your formula sucked. Then so be it!!!

You certainly would not expect to pull this nonsense on the experts if you were to present your findings to the public

What experts?

What experts you ask .... The experts that Turner would have look at your poorly thought-out claim. The experts who have an interest in JFK's death. Do you think that only buffs and trolls are interested in knowing the truth as to what happened to JFK ... really, Duncan ... get real!

Yawn!!..so repetative, do you come from a long line of Budgies

Non-responsive.

I think Miles realises that you have nothing to offer other than the usual " Others want to know " usual routine and no posting of your counter claim evidence which so far has been non existant....Do some research that you can post to counter my claim instead of spittin your dummy out of the pram all day long

Duncan MacRae

You realize that your remarks contradict your claim to be willing to admit you are wrong as if to imply you do so freely without being forced to.

Bill Miller

Edited August 18, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Mike Williams]

Funnily! Scotch vernacular. Im off to have tee martoonies.

[Bill Miller]

Thanks for posting the second edition of War and peace, but as usual it's more much ado about nothing, and another negative post.

You are the one who say's Arnold is real in the Moorman location....Something tells me that for you to come to that ridiculous awe uninspiring conclusion, you must have concocted your own magic formula..let's see it..I've only been asking you for a year. Funnily enough, I haven't seen your conclusion results posted anywhere.

Guesswork is not research...What experts verified your claim?

Did Turner pat you on the back when you told him of your results?

Duncan MacRae

I made no claim other than I stood at Moorman's location and took a photo of Cummings at the Badge Man location. Then I asked Bierma to post to the thread so to validate whether Cummings was right at the fence or not ... and he did.

To test your Arnold claim without my spending a small fortune to go to Dealey Plaza, I ask that you take a verified known person standing back at the fence as Arnold was and show us where on the wall would his feet come to by using the same formula that you used on Arnold. Once again you have refused to cooperate and once again I find that very suspicious for if you could use Cummings to validate your Arnold claim ... there is no doubt that you would have done so the first dozen times I asked you to do it.

Bill Miller

[Mike Williams]

To test your Arnold claim without my spending a small fortune to go to Dealey Plaza, I ask that you take a verified known person standing back at the fence as Arnold was and show us where on the wall would his feet come to by using the same formula that you used on Arnold. Once again you have refused to cooperate and once again I find that very suspicious for if you could use Cummings to validate your Arnold claim ... there is no doubt that you would have done so the first dozen times I asked you to do it.

Bill Miller

Don't ask me to replicate an Arnold position in Moorman that does not exist

You tried it with Mike Brown..It was a failure...it can't be done.

Now if you can prove otherwise, feel free to tell the world.

Duncan MacRae

So I have to ask, why not just apply the same formula to Tony Cummins, that you did to Gordon Arnold? Would that not end this and forever put this issue to rest?

We obviously see that Tony Cummins is real. Bill appears to have a legit question, in asking you to do that. If everything is on the up and up, this is your opportunity to fully prove Bill wrong.

It would also prove you right! And using Bills own photo to boot!!

Mike

[Bill Miller]

Don't ask me to replicate an Arnold position in Moorman that does not exist

You tried it with Mike Brown..It was a failure...it can't be done.

Now if you can prove otherwise, feel free to tell the world.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, quit pretending to be stupid! No one is asking you to replicate Arnold. I am asking that you use the same sloppy idiocy that led you to draw lines on the wall for Arnold's height and apply it in the same way to Cummings. Earlier your bitch was that you needed a good photo of Cummings and you got it. It seems like you are merely making excuses to avoid dealing with the fact that if you do what I ask, then everyone will see that Cummings is very close to the mark you made for Arnold, which you complained that it meant that he was too small to be real.

Your methods are sloppy - you will adjust your past views to avoid admitting your current errors - you'll try and misstate what's being asked of you - and you'll simply do anything you can not to cooperate in checking your claims. I find your behavior quite suspect for anyone being even halfway honest here would have tested your formula against that of a real person. Anyone interested in checking what I am saying can do so ...

a- You first were asked about Badge Man being real. This was done because in the past and even while posting on the Arnold issue ... you had been a supporter of Badge Man being real. You then avoided answering the question put to you until you were given the reasons fr my wanting to know this.

b- Once you found out that if Badge Man is real in your mind, thus Arnold cannot be too small ... you then told this forum that you had already decided that Badge Man was not real, but had kept quiet about it all this time. I find that a little hard to swallow because you did not hesitate to post that you believed Arnold not to be real, so you keeping quiet about Badge Man is not supported by your past actions.

c- Once it was apparent that you were trying to avoid your mistake by announcing to the forum that you no longer believed Badge Man to be real, you were asked to address Cummings seen in my photo because it was a fact that Tony is a real person. Your complaint then because that Cummings wasn't clear enough to determine his height. The fact that Arnold isn't any clearer didn't seem to register with you, but never-the-less I provided you with a more solid image of Cummings. After several times of you confusing Brown with Cummings as if you had not a clue as to where Badge Man had been located in relation to the corner of the wall, and after posting some more erred illustrations ... you started a long process of arguing that you didn't need to help do anything ... that it was my responsibility to prove you wrong. Once again your behavior wasn't matching your earlier statement that you are always willing to admit a mistake. Instead you were becoming uncooperative so not to have to admit your mistake.

d- After misstating my request of you several times over ... the last one cited here whereas you are claiming that I have asked you to replicate Arnold ... you are still putting on a show where we are supposed to believe that you are honestly misunderstanding what has been asked of you. You are only simply being asked the following: I want you to use the same method/formula in showing how tall Tony Cummings would look behind the wall as you did for Gordon Arnold. Now can you not understand the question ... if not, then I can find someone else to try and better explain it to you.

Bill Miller

Edited August 19, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The Cummings formula can not be applied to Arnold, as no one on the planet, including me, has a clue as to where the feet of the Arnold illusion, if real, would be.

Duncan MacRae[/b]

Just so you know, Dunce-can ... Some of us researchers work on things away from the forum and I asked Mike to make the post he did because you were going to dance 4ever as long as I asked the questions. From the beginning you have declared that you have PROVEN Arnold too small to be real. You implied that your claim was solid ... that you didn't need to seek anyone more experienced than you for help.

In the above remark to Mike, you finally admitted that all you did was make a guess at where Arnold's feet came beyond the wall. This is exactly why I asked you to do the same for Cummings because I knew damned well that your half-baked ('baked' in place of a better word that comes to mind) was based on some guess without having all the data needed to get it right. I suspect that you did try and see what you got with Cummings by using the same formula and discovered that using your sorry-baked method would also make Cummings look too small to be human. I think even Miles saw the less than forthright and honest position you were resorting to so to try and save your claim and thats why he stepped back and stayed out of it.

In the end the truth will set you free. The reason why you refused the help of a photo expert - the reason why you never took your claim to the next level - the reason why you wanted to know why I was interested in Badge Man before you'd answer my questions - the reason why you tried to blow off Cummings and doing the estimate as to where his feet would come - and etc., etc., all leads to the statement you made above. It was not a statement that came of your own free will, but one that had to be carefully solicited from you.

Shame on you, Duncan!

Bill Miller

Edited August 19, 2008 by Bill Miller