The Ghost Of Gordon Arnold

[Bill Miller]

Your reputation for crawling with mods and administrators in a publically displayed shameless weasel like manner is well known, some fall for your charm, some don't.

Mods and administrators crawl ... interesting observation ... one I do not believe to be accurate. When it comes to you ... I do not see why any crawling would be necessary for anyone to do.

Before you go much further ... you do know that a moderator cannot ban someone from a forum right?

Wrong..They can on some Forum's, They can't on others.

Ok ... you do know that you were talking about something I said that you thought was an attempt to get you banned from this forum. Lancer and this forum are the only two that I post on, and on each the moderator cannot ban a member. This forum particularly is one such forum, thus your complaining that I am trying to get a moderator to ban you isn't even a possibility. Do you not see the silliness in your allegation???

But if you would be so kind as to use your vast intelligence, please detail how it is that the upper body girth of Badge Man is not close enough to that of Cummings to be considered real ... that is if that is your position.

I've shown he is smaller than Cummings. Jerry Logan has shown that he is smaller than Cummings. If you want to continue living the fantasy, go ahead and write a book about it called " My obsession with Badgeman and the Gordon Arnold illusion, and why I can't, admit for the first time in my life that I got something wrong"

Drawing two lines onto an image needs a detailed explanation as to how you knew where to place those lines. Just throwing them up at random isn't research. Twice you have been asked to explain this and you have not complied. What features of Badge Man's did you use to reach your conclusion???

Thanks,

Bill Miller

Edited December 10, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Is it fair to say that you feel that you can see enough detail in Badge Man's image to make a reliable determination as to his height and width against that of Tony Cummings???

Bill Miller

Duncan, are we waiting for Miles and/or Jerry to help you figure out what to say next? You have already reached a conclusion, thus the response should be simple if one is merely seeking truth. It shouldn't look like a chess match where one grows silent when he realizes he is facing check-mate.

Take your time and when you decide what response to give, I'll be ready to try and advance forward.

Bill Miller

Edited December 10, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I've shown he is smaller than Cummings. Jerry Logan has shown that he is smaller than Cummings. If you want to continue living the fantasy, go ahead and write a book about it called " My obsession with Badgeman and the Gordon Arnold illusion, and why I can't, admit for the first time in my life that I got something wrong"

More on the smaller than Cummings saga ...

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that Cummings and Badge Man appear to be about the same distance above the well in your animated overlay of choice. I felt the top of the wall in the picture of Tony was too high in the alignment of the animation and you disagreed if I remember correctly. So I went back and I tested it exactly like you had posted it. I had the presence of mind to go ahead and check your claim as if the two walls were at the same elevation in your animation.

I simply drew a red line through Badge Man's eyes (the sharper version) and let the animation run back and forth and I cannot see more than a couple of inches difference in where these two individuals eyes would meet. Their heights are certainly close enough in my view that a rational and honest researcher wouldn't say that one is too small to be considered a real person. Would you not agree and if not, then why not???

Bill Miller

Edited December 10, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Take your time and when you decide what response to give, I'll be ready to try and advance forward.

Bill Miller

There's no response to give. Turning Tony Cummings in to a blurred degraded ghostly apparition doesn't change anything.

Duncan

Duncan, quite the contrary .... you were asked a specific question pertaining to the photo that someone degraded and then turned it into an animation which you posted to this thread. You called it accurate, you said it was magnificent. So here the question that you left out of your previous response. I would most appreciate a sensible coherent answer ....

Question: Is it fair to say that you feel that you can see enough detail in Badge Man's image to make a reliable determination as to his height and width against that of Tony Cummings???

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I don't agree. Even although we can't see Tony's face detail, it is clear that Badge Man has a much smaller head.

Duncan MacRae

But Duncan, its not clear to those who don't have the special gift that you possess. You were asked over and over again to be specific and not just tell us what we see, but rather show us how you reached your conclusion. What is your justification for not complying with that simple request?

I try to imagine what motive you could have for not cooperating so others can see your work so to know that you just aren't saying things that you don't understand yourself. You have been given every opportunity to help others understand what you claim to be so and its like you don't care to help your fellow researchers. You offer no illustrations showing how you checked your allegations. In post #57 you were given a clearer image of Tony's head without the tree foliage confusing its shape, yet you have not shown any test of your own that would possibly support your claim.

I drew lines through Badge Man's eyes ... you post nothing to show how much taller you believe Cummings to be than Badge Man. You offered no height change data to see if Cummings head would move closer to his shoulders if Tony was to take the same posture as Badge Man. This has basically turned into another Duncan tactic like you used in another thread where you also resorted to general references, offered no detailed explanations, and then just stopped cooperating. Remember what I said about how one's actions can speak louder than their words.

Here is yet another plea for your cooperation. Below is another comparison taken from the animation that you claimed to be magnificent. In this animation ... I have placed another red dotted line along the top of Badge Man's head and another through the alleged shoulder patch. Now let us examine what we see ...

I see that Cummings shoulders drop below the red dotted line. Who among the members of this forum doesn't know that if Tonly was to lift his arms so to be aiming a rifle, then his shoulders would rise slightly ... then Cummings and Badge Man's shoulders would match in distance above the wall.

The next thing would be to have Tony position his head as if to aim down the gun barrel like Badge Man is doing. This would cause not only Tony's shoulders to rise (shrug) while lifting the rifle up to fire it, but the aiming of the gun would cause Tony's head to lower slightly as he looked down the barrel.

So even without the positioning of Cummings into a firing stance ... Badge Man's shoulders and reference points are close to that of Cummings. That by putting Tony into the same firing position as Badge Man, the two's physical appearance above the wall are very close to each others. That certainly one cannot say that Badge Man is too small to be human when compared to the size of Tony Cummings. Would you not agree with that last sentence??? If you disagree with that last sentence, then please give a detailed explanation stating specifically how you drew your conclusion.

Thanks!

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Once again, I'll keep this short and comment in one sentence.

The red lines which you have drawn for comparisons do not match up the figures at any of your specified points of reference with each other, or come anywhere close.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, I think this discussion is coming to a close for you are unwilling to explain yourself with any details no matter how many times you have been asked to do so. I believe that you proclaim to keep your responses short because you don't know how to make the photographic record support the things you are saying. You'll find time to create ridiculous animations and cartoon characters, but cannot even put an arrow on an serious image to demonstrate your point to the reader. Instead you take a stance that someone's shoulders in a relaxed posture do not come to a line so to match someone's shoulders who has their arms lifted to a firing posture. This is common sense ... you told us nothing we didn't already know.

Cummings shoulders fall below the red line - Badge Man's shoulders are above it. Cummings is 6'3" ... Badge Man may have been 6' tall, thus leaving a 3" difference in shoulder and eye height. However, both individuals body proportions fall within the realm of human beings, thus it would be an attempt to deceive this forum on anyone's part in my view that would say that Badge Man is not close enough to the body size of Cummings to be considered human. You see, if Badge Man is close to the size of a human, and Arnold is close to the size of Badge Man, then we are right back at the height issue pertaining to where Arnold's feet would meet the ground behind the wall. It is this point in my view that caused you to stop cooperating because your truth is nothing more than a game being played ... you have said so. In this case, your lack of action has spoken louder than your words.

If you get serious enough to show your work and will offer detailed explanations to support your claims, then I will be happy to pick up where we left off.

Bill Miller

Edited December 12, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Wow!....That was very long winded with taints of your own belief in your own self importance and superiority in all matters.

Anyway, I agree, my reason being that you steadfastly refuse to show all of the Forum, after 18 months of asking you, where you place Arnold's feet.

Duncan MacRae

On two occasions we were headed down the road to possibly better understanding where Arnold's feet were in relation to the wall and both times you did everything you could to prevent that from happening ... so much so that you posted several times that you would not even discuss Gordon Arnold again. You professed how you are 'winning' this so-called game and yet you stopped cooperating each time you were faced with data that would not support your previous position. You are so hung-up on not wanting to appear in error that while you scale your Badge Man figure against the wall, you don't even apply the fact that Cummings was on the first cross board of the fence when I took his photo, which means his feet would come much closer to your line than Badge Man's. But I distinctly recall you saying that Cummings was higher over the wall than Badge Man, thus theoretically this would imply that Tony's feet should be no closer to the ground than Badge Man's ... so what denominator is being overlooked ... is this not important ... I certainly thought it was!

Another instance of you simply ignoring any data that showed your claim to be flawed and needing more work was this red-arrowed man that either you or your play buddy (Miles) had posted. This figure is closer to the wall than Arnold was and yet even with severe ground erosion his feet would also be high up on the wall. At the very least this should have called for a detailed study explaining it away, but you did nothing.

You were asked nicely to simply help put the things we could agree about on one side of the isle so we could concentrate on the thing(s) we didn't agree about. This would prevent any back sliding later on. It would also provide a chain of investigated evidence that would help lead us to an end result instead of passing over any data that might be erred that would lead to a flawed rush to judgment. To this day ... not a single Arnold critic has attempted to show that the figure in the Nix film could not be seen from Moorman's position. Have you or any other Arnold critic bothered to order some prints from UPI ... I have not seen it posted. As one reads back over the Arnold threads ... they will probably see how much of the evidence was not learned until after the conclusion had been drawn. Things like Arnold's height, the correct visible height of the fence, the mounding of the ground elevation between the walkway and the fence, the visible height difference in the wall between the time of the assassination and today are all things relevant to this study. Bypassing these things and just wanting to rush to the end so to draw a conclusion is not research. Its the same kind of thing that leads to a Zapruder Waltz. It may be the season to be jolly, but in the murder of JFK ... it should always be the season to take the time to be serious and thorough in our research.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[

name='Duncan MacRae' date='Dec 12 2008, 08:50 PM' post='159887]

On two occasions we were headed down the road to possibly better understanding where Arnold's feet were in relation to the wall and both times you did everything you could to prevent that from happening

Total BS as usual

Duncan ... what is BS(?) in your view ... are you disputing doing all of it or just the number of times you did it! I'll be happy to go back to a previous thread and post your saying you would not discuss Arnold any further ... That was the first time you stopped us from moving forward.

The second time was in this Duncan thread on the guy you weren't going to talk about again. In this thread you have refused to post details on how you are drawing your conclusions. Here is a reminder of how I believed Cummings and Badge Man wasn't that far apart in upper body size above the wall.

I posted that I was not prepared to discuss things in a specific thread because of the expulsion of Miles, and because he could not contribute further on that specific thread.

Really? You needed your little study buddy (Miles) ... is that what you want to infer?? Was your starting this thread an attempt on your part to take those first baby steps without Miles here to post monkey pictures???

Maybe it would be nice to have him(Miles) with us in spirit ... would it not? In fact, here is one of his magnificent overlays of the Cummings photo onto Badge Man's image. I could not help but notice the skin tones of Cummings head and how that would help you better determine how close he and Badge Man's features matched above the wall. Feel free to explain how those color tones got lost between Miles use of Tony's image and yours?

You spend so much time trying to invent ways to make it appear that you're offended by being looked upon as a xxxxx and yet you have no time to detail your conclusions and how you reached them.

My data supports my position, and further data by the brilliant Jerry Logan supports that position. Anyone can go to Lancer and see his precise data.

I guess we must be left to take your word for it because each time you are asked to explain your conclusions in detail ... you only respond in a general term like you did here once again. Kinda makes one wonder why this should be called 'The Education Forum' when you post on it as if it was a cult.

But I distinctly recall you saying that Cummings was higher over the wall than Badge Man,

I didn't mention the wall, you're making things up again, but people here know every time you do that now.

Would you like for me to count how many times in this thread I asked you if you agreed with me that what is seen over the wall pertaining to Cummings and Badge Man were very close to being the same??? (see exchange below)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...13771&st=30

Do you now agree that what is seen over the wall of Badge Man and Cummings are very close in size to one another? If not, then why not??

Bill Miller

"I don't agree.

The Badge Man image is portrayed as in a shooting position, which means that both of his arms are extended outwards while in the firing position, creating the illusion of added body width. Tony's arms are at his side in a straight downwards position."

Red arrow man is a crock that has no bearing on the content of the Moorman photograph. As for my " Play Buddy " as you call him ( Miles )..Fine fellow, damn fine chap, anyone for tennis LOL!!!

You are aware are you not that it was one of you two fine chaps that posted red arrow man's picture on the subject of the Badge Man figures in the first place.

But for clarifications sakes ... You believe Arnold is too high above your line on the wall to not be floating in mid-air. So in a photo that you or Miles posted we have a set of people at the top of the steps and their feet are on the sidewalk. Another person who is further back from the wall looks on film to be considerably smaller and his feet wouldn't come down the wall much further than your line without making his legs too long. Something is causing this illusion and if it has changed that much between he and the people on the walkway, how much more elevated would he look if back even closer to the fence. You may believe this not to have any bearing on the content in Moorman's photo, but I believe it has a lot to do with it. I also think that you believe he is relevant as well or else you wouldn't be so quick to want to dismiss him. To help understand Arnold's floating appearance is to understand the man under the red arrow's floating appearance.

Bill Miller

Edited December 14, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

In the history of this Forum, that comparison effort of yours above must go down as a prime contender for the number one postion in the "Worst Ever Scaling Comparison " catagory

The task is simple..Let's see where you place the feet of the subjects as requested of you more times than I care to remember. Your lack of cooperation in this says a lot, and the archives will show your reluctance to comply, leaving people wondering why. There's no point posting red arrow men in non relevant photographs to make comparisons. We are talking Moorman here, and the content contained within the Moorman content. Stick with that and we might get somewhere.

Duncan MacRae

You have a history of jumping to the conclusion first and then looking like 'Chicken Little' when the matter is thoroughly investigated. Drunken AOL Man and Tripod Man are just a few in a long line of claims that came about through your making the same mistakes over and over. I am not going to be just another boob who drew a line on a wall and didn't have the facts straight going in.

When this topic started you posted your conclusion right off. I don't think at that time you knew Gordon Arnold's height, the correct height of the fence on the walkway side of it, you didn't know the visible vertical height change in the wall for the correct scaling purposes, nor did you know that the ground elevation did rise between the walkway and the fence. Now you want to bypass all this information and go straight to the conclusion and anyone in my view who chooses that path is looking for something other than the truth. JFK once cited 'A mistake isn't a mistake unless you refuse to correct it'. You have no justifiable excuse for wanting to make the same mistakes over and over. You certainly cannot convince me that your not getting any of this because I can show a history of a lack of cooperation on your part each time you are asked a question that the answer would show you to have been in error. It started with my asking you if you believed Badge Man to be real while knowing you had used Badge Man in all of your frontal shot claims from the knoll - to not wanting to discuss why the guy under the red arrow was also getting shorter and having his feet rise against the wall compared to those people closer to it - to you completely not wanting to discuss the evidence pertaining to Arnold's size any longer in the thread previous to this one. I have lost track of how many times you were asked if you feel that you could see Badge Man well enough to have properly and fairly given an accurate comparison to his and Tony's reference points and to this late date you have not answered this simple 'yes or no' question. You have since been reminded that Tony's facial tones can be seen in some of the earlier uses of his image in these animated scalings ... you have not shown your alleged disagreement in my saying that their visible body proportions were close to one another.

If you are not wanting to do a thorough inquiry, then you are merely wasting my time and I'll wait until someone else steps up who is interested in conducting a thorough look at this matter. Maybe it will be someone who will say that it does seem relevant that a real person standing back from the wall does appear to have his feel rise against your line. They will see that if this illusion happened to someone else even after the soil eroded below the tree roots, then maybe it happened to Arnold as well when the soil was still mounded. Maybe they'll take the time to show whether or not the figure in the Nix film could be seen in Moorman's photo because they believe it to be relevant and important to know. Maybe they too will not want this to be yet another third person claim of a mystery man at the pedestal with Sitzman and Zapruder. (see below)

Maybe they'll want to be thorough by cross referencing other data sources ... that is research ... not merely jumping to a conclusion without having the facts straight.

Bill Miller

Edited December 13, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Dec 13 2008, 07:02 PM' post='159913]

Well firstly I'll say that the third man at the pedestal is not my claim, so I do not know why you choose to say it is my claim. If you wish to deceive people, then so be it, I guess it's become a habit with you now which you can't break.

Duncan, do you always have problems comprehending what is said in all post or is it just limited to my responses. I didn't say you were the originator of the third person at the pedestal claim, but I have seen you start threads on it and argue in its favor, thus it is a claim that you make. And while I was not the first one to point out its lunacy, it is my claim that you were misreading the image.

Let's remind people of your ridiculous Willis assassin and let them judge for themselves your fine photographic analysis.

Bill's Willis Assassin

Well at least you gave us an idea who it is that degrades the images each time they enlarge them. I am not sure what analysis you speak of other than I pointed out that someone is standing beyond the fence and blocking out the skyline in the Willis photo. That this person is not seen at that location in other photos taken after the shooting. To date you have not offered a single explanation as to what else can be between the corner of the fence and the Hat Man

The Hat Man: Seconds later Moorman took her photograph and the top of the Hat Man is seen along the Elm Street fence line. I once had asked you if you saw anything else between Hat Man and the corner of the fence in Mary's photo and you had said that you do not. Now I find it somewhat self serving that you wish to claim that you do not see this figure blocking out the skyline and yet you posted an unidentifiable blackened image of the pedestal and claimed to see many minute details pertaining to Zapruder and Sitzman. Like I said before ... your actions speak louder than your words.

Now back to the real stuff. This is how Arnold would have looked at any point along the fence, had he been there. The thread started off on the topic of Arnold, let's get back there.

Duncan MacRae[/b]

I find this 'footless' figure interesting. So you post an estimate of the size you believe Arnold would be if he was south of his position seen in Moorman's photo. Of course the elevation change between where you placed this Arnold and the location of the Moorman Arnold isn't noted at all.

I notice too that you are still not considering that Moorman is looking upward at the knoll, thus anyone standing in front of the fence will appear higher against it than someone of the same height seen standing by it and viewed on an even plane.

Also, you are aware are you not that the fence is running at an angle away from Moorman. I know from your past reluctance to cooperate by answering questions that you are aware that Cummings being roughly the size of Badge Man ... and Badge Man being roughly the size of Arnold ... that this shows them all to be the size they should be. Your figure at the fence is far larger than the known real world Cummings and you don't even act like you see the problem with this.

Your approach is full of mistakes and missing considerations, but you may recall that I pointed this out to you early on and had advised that you seek someone more skilled than yourself to advise you and you claimed that you didn't need any help. Instead, you just bypass the data and draw a quick conclusion without the facts. The proof is in the pudding as they say ... for you know so little about what you are doing that you still think that you have shown your pasted Arnold correctly in an upward view but as if scaled against the height of the fence on an even plane.

So far you have been asked about 6 times if you feel that you can make out these figures well enough to have scaled them correctly to Tony Cummings .... is there a reason why you do not wish to answer this question or are you waiting for me to tell you why you won't answer it???

Bill Miller

Edited December 14, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

In the history of this Forum, that comparison effort of yours above must go down as a prime contender for the number one postion in the "Worst Ever Scaling Comparison " catagory

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, that isn't my scaling, but instead one that you or Miles posted when you two were patting each others behind over how accurate it was. So it seems that the scaling is accurate when you believe them to be yours or your play buddy's, but when you think its mine, then its way off. (looking good, Dunc ... looking good!)

Edited December 13, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

[ name=Duncan MacRae' date='Dec 14 2008, 04:16 PM' post='159928]

Yes, I know..It was one of my rough estimate comparisons. I made the comment because I knew you would give a hypocritical reply

Sounds like you were trolling ... we are supposed to be looking for the truth ... not hypocritical replies. Now tell me once again how offended you are when being referred to as a xxxxx.

On the one hand you said that the image was badly degraded and useless for comparison purposes, and now you say you can make a comparison between Tony and Badge Man's skin tones LOL!!!

Duncan MacRae[/b]

That isn't correct, Duncan. I said that you guys seem to degrade the images from their original postings. That they seem to get fuzzier after you post them. However, I still felt that the body outline of Cummings could still be approximated against the skyline.

My chief concern was that the drum scan image of Badge Man wasn't as reliable for facial and body details than the better UPI print. I went as far as to attempt to show Cummings size against that of Badge Man's in the UPI print, so there should not have been any misunderstandings concerning my feelings about the images one way or the other.

And the last point that should be made is that I asked if 'YOU' felt that you could see Badge Man's image well enough to be telling me that I had it all wrong. You went on and asked me for an image of Tony's face rather than just a dark silhouette, so I went back and noticed the image had skin tone to the face so to show where it was when Miles used it. How it got lost is still a mystery to me, but not surprising. You have yet to do your own analysis of the skin toned image to see if Badge Man's face is similar in height to Cummings' ... also not surprising to me.

Bill Miller

Edited December 14, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I'm not interested in skin tone analysis in this topic. Overall head size and body size is enough, and Tony's head is much bigger ( No offence intended Tony ).

Now once again...Can you show us where you place Arnold's feet?

Duncan MacRae

Your replies are just what I am talking about when I say that you are wasting my time and have no interest in taking this subject seriously. You were the one who asked for a picture showing Tony's face rather than just a silhouette ... Miles had already provided it. So now you have no interest in skin tones, but is not the skin tone that allows one to see where Tony's head starts and stops.

Your last remark drives it home for once again you are saying that Tony's head is much bigger, but not showing anything you have done to prove this to be true. I mean how do you know that Tony's head is much bigger if you do not test your observations and we both know that if you had tested it and could back up your assertion, then you would have done so. So far you have not even confirmed that the Badge Man image is clear enough for you to make an accurate comparison. If you are just wanting to preach, then find a cult. I want to be able to check the things you say.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

name='Duncan MacRae' date='Dec 14 2008, 11:55 PM' post='159947']

Look, you are talking garbage as per usual. Skin tones What a joke....Why not compare the number of hairs or spots on each of the subjects chins?..Why not check to see if either has dandruff or cauliflower ears?

MacRae: I don't agree that Badge Man's body comes anywhere close in size to Tony's body.

MacRae: I don't agree. Even although we can't see Tony's face detail, it is clear that Badge Man has a much smaller head.

(Miller)I asked if 'YOU' felt that you could see Badge Man's image well enough to be telling me that I had it all wrong. You went on and asked me for an image of Tony's face rather than just a dark silhouette,

MacRae:I'm still waiting

I find your constant shifting around to fit your needs to be less than sincere in wanting to cooperate. You first claim that a scaling is magnificent, but when it is shown that Cummings and Badge Man are close to the same human proportions in my view ... you merely claim this to be wrong. You ask to see Cummings face and when you are given what you ask for and to show how it is wrong ... you then post the following -------------

MacRae: I'm not interested in skin tone analysis in this topic. Overall head size and body size is enough

The same thing occurred when another humnan being seen back from the wall was also rising up in the air towards your line. Rather than to try and understand the cause ... you said the following ------

MacRae: Red arrow man is a crock that has no bearing on the content of the Moorman photograph

It was this same approach to dismiss anything that doesn't support your belief as unnecessary that put Moorman in the street, created people smaller than parking meters, and caused Mrs. Franzen to rise upward in Zapruder's field of view.

If we have a top of the head and a bottom of the head for both subjects, then thats enough.

Are you satisfied then that you can see enough of the top and bottom of Badge Man's head to make a fair and adequate comparison to Cummings head??? And can you show us your work by marking the top and bottom of each head ... Thanks!

Bill Miller

Edited December 15, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Within a reasonable tolerance level, yes.

I'll post my result which I have ready as soon as you post my request that you show me where you place Arnold's feet in Moorman.

I think that's fair, although I do not expect you to supply my request, and will almost certainly reply with self imposed air of superiority and headmaster style wagging finger nonsense reply about my sincerity. Let's see if I am correct

DuncanMacRae

I cannot and will not jump to the end of the investigation without first walking through all the evidence that leads to that point. In other words, you are asking me to guess at something that needs more data to be read into it. This is why I asked that you walk through this stuff with me to get your input and so there would be no misunderstandings. This approach has failed with you in my view for reasons I have already given.

Dear Mr. Sincerity, once again whether you show your work or not .... Do you feel that you can see Badge Man's face and head well enough to make an accurate and adequate comparison to Tony Cummings???

Bill Miller

Edited December 15, 2008 by Bill Miller