Re: Douglas' definition of honesty?

"Alienjones" <Alienjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:g0ghgr$2hc$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Alienjones wrote:
>>> To keep him honest in his appraisal of the enlargement...
>>
>>
>> And not that I would ever rub it in, but seeing Douglas is referring to

>> 'honesty', here's *more* (refer to my other post on this thread) of
what 
>> Colin_D said when Douglas attempted to pass off a stitched composite as
a 
>> 'genuine' enlargement.
>>
>
> It seems the Stalker, the wanna be, the neverwillbe and the fossil from 
> Arlington all have one thing in common. The ability to invent a story 
> regardless of the facts or the truth of the matter.


  They have plenty of experience from reading your posts. You are the
master 
when it comes to fabrication and twisting the truth.


>
> For one thing... Gordon Moat (in 2005) was the second person in these
groups 
> to see one of my enlargements first hand. The only other person to see
one 
> was Alan Browne.
>
> Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic
qualification. 
> This makes his *****sment the only one with any substance to it.

  And we can read what he wrote right here:


   "I should point out that the original requests for me to view image
 samples did NOT come directly from Douglas."
 (Douglas claimed he had made the request.  He LIED.)
 "I should also point out that the original claim that Douglas had was
 that his algorithm did not LOSE any detail information. I am not sure
  how or when that changed in the last year to a claim of adding or
  increasing detail information; it is simply not possible regardless of
  technology."



   And even Gordon called you a liar ! Amazing !



   And here:

http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples

Douglas has NEVER proven what he claims (namely that he can "add real
detail" and that he can enlarge a 6x4 print up to 36x24 and actually
INCREASE the detail level to 720 ppi (yes, his words!) in the process..
  He has been caught out lying on numerous occasions, using falsified
images.  Here's just one example:

http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples




  And here:


 "Colin D:
  I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the
  smoothness and foreground definition with my setup here, and
  attributed that to your magic algorithm.  Little did I realize
  that it was stitched, and I guess you could say that you stitched
  me up as well.

  To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I
  am sorely pissed off at being used to sup****t your 'algorithm'
  with a misrepresented print.

  If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.

  In utter disgust,

  Colin D."



  " Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo
   From: Colin_D <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
   Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300
   Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use)

   Declaration to all readers of this thread:

   At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the
   print he sent me.

   By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty
   stitched images.  He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he
   sent me, the
   right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame?  Like, 19 frames
   used in the other half?

   Douglas appears to have serious reality problems.  His word is not to
   be trusted.

   Colin D. "




>
> Everything said by the stalker from Australia and the jackass from 
> Chattanooga is just sour grapes.


  Only in your mind.


> The fosil from Arlington? To be pitied for being fooled by the jackass
but 
> none toe less spreading lies.
>
> Gordon Moat's review of my enlargement and his comments about the
printing 
> industry (as it was in 2005) are here, unedited and unaltered.
>
> http://www.annika1980.com/evidence/moats-comments.htm



> As for the honesty of the stalker from AU, no one should ever forget he
high 
> tailed it out of South Australia under an assumed name to hide out in 
> Queensland. Never bothering to keep his Electoral enrollment address 
> updated, not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain
a 
> Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of ****nning 
> angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed.


   Stalking again Douglas ? Why is it ok for you to stalk people but you
get 
all upset when you think it is happening to you ?

>
> There's some really nice (NOT) people inhabiting Usenet and he is one of
the 
> un-nicest I've ever come across. Right next to the jackass from
Chattanooga 
> and his puppet in Arlington.