Big cat really quite small

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On May 13, 6:49 pm, "Alienjones" wrote:
The truth is:

I did in fact respond to the challenge and as Gordon confirmed... Could do
exactly what I claimed to be able to do. Idiots like Charlie Stevens and
Bret Douglas are so jealous of anyone who can do something they can't,
they
set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a
package of truth.


Bull****. You later admitted that the image you sent them was made
from a stitched image and not the original shot. Guess you forgot
about that, eh Gramps? I'm sure Mark has the appropriate cites for
you in his files.
------------------------------------
If you are going to be a liar, learn how to remember things fool. Mark is
actually Charles and from his history of moving around changing his
identity, I'd say he has more to worry about right now than finding a vague
reference on Google.

I told ColinD the image I sent him was from a composite... Some 2 years
after you started your pedantic bull**** and the Alan Browne saga. What's
up? You have a problem with honesty? I also told him the size of the
composite ... Fuching WALL FILLING. His print equaled one frame of a 20D.
More truth so put your hands over your ears to stop them burning.

Since then you've tried to impersonate me (Criminal Fraud) Hack my sellers
account on Ebay (identy theft) pasted porn into my images and gotten your
fake slut to post the link to it and after all these were taken down by the
hosts you scammed, you put em back on AOL. What disgusting perverted fool
you are.

The nice little record on http://www.annika1980.com is about to be updated
too. Don't forget that old codger you shot some pics of... Get him on the
job mate. In fact I think I'll send him some information and see if he'll do
the court work in Chatanooga for me. That other idiot across the road from
him is more interested in divorces and taking my money for nothing I
couldn't have gotten from the 'net.

Keep off the porn for a while and your memory might return. Hasn't your
mother told you about blindness and what you're doing? Believe this fool.
You have more than just my attention in what you do now. Behave yourself for
a change.

Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh?
Excellent stuff.

Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like
I do but a lot better than posting all those worthless stamp size images
you've been wasting your time with. Still, I suppose a dodo like you has to
learn somehow. You certainly aren't going to make any friends amongst those
who offered to help you with that bloody great chip on your sholder. Learn
by mistakes is a slow process as you are discovering.

Maybe I could interest you in one of my 2009 calendars? I just ordered
10,000 of them for the coming season. Let's see now, that makes the score a
little unbalanced for you doesn't it? 13 photos per calendar X 8 regions.
Hmmm. Forgetting all the images in my wedding magazines, that makes over a
100 published photos for me so far this year. Add the magazine shots and
seriously Bret... You are a babe in the woods.

Don't worry matey... You won't ever catch up to me but if you keep at it,
I'm sure you'll soon enough get to number 4 and then 5 and so it will go
until you start to get paid for your effort in excess of the cost of your
gear and can then claim to be a professional. Maybe then you'll know why it
just isn't profitable to mess around with a single pic the way you do.

Until then, stick to minding your own business because when you interfer
with mine, you are going to get more unwanted attention than a bloke in your
line of business really wants to have. The eyes of the world are on you now
son, let's see you apply yourself to getting out of the **** hole you live
in and make something of yourself for a change.

Firstly, may I observe that the image Douglas posted is up to his usual
standards - boring, pointless and uninteresting, insipid colours,
uninspiring composition (although the chopped off mast head is probably
a master stroke I am incapable of understanding) and inexplicably poor
choice of time of day - why on earth shoot in such flat, horrid light?

And one would have to question a 'pro's' use of a lens that is allegedly
so bad the CA had to be processed out of what is a greatly reduced
image, shot in circumstances that shouldn't elicit much CA at all. This
is not exactly a challenging scene, altho for Doug perhaps it would be...

Now, going a little off-topic and to pick up on Douglas and his usual
pack of LIES.

Alienjones wrote:
The truth is:

I did in fact respond to the challenge and as Gordon confirmed... Could do
exactly what I claimed to be able to do. Idiots like Charlie Stevens and
Bret Douglas are so jealous of anyone who can do something they can't,
they
set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a
package of truth.

An oft-repeated falsehood from Douglas. Here is the link where Gordon
Moat, very tactfully, corrects Douglas' assertions:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...c2af22e84217b/

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.asp...mages-examples

Note how Doug is IMMEDIATELY busted for posting a reduction, not an
enlargement, and the page is then pulled after he tries to bluster his
way out of his own quagmire of lies.. The web is littered with similar
examples of Doug's lies and bull**** enlarging claims. He rapidly pulls
any pages as soon as he is busted, but I have several saved pages
showing his falsehoods - if anyone wants a copy, just let me know...

No one is suggesting he can't make big prints (frankly, anyone can!).
I've seen them - they are positively mediocre, and barely scrape
together 70-120 ppi detail level. Which is ok from a distance. So
goodonya dougie.

But what we ARE pointing out is that his claims of a super-duper
enlarging algorithm are bull****, he constantly lies and cheats to
promote his (very hard to find!) 'businesses'.. and his quality
standards are obviously crap.

That's the same enlarging algorithm he sold to Samsung, by the way. Are
you still claiming that, Dougie? Or was 'Graham Hunt' lying?

I told ColinD the image I sent him was from a composite...

That is easily proven as an absolute BLATANT LIE. Here's what Colin
actually said when he found out he had been duped:

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo
From: Colin_D
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300
Subject: 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.

And here's the link for incontrovertible proof of Douglas MacDonald's LIES:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/re...2ea8368e5fd9be

To clarify Colin's words, he had earlier been sent a 24x36 print after a
conversation in a different thread. The print was *supposed* to prove
that Doug could make enlargements as he claimed (ie from a small file
and with "real added detail"). Colin remained somewhat unimpressed.
Then, many months later - in the thread above - Douglas accidentally let
it slip that the image was in fact a COMPOSITE of 20 images!! Douglas
started madly backpedalling - read the thread if interested...

So, Douglas MacDonald, you are a, yet again, proven as a FILTHY LIAR.
Your reputation here is thoroughly deserved.

Note, as usual, Doug, that I post links and proof that you are a liar.
You should try it - posting your own demented website doesn't count -
especially now that you have been proven as a hopeless, incorrigible
liar *many* times over and not just by me..

Keep at it, Doug. You amuse me. And we are still waiting, with baited
breath, for you to return, victorious (grin), to the famous 'stepped out
panorama' thread/debacle, he

http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-263937.html

This topic will be revisited by me shortly. (I'd get in first if I was
you, Doug - what's stopping you? Too much wedding/portrait work?)

(O:

If anyone still wants to utilise Douglas MacDonald's services after
checking out the links above, here is that link again:

http://www.douglasjames.com.au/

I won't point you to weddingsnportraits - he seems to be winding that
one down - another in a long list of casualties. Whatever happened to
clocksnprints (due in March 08)? Technoaussie? His other unnamed
'photo lab franchises'? The list of failures continues (Doug can easily
correct me if I'm wrong, simply by posting a shopfront address..)

(O

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.

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 ****ed off at being used to support your 'algorithm'
with a misrepresented print.

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

In utter disgust,

Colin D.


Yes, folks, that is the typical modus operandi of Douglas MacDonald - a
fraudster, a liar and cheat of the highest order.

Link he
http://groups.google.com.au/group/re...2ea8368e5fd9be

The post referred to is on Jan 5.


Cheers, Doug.

You lowlife slimebag.

"Alienjones" wrote in message
...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On May 13, 6:49 pm, "Alienjones" wrote:
The truth is:

I did in fact respond to the challenge and as Gordon confirmed... Could do
exactly what I claimed to be able to do. Idiots like Charlie Stevens and
Bret Douglas are so jealous of anyone who can do something they can't, they
set about to create a load of lies and defamation rather than accept a
package of truth.


Bull****. You later admitted that the image you sent them was made
from a stitched image and not the original shot. Guess you forgot
about that, eh Gramps? I'm sure Mark has the appropriate cites for
you in his files.
------------------------------------
If you are going to be a liar, learn how to remember things fool. Mark is
actually Charles and from his history of moving around changing his
identity, I'd say he has more to worry about right now than finding a vague
reference on Google.

I told ColinD the image I sent him was from a composite... Some 2 years
after you started your pedantic bull**** and the Alan Browne saga. What's
up? You have a problem with honesty?


No, but it seems you do. That must go along with your failing memory. A
quote from and old post:


"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 ****ed off at being used to support your 'algorithm'
with a misrepresented print.

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

In utter disgust,

Colin D."




I also told him the size of the
composite ... Fuching WALL FILLING. His print equaled one frame of a 20D.
More truth so put your hands over your ears to stop them burning.

More lies from a professional liar. Another quote to refresh your failing
(selective) memory:


" Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo
From: Colin_D
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300
Subject: 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. "



Since then you've tried to impersonate me (Criminal Fraud) Hack my sellers
account on Ebay (identy theft) pasted porn into my images and gotten your
fake slut to post the link to it and after all these were taken down by the
hosts you scammed, you put em back on AOL. What disgusting perverted fool
you are.

Only in your mind, Douglas.


The nice little record on http://www.annika1980.com is about to be updated
too. Don't forget that old codger you shot some pics of... Get him on the
job mate. In fact I think I'll send him some information and see if he'll do
the court work in Chatanooga for me. That other idiot across the road from
him is more interested in divorces and taking my money for nothing I
couldn't have gotten from the 'net.


More lies, more idle threats.


Keep off the porn for a while and your memory might return. Hasn't your
mother told you about blindness and what you're doing? Believe this fool.

That might be the only thing you don't lie about as your own memory seems
to be very poor. I also noticed that you wear glasses.


You have more than just my attention in what you do now. Behave yourself for
a change.

More idle threats. And you wonder why you have such a large base of fans ?


Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh?
Excellent stuff.

Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like
I do

Got any proof of that, blowhard, or are we just expected to take the word of
a liar as the truth ?



but a lot better than posting all those worthless stamp size images
you've been wasting your time with. Still, I suppose a dodo like you has to
learn somehow. You certainly aren't going to make any friends amongst those
who offered to help you with that bloody great chip on your sholder. Learn
by mistakes is a slow process as you are discovering.


That's why it helps so much when you post examples of your work, it shows
everyone what NOT to do.



Maybe I could interest you in one of my 2009 calendars?

Still can't manage to sell any, eh ? Must suck to have to give them away.


I just ordered 10,000 of them for the coming season.

Must really suck having to buy your own photos !


Let's see now, that makes the score a little unbalanced for you doesn't it?

I'll bet it does. How do you make money if you have to buy your own photos ?


13 photos per calendar X 8 regions.

WOW, thirteen photos, I'm impressed !!! Are those all recycled wedding
photos or did you have to take another 13 for the calenders ?


Hmmm. Forgetting all the images in my wedding magazines,


Why "forgetting" them all, because they don't exist ?



that makes over a
100 published photos for me so far this year. Add the magazine shots and
seriously Bret... You are a babe in the woods.


Either that or you're just a dulusional psycopathic liar.



Don't worry matey... You won't ever catch up to me but if you keep at it,

You're right, I don't think anyone will ever catch up to you in lying !


I'm sure you'll soon enough get to number 4 and then 5 and so it will go
until you start to get paid for your effort in excess of the cost of your
gear and can then claim to be a professional.

I thought being a "pro" meant being able to take a decent photo ? This is
something you haven't been able to show anyone, yet !


Maybe then you'll know why it just isn't profitable to mess around with a
single pic the way you do.


Then why do you cry so loudly when you accuse someone of stealing one of
your ****ty snapshots ????



Until then, stick to minding your own business because when you interfer
with mine, you are going to get more unwanted attention than a bloke in your
line of business really wants to have. The eyes of the world are on you now
son, let's see you apply yourself to getting out of the **** hole you live
in and make something of yourself for a change.

Oooooooooooh, more idle threats from the austrailian blowhard ! Time to
give it a rest, ******.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On May 14, 12:36 am, "Alienjones" wrote:

Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh?
Excellent stuff.

Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like
I do


You mean the flyers you give away for free on your site featuring your
crappy Bridezilla pics? yeah, that compares favorably with selling
photos to magazines.

Idiot.


---------------------------------------


He only hands out the Bridezilla pics at holloween. Let's face it, nobody is
going to pay for those pics !

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.

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 assessment the only one with any substance
to it.

Everything said by the stalker from Australia and the jackass from
Chattanooga is just sour grapes. 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 shinning
angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed.

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.

XxYyZz wrote:



Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:

http://www.douglasjames.com.au/previews/the_cat.htm

Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
Douglas' images.

Oh well, I tried to be nice.

Draco

----------------------------------------------------


You didn't miss anything. It's just another crap phot from Douglas.
Looks like it was taken with a cheap point and shoot camera.


Yeah... it was. A Canon 40D.
Just about as cheap and ****ty as they come.

Annika1980 wrote:
On May 14, 12:36 am, "Alienjones" wrote:

Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh?
Excellent stuff.

Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like
I do


You mean the flyers you give away for free on your site featuring your
crappy Bridezilla pics? yeah, that compares favorably with selling
photos to magazines.

Idiot.

For a backwood jackass, you sure are an insult to the (in) breed.

When someone distributes a 48 page magazine City wide, it actually
qualify the owner of the magazine to be called a MAGAZINE PUBLISHER.

maybe 2 years ago it was a flyer. A year ago it was still a multi page
brochure. Today it's a full fledged magazine with a client base that
reads like a who's who of the restaurant and wedding industry.

While you were busy making an idiot out of yourself, I was quietly
chiseling away at a publishing business than now produces 3 magazines
and 10 regional calendars with some serious plans and prospects for when
my grand children eventually take it over.

Sort of makes your miserable life and disgusting efforts to gain a few
scored points look like the childish stupidity you've never grown out of.

In the words of Gordon Moat:

"I originally did not want to believe that Douglas MacDonald could get
anything other than a mess with his large prints. While I agree with him
that his lenses were a limit, his samples show the potential of digital
prints, though only in controlled post processing and printing
conditions. His results are not easy for just anyone to repeat. Skill,
experience, and very good equipment allow higher limits."

This from a world recognized printing and photography specialist. Who do
we believe? Him or the bunch of idiot rabble you managed to fool with
the suggestion bull**** beats brains - well it does in your neck of the
woods, that's for sure.

You bunch of losers couldn't organize a chook raffle in a hen house,
much less a coherent argument.

http://www.annika1980.com describes the criminal acts of Bret Douglas.

Alienjones wrote:
Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic
qualification. This makes his assessment the only one with any substance
to it.

And here's what Gordon said about Douglas, to correct his falsehoods -
even gentle, tactful Gordon has outed Douglas..

Gordon Moat:
"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."
(Douglas claimed he could add "real detail", which of course Gordon
flatly and correctly refuted.)

Gordon then repeated:
"..I did NOT write the article for Douglas.."
and to clarify his point about Douglas not being able to do what he
said, he reinforced the salient point:
"Q: Did Douglas's images contain more detail information than the original?"
"A: NO, ONLY MORE PIXELS."

The emphasis is mine, but those are direct quotes, and the whole thread
may be found he
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...c2af22e84217b/
...so you can decide for yourself about Douglas and his lies.

.. not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain
a Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of shinning
angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed.

Just curious, why would such stuff, even if true, somehow invalidate the
links and references and blatant lies that Douglas has been caught out with?

That sort of comment will come back to bite you very soon, Doug. It
also shows what an incompetent 'investigator' you are. Anyone else who
wants to find me just emails me - and I'll happily give out my address -
so why doesn't your solicitor/legal rep just do that? My web domain has
a perfectly valid postal address too, and I can easily prove that, so
why don't you post me something - registered mail, please.

But you just go very quiet when asked to put up or shut up, don't you,
Douglas. We ALL know why. Pity your sockpuppets get noticed and busted
within seconds nowadays..

Anyway, why not just start up a new enlarging thread, with proof of what
you have claimed.. or maybe some tips on perspective, or using
spot-metering.. perhaps a linear panorama? By showing your true
measure as a photographer, surely you can drive off any criticism.. and
maybe get forgiven for your past lies.

(O:

Alienjones wrote:
In the words of Gordon Moat:
(snipped)

In the LATER words of Gordon Moat, as posted above, and in direct
reference to our Douglas:
"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."
(Douglas claimed he could add "real detail", which of course Gordon
flatly and correctly refuted.)

Gordon then repeated:
"..I did NOT write the article for Douglas.."
and to clarify his point about Douglas not being able to do what he
said, he reinforced the salient point:
"Q: Did Douglas's images contain more detail information than the original?"
"A: NO, ONLY MORE PIXELS."

The emphasis is mine, but those are direct quotes, and the whole thread
may be found he
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p.../browse_frm/th...
...so you can decide for yourself about Douglas and his lies.


Yes,
This from a world recognized printing and photography specialist. Who do
we believe?

Who indeed, Dougie. I'll go with Gordon. Which makes you a liar.

(O: