[bmarlowe1]

>>As to methodology, Mr. Mancusi's belief that individual comparison of each of the A Subjects to Subject C is not necessary, that one can apply the Subject C to Subject A4 comparison conclusion to a Subject C to Subject A1, A2 or A3 comparison, is simply incorrect.

No that is not correct and you have said nothing to support that other than to repeat it. My response is on p. 28:
Mr. Richards states, “each ‘known’ image should be independently compared with the questioned image.” He asserts that it is necessary to not only compare A4 directly to C, but to also individually compare A1, A2, and A3 to C. But he does not state what difference he thinks that would make - what features of A1, A2 or A3 would compare more favorably to C? All the A's have virtually the same forehead width, so it suffices to then compare only one of them directly to C. The same can be said for the particular characteristics of the eyelid, lips/philtrum, and nose.

When you want to measure something, you don't have to go to the National Bureau of Standards to get "the" ruler. Any ruler from Walgreens will do just fine. That's because we know that the Walgreens ruler is sufficiently close to the NBS ruler to do the job.

>>As to negativity, the only one taking what I believe are uncalled for shots at competency is you against me, and you know quite well the comments I'm talking about.

So, you can question Mr. Mancusi's competency to compare faces in photos, and I can't question your competency to make that judgment? And, you can vigorously claim for years that H and G are Curry and Adams, I can’t question your competency? That’s uncalled for? You certainly challenged my competency in your response in the newsletter supplement. Give me a break.

>>I cooperated fully knowing that your intended objective is to have the HOF change the Cartwright bronze.

That is simply another mischaracterization of a private communication.