Quote:
Originally Posted by bmarlowe1
>> Second, what blows my mind about this is that you raise a point in your response yet prohibit me from seeking a response from Mr. Richards. Wasn't it the case that the publication of the newsletter supplement was delayed for a few days while you and I went back and forth on whether my reference to lens focal length was generated by the knowledge I obtained from being a college physics major who studied optics, as opposed to being obtained from Jerry Richards?
Your are free to inform us as to how focal length affects what we see in this case. The agreement as I understood it was my expert – your expert – my response – your response. I felt it was fair to see your expert's opinion before I made my final response.
>> Please don't mention the 20% difference you still see. May I respectfully suggest you educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type.
Yes – please explain exactly how your “margin of error” number is derived.
>> Mr. Mancusi felt he saw a very significant discrepancy, which I believe influenced him greatly in his conclusion. Yet in the end that discrepancy turned out not to exist.
It does exist. I'm sure you will tell us without explanation that this is but another illusion.
|
First, I assume your Walgreens ruler is accurate, as is your scaling.
Second, from Mr. Richards' report.
Measuring the iris with any degree of accuracy can be problematic.
As to why he says that, I would respectfully ask you to educate yourself on margin of error analysis associated with daguerreotype emulsion type. In the alternative, just as you were kind enough to put me in touch with Mr. Mancusi, if you desire, I will ask Jerry to discuss it directly with you.