posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:43 AM
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
Here is a screenshot from 38m23s into that video:
He's saying the two images on the left don't look the same. I watched the video in 1080 resolution and even if I took a screenshot at that
resolution there are problems showing it on ATS, so I recommend looking at the video at that resolution at 28m23s.
They do have slight differences, but, they look pretty much the same to me, therefore I don't find his argument about how different they are very
convincing. He then goes on to make an image showing a difference comparison, which is a technique I use myself in image comparisons (it's one of the
features in a program I use for image analysis). While it does show some small differences in the images, what it actually shows is that they are way
more similar than different.
So, based on this, I find his argument unconvincing. I could also point out other problems with his presentation, like he goes on and on and on about
water and then finally admits that the WMAP orbit is at L2 where water isn't an issue, so why did he just waste most of the video talking about
water? He wanted to whine about Penzias and Wilson and COBE but those technologies are 50 and 25 years old. WMAP and Planck satellites are the latest
So do those two images on the left really look all that different to you?