Originally posted by Apass
Oh well... it wasn't me who said he is a hoaxer. You requested in another thread some proof that he is one and I linked you to this one.
I remember exactly what you said so why pretend otherwise?
Yes...this red stripe is not fabricated. It is in the initial image and color enhancement made it easier to spot. The simple explanaition for
that red stripe is the chormatic aberration of the lens from the camera the astronauts used. You can clearly see that there isn't only a red stripe
but also a blue one, below the dark patch.
Actually it is a product of sharpening and heightening contrast and expected around edges which i guess the 'mouth' qualifies as creating.
And that's consistent with chromatic aberration. In fact, every dark patch in the area has a distinctive red stripe above it and a blue stripe
below it. Are all these red / blue stripes painted or anodized on the objects? Using the KISS concept...no...they are all the result of chromatic
Quite right and if there is anything painted onto that thing it was clearly not very bright to start with.
So..this was eveidence #1.
Which suggest that the evidence of the face being 'coloured in' is probably inaccurate if hard to establish for sure; no evidence that it was
deliberately created with evidence trail disappearing to cover up the image enhancement.
Now, lets go to evidence #2:
As Shadowflux showed, the simple enlargement of the "head" didn't match the enlargement Hoagland (or who is working for him) did.
This means that he altered the picture so as to suit his purpose. He further made a comparison with C3-PO's head.
So basically your asking me not to trust someone who is subject to intense media scrutiny, a media that lives and breathes to try expose people like
him, but asking me trust some guy on the Internet who has no record beside some posts on ATS who has not spoken before the UN or before members of the
US congress? Well you can choose to believe what you want as long as you do not pretend that it's based on overwhelming , or really any, evidence.
The similarities between his image and C3-PO tell that maybe he wanted that. The real image though it's not that similar with the android's
head. So again...he palyed with the evidence.
Well someone here did , play with the evidence that is, but all we know for sure is that you trust 'some guys' composite or enlargements over
Richards and that's about it. If you want to call him a hoaxer you are really going to have do better than rely on data that suits you to attack data
that does not.
But regular scientists that make mistakes and claim they're right don't resist that long.
Where do you even come up with this? As long as you say what most other scientist say , no matter how wrong you all turn out to be, you will have a
great career! It's surprising that you either know this little or think that we are so ignorant as to believe this. The whole idea that scientist who
are consistently wrong ( Geologist for most of this century for instance) are somehow marginalised by the rest is simply ludicrous as it's the
MAJORITY that is so consistently wrong.
Stellar, it's not the first time your attacking me.
Wont be the last time i correct you if you persist in attacking data based on things that you know do not disprove or seriously contest the claims
Every time you did that I simply ignored it or continued with the argument.
You sure did go on and on but mostly on tangents that can not and will not affect observed reality. Being able to present evidence to support your own
beliefs is great but that does not make them accurate ; and yes, that goes for me too so that's why i stick to what is observed and not what others
And every time I presented (scientific) evidence that contradicted your sources, you said that I was attacking the authors.
Well you frequently did as if a person's degrees suddenly stops mattering when they go against the accepted norms of the time. Why is it that a
scientist must agree with the consensus to be considered a leader in his field? What does consensus or agreement with others have to do with the
observation of reality? Does history not teach us that one man can be correct while everyone else is demonstrably wrong?
No. I'm not attacking them. I simply show they are wrong!
Well if one wants to demonstrate that someone is wrong you should not involve the fact that their ideas or science is somehow not accepted by the
community; it really does not matter at all. If a experienced scientist like Ron Levin is willing to stake his career on such a specific claim ( and
he has been waiting for more evidence and thinking about this for 30 years now) with so much evidence supporting it while the opposition can only
contest it by introducing unknowns, that can not actually be established by observation or experiment, does it not become obvious that they are
resisting simply from consensus and not from observation?
I have showed you the pictures of liquid water and what looks exactly like trees and yet you are still hard at work trying to discover alternatives?
Why are so many of your ilk driven to consider things that you did not before simply to disprove what observation shows? Why have you and so many
other intelligent people declared war on observed reality in defense of notions that were never supposed to be set in stone? Are we not supposed to
adapt theory to fit observation instead of observation to fit theory? Why this attempt to turn the world on it's head and why are you taking part?
NASA can not even give us a accurate representation of the colour of the Martian atmosphere from human perspective or tell us about the standing
so why do we trust them when they reach conclusions? Compared to the strait criminality of NASA Richard will have to do worse than come to some bad
conclusions while he is at least opening people's minds to alternative interpretations instead of deliberately obscuring much of the data that
contests accepted norms.