reply to post by easynow
Not so, it doesn't work that way.
Until you prove that it is definitely forced perspective - or other methods of hoaxing - then your definite claim, that is
IS forced
perspective, and therefore a hoax, is illegitimate - it is a belief touted as "fact".
Let me post a little from an article that can be found by clicking the links in my signature that is relevant here:
"Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof,
that he has a negative hypothesis...he is making a claim and
therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
Critics who assert negative claims...
often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be
appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics
seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for
their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence... Showing evidence is unconvincing
is not grounds for completely
dismissing it. If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic
then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that
artifact X can and probably did produce such results under such circumstances....Alas, most critics seem happy to sit in their armchairs
producing post hoc counter-explanations. Whichever side ends up with the true story, science best progresses through laboratory investigations."
[edit on 22-4-2009 by Malcram]
