posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 06:09 PM
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
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
If a critic asserts that the result was due to artifact X, that critic then has the burden of proof to demonstrate that
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]