posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 07:29 AM
reply to post by vze2xjjk
First of all, I don't understand why you use a photo that is made to be seen with red-green glasses to create a 3D effect as if it was a common
photo. Don't you see that you are working with something that is not the real data? Don't you see that working this way, even if you are right
(which I seriously doubt), you are making your work look bad because it looks like you choose the worst possible images from NASA because those are
the ones that work the best with your "techniques".
Use this one, for example.
(click for full 1024x1024 image)
Second, the fact that you said that the photos are multi-exposures does not make it the truth, that is just your theory, it could be right but it
could be wrong (and almost certainly is, as I have tried to explain to you at least three times before), so you cannot assume that they are
multi-exposures, you should work using the two possibilities and see the different results, compare them and try to reach a conclusion.
Although I can not go to your "2004-5-6-7-8 posts", seeing that you joined ATS on December 2007 (unless you were a member before, with a different
name), I have seen the consistency in your work, but that does not mean that you are right, it just means that you do the same things to images that
have similarities and you interpret them the same way, something that would be expected from someone that is doing a work with an idea of reaching a
predetermined conclusion.
And although I have no reason to consider your opinions the result of hallucination, a misguided mind or a hoax, I think you should think about why
only you see those things and if it could not be some kind of visual agnosia, like the man who mistook his wife for his hat. One of the things that
man did was to stop and talk to fire hydrants and parking meters because he could not really interpret what he saw correctly and those things looked
like people to him.
I think I will stop this discussion here, it's off-topic in this thread.