Originally posted by Exuberant1
These aren't fibres.
How can you be so sure?
I could post fibres, if that is what I wanted you want to look at...
Obviously you could, and obviously you didn't post those thinking
they were fibres, what would have been the point with that?
But do you think that there is at least a chance of those being fibres?
*With your continued misapplications of 'fibre-hypothesis' you will never find any pipeline, roads, tunnels or tubes that may be on the moon.
Nor will you find smoke or streams/plumes of gas associated with the geological activity that has recently been acknowledged.
that's why I am also looking at other people's work, because I know that my opinion, regardless of my best efforts, will always be somewhat affected
by my way of thinking.
That's why I never dismiss any of those findings, because even if I am 90% sure about those being fibres, even if I was 100% sure there is always the
possibility of being wrong and those 100% would mean nothing.
With the Fibre-hypothesis, all you will ever find is fibres. But that is the whole point of the fibre-hypothesis, is it not?
No, I can find them and, even thinking they are fibres, they aren't dismissed as such, my opinions are only used to classify the
possibilities, and in this case I think that the best possibility of explanation is the fibre theory.
That doesn't mean that I am always looking for fibres, what I look for are things that look out of place. But being out of place on a Moon photo
doesn't mean that it was something on the Moon itself, specially on Lunar Orbiter photos, because of the way the photos were made.
Also, as I said, I have seen many digitised photos (the company where I work has digitising services and we have digitised something like 2.5 million
documents in the last 3 years, besides the hundreds of photos that I have digitised myself during the last 15 or 16 years), and those are the type of
things I look for when doing quality check on the digitised photos.
PS: if I (or someone else) find something looking like that on an originally digital photo, then you can be sure that my "fibre theory" would get a
0% probability of explain it.