Originally posted by dieseldyk
Why would anyone believe anything that comes out of NASA?
They are a government administration wrapped up with politics, special interests, and national security. Everything that goes through that
organization is vetted, combed and preened before public consumption.Just saying, if credibility is an issue on this thread, NASA is going to lose and
to prove that point you can look at this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...
That NASA is a gvt administration "wrapped up with politics and special interests and national security" might certainly be true, but I ENTIRELY
disagree w/ your statement that NASA would lose when it comes to credibility.
When I evaluate credibility of a source and what they are saying, I am looking at the source, their competence, explanations etc.
I am terrible, terrible sorry, but 95% of the people who *attempt to* make a point in regards to some conspiracy theory (such as faked moon landing,
Mars/Moon artifacts etc.) have NO CREDIBILITY and NO EXPERTISE in this matter whatsoever.
* Some people are examining footage or images where it's clear those people have no knowledge whatsoever about basics of image editing, they don't
even know what JPEG artifacts, dead pixels etc.... are. HECK, many of those people cannot even SPELL right. Talk about credibility!
It seems to be "hip" to be "against" NASA and "the government" and for me its clear that many folks don't even CARE about evidence or credibility
because their mind is already made up. (Example: If those people WOULD come across images which do NOT show this "shard" there can only be one
conclusion for those people: That the images must be "fake" or "photo-shopped"...so REGARDLESS of contrary evidence produced you would sitll believe
in your conspiracy theory - in fact use the *contrary evidence* as "proof" that your theory is right. Eg. "Image is missing shard: Proof that the
images must be photo-shopped!"
Most of the people who are so "against" NASA are terrible incapable to produce evidence, its not only the lack of knowledge they would require to even
make CREDIBLE or convincing statements in the first place, but I personally never have problems following an explanation of an official source, such
as NASA, in regards to an explanation - because I CAN FOLLOW THEM with my own logic and verify them, plus when I accept THEIR explanation (I am
sorry!) I can understand it and it makes sense - and this has *nothing* to do with politics or whatever special interest NASA might have.
And this is NOT the case when I try to understand the reasoning of someone making up some theory about faked Moon/Mars pictures or whatever, be it
some person here on the forum or probably someone more known.
Example...when you research the "Moon shard" or "Moon tower", the first hits on Google you are getting are Richard Hoaxland's enterprise mission site,
this is were LIKELY the entire hype originally comes from.
He is STILL pictured with his "Mars Face" from 1976 and STILL the same crap on his site which has already proven wrong multiple times over - so again,
talk about CREDIBILITY. The other source on a google search for the moon shard was David Icke's site, a man who believes in reptilioids.
Now....guess WHAT side here I'd consider to have more credibility?
HINT: If you want to be convincing about making a theory about an picture with an "artifact", UFO etc. on an image or video, the least thing i'd
expect that you demonstrate a knowledge about things such as image editing, optics or whatever else might be required, and then make a proper "case"
where you show that such an explanation will not apply and that the image/footage is indeed worthy of investigation and that your theory has a base to
stand on. But this does NOT happen in 99% of all cases because the underlying knowledge is just not there. Worse, if someone WHO HAS the knowledge
than points out where you are wrong, all you guys do is call them "paid disinfo agents"...
edit on 10-2-2013 by flexy123 because: (no reason