posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 07:54 PM
You know, I have a really dumb, or not, question. Every time a photo comes up, I hear how it was "manipulated" in some way by either the poster or
the source. The first things out are how it doesn't "look" right. So exactly what picture of the unknown could possibly look right?
First, it would seem we need to decide just exactly what "right" is, in the context of planetary photos. And then we need to decide who can say
which photos are manipulated and which are not. We need a base reference.
I'm NOT an "Living/Dead Mars/Ruins" person, just someone that sees the one-sided-ness of many of these arguments. I want to learn, not have people
tell me how they would wager a bet, or how it feels, but something a bit more concrete than their gut.
I can understand explanations, even when they are far-fetched. And that goes for both sides. But when you base it on nothing but hot air, you lose
points in my book.
Just look at what is brought out and don't let what you want to believe be a factor in what you say about what is there. Everybody. Both sides. Let
evidence speak for itself.
It's fair enough to say what you see, or don't see. But don't bring in wagers and feelings as evidence. Show your evidence, and let everyone decide
Isn't that fair?