I have been challanged and subjected to much criticism.
Not from me. You've simply been asked to present your case according to a meaningful standard of proof. Your case consists of presenting two sets of pictures and making assertions about them, many of which are demonstrably untrue. You wrap all that up in an ambiguous air of expertise.
If you think my questions and curiosity are less than worthy of your time then you can choose not to respond.
For many pages I chose not to respond. Now that a substantial number of posts have issued from you, I think it is appropriate to ask for some evidence. Hogwash such as "Logic does not apply to unknowns," and "How can you tell what a crashed spaceship might look like," attract responses. If they do not attract the responses you desired, that's not the critic's problem.
If your intention is to denigrate and discourage those who would ask questions then why do you even bother to further your own knowledge?
My intention is to inform you what I believe is insufficient about your case, and to elicit further data, reasoning, and computation from you in hopes you really care about presenting a case.
And kindly do not attempt to style a weakly prepared and inadquately presented case as "just asking questions." Passive-aggressive argumentation does not impress.
Attitude of superiority does not impress.
You opened the door to claims of expertise by claiming yourself to have it and to argue from it. I require it to be demonstrated if you continue that line of inquiry. If you present your findings as those of an experienced photographic interpreter, then you will be asked to meet that burden. I cite my verifiable experience as proof of my expertise. If you intent to argue in the capacity of an expert, I require a similar recitation from you.
Accept the burden to refute or just ignore.
Refute what? You just wave your hands and keep raising the possibility it's a "moon ship." Why?
|