As to the burden of proof there is an anomaly in A15 pix.
An anomaly is a departure from expectation. State your expectations, justify why they are good and valid expectations, and discuss what exactly about the feature in question departs from them.
That is your burden of proof when claiming anomaly.
It has upper structure and strong suggestion of left right symmetry.
A "strong suggestion" of left-right symmetry is insufficient. Craters, for example, are symmetrical and yet known to be of natural causes. Near symmetry is insufficient to establish the feature in question as artificial, especially when in all other visible properties it resembles the surrounding terrain.
Symmetry is a matter of measurement, not of vague handwaving. If you wish to argue symmetry, I expect to see a quantitative discussion of measurement upon a photgrammetrically-rectified version of the Apollo 15 photograph.
You have not met a burden of proof either for anomaly or for symmetry, and symmetry alone is not sufficient to establish artificiality.
Controversial A20 pixs from an unknown source show it to be something other than a natural formation. This is evidence.
An observation is not evidence until it is shown to relate to the circumstances. The so-called Apollo 20 pictures are from a highly discredited source. If you wish to present those as actual photographs of the lunar surface, there must be a detailed provenance. I do not accept as proof of their validity your cherry-picked "expert" correlations, and I have explained why.
Either make your case entirely from evidence of known and accepted provenance, or prove that the Apollo 20 photographs are real.
To refute evidence requires showing better evidence.
No. An affirmative rebuttal is one possible method of refutation, among many that are possible and applicable. The proper method here is simply to show that the proposition has not met its standard of proof. You have presented insufficient evidence.
You have not proved anomaly. You have not proved symmetry. You have not proved artificiality. You have not provided anything that rises even remotely above the null hypothesis. Therefore the null hypothesis stands.
Just because the majority of opinion goes against the evidence does not make it evaporate.
You may not confuse the evidence with your interpretation of the evidence. If the majority of competent interpretation goes against your interpretation, and for defensible reasons, then your interpretation is less likely to be true. Since you have not bothered to defend your interpretation is except by repeatedly begging the question, there is little more to say.
I have not seen irrefutable better evidence yet.
I have not seen sufficient evidence of your claims. You present two sets of pictures -- one from a completely discredited source -- and make handwaving assertions about them from a nebulous position of expertise. When those assertions are questioned upon evidentiary grounds, you try to play a martyr-to-the-cause, backpedal away from the methods you first introduced, and dump the burden of proof on everyone else.
That is classic polemics.
Strong and well educated opinion is not physical evidence.
Irrelevant. You raised the issue of interpretation (i.e., that derives from well-educated positions) when you styled yourself as a well-educated and experienced photographic interpreter and implied that such expertise was material to your case. Now your interpretation is being challenged according to good evidence, and you have simply tried to shift the burden of proof in order to compensate for your unwillingness to meet the challenge. You cannot at the outset say your case is based on expert interpretation, and then backpedal and say that "physical" evidence must be presented by those who disagree.
|