Yes we nitpick and bicker.
No. We test according to well-formed, proven, and rational standards of inquiry. If X is alleged to have an effect on Y, the mechanism and magnitude must be presented in order to determine that. You simply wave your hands and say that the problems with the data quality selectively affect only the strength of your critics' observations while leaving yours untouched. That's wishful thinking, not science.
I gave my opinion and some of background. Just says I have some level of experiance.
No. Here is what you said.
Quote:
|
I have considerable experiance in photo editing so know these metrics would be virtually impossible to fabricate without three original and authentic photos.
|
You are pinning your assessment of the authenticity of the Apollo 20 photographs almost solely upon your expert opinion. Now that it's clear such misdirected expertise has produced absolutely
nothing that ordinarily appears in learned studies of photographic authenticity, it is time for you to drop the remainder of the pretense. I have explained what would be expected of an expert in the study of photographic analysis. You are unwilling to provide it. Therefore you have no further justification for asking readers to accept your claims as those of an expert. When do you plan to write on your page that you have no training in photographic authentication?
You seem to consider only raster techniques. I gave you a hint earlier to a different method when I asked you about contour extraction. There are image processing tools available to extract reasonably accurate contour information from images, if you make certain assumptions such as the uniformity of surface optical properties and the rough direction and strength of the illumination. Those tools produce a reasonable 3D contour model easily, and the resulting terrain can be manipulated in standard tools such as Blender or 3DSM to alter them as desired. Then they can be re-rendered with simple lighting models to produce digital images that can pass for photographs apparently taken of the same scene from different angles or under different lighting.
The problem is that the noise in the original Apollo 15 data means that the contour has to be smoothed somewhat, losing fine detail. The detail (i.e., crater patterns) has to be put back in using either raster techniques in the final rendering, or hand tweaking of the contour mesh in the model. Either way is tedious, and so an artist will not necessarily take great pains to match every detail. That is where he makes the mistakes that allow us to catch the forger.
But my point is that you've grossly inflated the notion of how difficult it would be to fabricate the Apollo 20 photographs, either because your knowledge of the field is not sufficient, because your examination was insufficient, or because you are predisposed to accept them as real. The first in the list is a common kind of straw-man argument: "I'm an expert, and I can't figure out how this was faked, therefore it must be real."
The likelyhood of WR claim is quite remote.
Yet your page still discusses it as if it were a going concern. Don't you think it's time to let it go altogether?
One offering as much evidence as this, even if manufactured, should be examined.
Total hogwash. If you concede that the data are likely made-up, then why does it matter how much made-up stuff you have? You can't turn dog crap into chocolate by shoveling on more dog crap. A rational examination ceases considering conclusions discovered to be drawn from fabricated data.
Your insistence that we keep considering a farfetched claim, even solely as a remote possibility, based on discredited and poorly-interpreted data is simply baffling. The crashed alien spaceship claim doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny. Let it go. You're far too attached to it.
Too quick to dismiss possibly remiss.
Obviously too quick to accept it is clearly irresponsible. You say you have expended considerable effort on this study, yet your study has produced nothing but handwaving.
Even the most expert opinion has been wrong before.
Examples?
Experts are often
proven wrong. That is, in fact, how science progresses. But there is more proof required than mere handwaving. Just because the possibility exists abstractly that experts may be wrong doesn't mean your specific idea must be right. You cannot keept shifting the burden of proof.
Ironically Stan Winston was wrong about Alien Autopsy. He said he couldn't figure out how it might have been faked. Then the guy came forward and admitted it was, and explained how. The world's photographic experts vacillated for years about the smoking-gun Bigfoot footage and the key Loch Ness Monster photograph -- both turned out to be relatively simply perpetrated hoaxes.
History has shown that people typically overestimate what has been required in order to create a reasonably convincing fake.
That includes myself. The bulk of my professional training is in mechanical engineering. I also design and build sets and props for commercial live theater and film in my town. (By the way,
High School Musical 3 started principal filming this week just down the street from me; that's relevant because the high school they use also happens to be the one astronaut Jim Irwin graduated from.)
I was given as much time as I wanted to examine one of Penn and Teller's escape apparatuses, expressly for the purpose of detecting its function. The fact that I was well-experienced in design and construction and highly familiar with stagecraft, yet failed to detect its secret, did not prevent Teller from escaping from it according to some (in retrospect) very simple method. It was fake; just not in a way I was disposed to detect without more information.
Nobody has all the answers.
But you have
no answers when it comes to justifying your Apollo 20 authentication. You set an absurdly low standard of proof for yourself, declare yourself to have cleared it, and then try to bluster past criticism with vague claims to expertise and vague allusions to shadows and film grain. When a more reasonable standard of proof is suggested, you complain.
If random shapes never produced symmetry they would not be truly random.
Nature produces uniformity, regularity, and symmetry all the time according to deterministic forces. Appeal to randomness is not required. The spacing of dunes out in the desert, for example, is highly regular and derives from harmonic and cyclical behavior that is susceptible to study through fluid dynamics.
Our government has a long history of never having hidden any facts. So we should accept all their assertions on face value.
Straw man. We reject your claims not because we trust the government, but because your claims have no proof. Whatever lies the government may be telling us have nothing to do with your unwillingness to shoulder a burden of proof.
And for some odd reason conspiracy theorists seem to think that flimsy arguments and non-existent evidence are okay as long as you're trying to catch the government doing something. Is that something you habitually do?
It has degraded to amusement and little else. Find other amusements more entertaining.
No, it started with you handwaving and it ends with you handwaving, with almost nothing in the middle except for more handwaving -- with some false indignance thrown in.