Tools and techniques to fabricate is relevent how?
It is relevant because it exposes the straw man. You maintain that fabrication as an explanation for the Apollo 20 data would be prohibitive, therefore not likely to have been done. Yet lately it has become apparent that you're considering it prohibitive based on just a few contemplated methods. You can't argue that it's prohibitive in general simply because it would be prohibitive by Method A, with which you're most familiar. If it would, in fact, be much simpler by Method B, then you must consider it in the overall case.
We could both probably fabricate it but time and energy to do so would be prohibitive.
Begging the question.
...tremendous time and resource investment...
Begging the question. The history of hoaxes has shown that the actual effort to perpetrate the hoax almost always falls far short of prior estimates.
I don't see anybody making any money on this.
Straw man. Why is pecuniary motive the only valid one? Why is motive even an issue? The question is not why it may have been done, but whether.
What would you budget to do the entire thing and where would you get the Leonov vid?
You're the one claiming it would prohibitive. Therefore you have the burden of proof to present and defend a proposed budget that equates to some standard of "too expensive."
As for the Leonov vid; historical materials exist. Larry Olivier managed to star in Sky Captain and have dialogue despite the handicap of having been dead for several years prior to production.
Even in the worst case, hyping up the alleged difficulty of producing the Apollo 20 materials does not prove it wasn't done. The question is not so binary. The question is whether it's easier to have produced a hoax video of a certain complexity, or easier to have launched an entire Apollo mission on the sly. Even done in public, an Apollo launch costs far more than even today's modern Hollywood blockbusters, and employs more people and equipment. You must apply a comparative argument, not merely FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) against the undesirable hypothesis.
The object isn't going anywhere so at some point in the near future the truth will be revealed.
Backpedaling. We can tell now that there's no substantial evidence for the feature being anything more than rock. Of course that doesn't stop you from searching in better evidence. But I disagree with the notion that the current evidence is insufficient.
I say there is reason for inquiry and your position is that the case is closed. Does that sum it up accuratly?
Succinctly, but not accurately. The reasons you're giving for continuing the inquiry are begged questions and wishful thinking. That does not continue to generate interest. Defibrillating a dead argument produces the semblance of life in the flopping corpse only for as long as you continue to apply current. That doesn't mean reanimation is iminent.
Debating your or my qualifications to have an opinion is to evade.
Hogwash. When the argument relies on expert opinion, the claim to expertise not only becomes relevant, it becomes salient. If you intend us to accept the Apollo 20 photographs as real representations of the lunar surface based on your expert opinion, then your expertise becomes the only valid point of contention.
You have repeatedly said that the identification of the feature in question and the applicability of Apollo 20 evidence are matters of interpretation. If so, then the training, experience, and skill of the interpreter become vital. It is not the least bit evasive to question the ability of the interpreter to have rationally come to his interpretation.
In short, the question of your qualifications stays relevant only so long as you make it so. If you wish to argue from the position of an expert, then demonstrate expertise. If you wish not to have your expertise questioned, then withdraw the claims based on it. You simply want to talk the talk while being excused from walking the walk.
As if attacking my character has any bearing on the issue.
Verifying a person's own claim to expertise is not a character attack.
I have no obligation to defend because I make no claims.
You made the claim that the Apollo 20 photographs would be "virtually impossible" to fabricate, implying that they must therefore have been produced from real photographs. The entire basis of that conclusion was your opinion as an experienced photographic editor.
Play with the contrast and re evalute and the area to the left/top looks lake crater floor with the ridge being the side of a solid object that has a vertical rise from crater floor.
Begging the question. What is your basis for suggesting that "playing with the contrast" would reveal the artificiality of the elements in question?
As to your demand that I modify my web page to suit your evaluations, I have to leave it as to what I think.
I'm not "demanding" anything. I'm asking if you intend to be honest with your readers about the nature of your qualifications and their applicability to your findings. Since you can't demonstrate -- and heavily resist -- proper expertise relating to the authentication of photographic evidence, I think it's misleading of you to portray yourself as an expert in such things.
Make a page with an independent evaluation...
Shifting the burden of proof. An affirmative rebuttal is not required here.
I do clearly state on my page that the consensus of opinion from the science community is that the WR story is a hoax.
And just as clearly you maintain that the spaceship hypothesis continues, for some unknown reason, to merit attention. Holding out hope for your pet theory is not a good way to get to the truth.
If you have a question of me relevent to the issue I will try to answer.
I've asked many questions over the past few days, and you largely ignore them or declare them to be personal attacks or irrelevant to the point. I asked what you knew about contour extraction and inference. Crickets chirped. Then when I describe it and how it relates to your argument, then you all of a sudden know everything about it and can assess that it wouldn't work very well. This suspicious timing, combined with your ongoing handwaving, simply doesn't present a picture of your case as one really based on good research and understanding. You're still trying to push the desired hypothesis, even while admitting it's a losing proposition.
You want to guide the examination of your findings away from hard questions. Ain't gonna happen here.
|