I clearly state that I find the scope of perpetrating such hoax as cost, time, and energy prohibative for me.
Begging the question.
You claim it would be relativly easy. Do that.
False. I mentioned a different method for creating the images that doesn't involve editing raster images, to see whether you had considered it. You immediately made the affirmative rebuttal that it too would be prohibitively difficult.
If you are not willing to do that then please withrdraw your claim of how easy it would be to accomplish this hoax.
What claim? Here is my statement.
Quote:
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.
|
Please identify where I made the claim you said I made.
Shifting the burden of proof. You are the claimant. You have the burden of proof. You claim it would be prohibitively difficult and/or expensive to produce the film in question as a hoax. A disputation of an unsubstantiated proposition does not constitute a counterclaim.
I will state
now, however, that I believe the contour-extraction method I described earlier would be easier to accomplish than a completely secret Apollo-Saturn mission.
Meanwhile I am going to spend about a week producing detailed pixs showing the points and methods I used to make the comparisons of the images.
Accepting a burden of proof: that would be great. Will you also validate the method?
Consider photogrammetric rectification too. Showing coarse correlations won't establish authenticity; you need more geometric rigor. Try, for example, constructing triangles between triples of features and showing that their corresponding triangles contain the same angles and sides. But you do have to compensate, where necessary, for different view angles; that's were rectification comes into play.
I will clearly address every comparison I make and why.
Keep in mind that my disputation is based on comparisons you did
not make, but should have. I would like you to look at features which appear in one version but not in the other, and explain why they aren't in both.
I will answer any question that you have on this.
That will be great. Please be aware that I'll be out of town and away from my computer a week from now.
And you know, I feel I should apologize. In all honesty you have said on numerous occasions that you're leaning heavily toward my interpretation of the nature of the formation; you deserve credit for that, which I have not adequately given. If you feel that I am driving a wedge to widen what may be a trivial disagreement, then I'm sorry for that.
I simply don't believe that the alleged Apollo 20 material is authentic.
I note that you offered no opinion of the youtube clip...
...
I have no personal knowledge of this and know nothing of the validity of those claims.
Then I see no reason why my opinion matters either.