TBH I don't think it attained the heights of "amusement".

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.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.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

We digress. I have tremendous respect for astronauts. Strap a million pounds of explosives to your A and use it to blast into space to expand horizons. Wow, thats guts, and taking your chances.

Tools and techniques to fabricate is relevent how? Not teaching class here. I did that back in the early ninties. We could both probably fabricate it but time and energy to do so would be prohibitive. Applying fabrication to the volume of WR data offered speaks of tremendous time and resource investment to what end? I don't see anybody making any money on this. What would you budget to do the entire thing and where would you get the Leonov vid?

The whole WR story hinges on one aspect. The alledged ship. There are a number of photos that show the area although they are too grainy to say anything with absolute certainty. They are open to interpretation. The object isn't going anywhere so at some point in the near future the truth will be revealed.

I say there is reason for inquiry and your position is that the case is closed. Does that sum it up accuratly?

Do you think these people are lying? I do not have any personal knowledge of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmIRU72b9_k

Debating your or my qualifications to have an opinion is to evade. As if attacking my character has any bearing on the issue.
I have no obligation to defend because I make no claims. I am investigating the claims of others.

http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/webmap/im...15-M-1583.html

Out of all of the A15 datasets this one is where it looks most like a landform. When you zoom to the area it looks like a hill. If you add more contrast the hill top ridge becomes the top edge of the anomaly. That is assuming you view it from the perspective it was filmed from and not rotated ninty degrees to match true north like the online display is. Rotated it becomes the left edge.

To the left/top of that ridge line the landform at first looks like a slope from the ridge. 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.

That is why I see a reason to not declare case closed. As to your demand that I modify my web page to suit your evaluations, I have to leave it as to what I think.

Make a page with an independent evaluation and if it does not have a character attack against me as proof against someone elses claim I will add a link to it. I do clearly state on my page that the consensus of opinion from the science community is that the WR story is a hoax.

Now you can take every sentence here and paste all of your logical assertions around it showing handwaving or whatever but that changes nothing on the issues that I question.

If you just want the final say on this, post whatever and I will not respond. If you have a question of me relevent to the issue I will try to answer.

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.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Hard questions to the straw man from the windy man. Fair enough. I will address them.

I clearly state that I find the scope of perpetrating such hoax as cost, time, and energy prohibative for me. Therfore I do not percieve of it being done for a lark without some gain. I would take on such work as a project for hire given sufficient budget. Otherwise I would not even consider it.

You claim it would be relativly easy. Do that.

Choose a different area of the moon. Create a realistic three D model such that from three angles dimensional shift keeps perspective changes. Match the landscape and include enough craters to pass as being authentic. Pick an interesting and suggestive natural shape, does not have to be a ship just something I can relate to, and turn it into a structured object. Keep it close enough in shape to the real landscape feature that I might believe it. Now create at least two fly overs where we see authentic moon detail and the object being examined in detail. Be sure your three metrics have different shadow angles from the original source of moon data.

Create an Apollo mission with its own unique interior aspects so it is not just a copy of a known mission. Show the examination of a body of your choice and include a clip of an astronaut of your choice. Make sure that I cannot search a public archive and know from where the clip came.

If you are not willing to do that then please withrdraw your claim of how easy it would be to accomplish this hoax. Accomplish it within a reasonable budget and time frame and I will believe your statement. It does not have to be foolproof but it does have to be good enough to convince me that it is deserving of consideration. If I find gross evidence of hoax it fails.

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. In that I will address the differences between images of the large scale verses the small scale. Also I will address the cherry picking reference. I will clearly address every comparison I make and why. I will answer any question that you have on this. I will post this as an on line document or offer it as a downloadable PDF file, that choice is yours. If I find anything that I overlooked to refute my statements I will include that. When th CD's of the clementine data arrive I will present anything I find to refute or support.

I note that you offered no opinion of the youtube clip where two former employees state that NASA has perpetrated a hoax that no alien artifacts or artificial structures have ever been found. Former employee Clark C. McClelland has claimed that he was dismissed from NASA in 1992 for making those same claims.

His web page.

http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/

You tube clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmIRU72b9_k

I have no personal knowledge of this and know nothing of the validity of those claims. However distasteful disclosures made decades after the fact, that I do have some knowledge of, make me unwilling to accept without question all that the our government states. Do not necesarily doubt them either, just believe that anything I find questionable needs to be investigated. Do not believe our government has anything but our best interests in mind, but lack of oversight can lead to abuse and good intentions gone awry.

regards

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.

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.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I agree that fabricating hoax would be a lot cheaper than a mission. Models, raster manipulation, whatever method used, time is mony, and it would requre considerable time and skill in more than one discipline. Making the statement that I don't see anyone doing this on a lark does not require an exhaustive proof. Hiring a professional crew to create a sixty second commercial is relativly cheap. Performing a cartoon animation is relativly easy and cheap. Couple of hours no problem.

The scope of this alledged hoax without clear method of cost recovery is prohibative in a relative way. As in very deep pockets could easily afford it. However those who could afford this would have some difficulty in keeping it totally secret. Someone working on the project would want to leak info or brag or something.

That does not validate it in any way, it just says there are formidable obsticles to surmount. Pay an additional fee for silence would help. Also having everybody in on the project being committed to its purpose would be an asset. A single person could accomplish it given enough time, dedication, budget, skill in multi disciplines, and ingenuity.

Source of Leonov clip is a major obsticle because if anyone found that source the gig is up. All that effort and expense blown on an assumption of clip with very public figure remaining hidden. Could accomplish it with an actor in makup or a look alike, but requires more skill sets or possible exposure brought to project.

The difficulty with total animation is that not even Hollywood can do that without some cartoon aspect showing through. It is on the horizon that all an actor will be needed for is a look and public appearance with entire movies animated. It just ain't there yet.

Again this does not establish validity because it is possible to do. Just difficult to do and keep hidden. Budget is not impossible if pockets are deep enough and willing to risk or accept no recovery. People do things like willing increadable sums of mony to dogs etc so it cannot be ruled out that someone would perpitrate an expensive joke. What is expensive is relative.

So ill let you slide on that if you let me slide on putting together budget proposal cause even that is not worth my time.

Given that you want a more rigorous dataset from me than what I had in mind the extra week will be an asset. I have just taken on a project as a favor and more demands on time than when I started looking at this. If cannot complete in two weeks I will advise.

Not convinced it is authentic either, just cant find grounds for total dismisal.

regards

I agree that fabricating hoax would be a lot cheaper than a mission.

Ah. That contrasts with a statement you made earlier, which has been the burr under my saddle: you described briefly what you elaborate upon in this latest post, and conclude "That is nearly as unbelievable as a secret Apollo launch." If what you said just now is true, then I think we are in substantial agreement: the secret Apollo launch is clearly ruled out.

That does not validate it in any way, it just says there are formidable obsticles to surmount.

Okay. We can evaluate that argument according to objective and subjective concerns. Objectively we can say that a certain desired outcome and a certain set of techniques will cost a certain amount of time and money in the commercial market. I bid all the time on prop and set creations based on my ability to produce them. Room to wiggle, but reasonably deterministic.

Subjectively we have to consider whether that cost can be absorbed. What you're willing to pay for a well-made hoax is perhaps not what I'm willing to pay. You say you wouldn't do it without the promise of some return on the investment. But not everyone else is so coin-operated. Attention is a strong motivator too.

So ill let you slide on that if you let me slide on putting together budget proposal cause even that is not worth my time.

I think we can agree to disagree. I can't really know whether I agree with your budget assessment until I see it, and if you'd rather not spend the time to produce it, then we can't be sure we disagree.

I'm objecting to what I believe you mean by "prohibitively difficult [and] expensive." The objection is based on little more at this point than the general handwaving notion that convincing hoaxes in the past have tended toward having been accomplished with less effort and expense than originally proposed. Previously I thought you were using this line of reasoning to support the proposition that a covert Apollo mission actually occurred, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Given that you want a more rigorous dataset from me than what I had in mind the extra week will be an asset.

Look, we all participate here as free time and interest allow. I'd prefer you take as much time as you need and give your best effort. The rigor of the expected argument simply derives from how seriously you want to be taken by photo analysts at large. If you presented your findings as they stand to a panel of experts, they'd laugh. The more competently you can correlate detail by validated methods, the more seriously you can expect to be taken. And all this is based on my presumption that you want to be taken seriously.

Not convinced it is authentic either, just cant find grounds for total dismisal.

Well I have to say I'm a little confused. We seem agree that the least probable explanation is that an Apollo 20 mission was actually flown. But the only other hypothesis on the table now is that the Apollo 20 materials were hoaxed, and you seem to be on the path of trying to show that is also improbable. So what do you think is the probable explanation?

I wouldn't say I'm dismissing the authenticity of Apollo 20. That to me suggests rejection based on failure even to establish prima facie credibility. I don't believe the Apollo 20 material is authentic because that's where the preponderance of evidence points, in my judgment. That's not a dismissal; it's a conclusion.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I have to say, more interesting than the putative spaceship, I'd like to know about the blacked out area to shadow side of the large crater to the left.

*grins* That looks like the kind of blackout we get in Freedom From Information... oops, I mean Freedom OF Information documents - none of the other shadows from craters, hills or ridges have that same straight-line quality & total blackness. (& yes I am aware that shadows on an airless body should be total due to no light scattering)

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

Just a nitpick - this is not necessarily true. Reflection of light from other sources can mitigate a shadow, sometimes considerably.

I'm trying to establish what shadow you are talking about. Which picture in particular are you referring to?

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

Want to add that WR credability is nil in this forum and mine has come under scrutiny. As the entity of record the credability of NASA cannot be assumed. The links I gave earlier are people who call that into question. Either they are total fabricators or there is the issue that NASA has classified and withheld any information that would validate any alledged alien artifact in any way. These are just a sampling of a of over 400 people supporting that assertion. Here is a link to the disclosure home page. All of the people involved stated they were willing to testify under oath before congress.

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

So yes I do think your opinion on this issue is relavent. Should I make any statement that would disagree with NASA and said entity is accepted as automaticly correct then judgement is made in advance.

Bart.

Maybe I'm blind.

Or maybe I'm just stupid.
Maybe I didn't pay proper attention.

I've looked at every photo you have put up- and yet, I must be missing something.
I'm not seeing ANYTHING out of the ordinary. At all. I'm most certainly not seeing a spaceship in any way.

Could you maybe Take a photo of one and post it...

only draw a BIG RED LINE around the ship?
Maybe with some arrows?

and some Neon Signs?

I'm not kidding.

I'm not seeing this thing at all.

Help me.

Please...

Neverfly,

In the very first image linked in the thread (a tiny image, no time at all
to download) is a left-to-right light streak which tapers at both ends,
surrounded by dark areas. The dark area below the light streak is very
narrow. I think the light streak is what is being discussed. The only
thing about it that looks unusual is the linearity of the dark area below
the streak, like the shadow from a cliff. Here's the link:
http://www.ufodigest.com/images/apollo20-3.jpg

I get a better view if I increase the gamma of that image. I just applied
a gamma correction of 2.2.

Jay,

Now it's my turn to ask for help. What image or images are you
suggesting may have been altered?

What platform does the 3D contour analysis software run on?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"The other planets?
Well, they just happen to be there, but the point of rockets is to explore them!"
-- Kai Yeves

Ahh... I see it now. Thank you.


It looks like a pointy rock to me.

Or a ridge. A Geological explanation seems far more plausible to me than an alien spaceship.

However...

We need to go back to the Moon to take a first hand look


IF our Astronauts see anything that looks like large seed pods in a strange mist, they are to cover their faces and get the heck outta there.

Click the 3rd link - it's a wide pic but view the middle of it so the spaceship crater is to the right of centre - in the middle of your screen is a crater with a quite strange shadow.

Link: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...e/?AS15-P-9625

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!