|
Post by gillianren on Jun 22, 2010 14:24:47 GMT -4
So i see no one has the common sense and maturity to admit and acept the fact that you can have enough intelligence to see that evidence will hold up in court. No, we're saying you flatly don't have the expertise required to show what will and won't stand up in court. In fact, based on what has been said here, I doubt some of it would. The "rover tracks" have pretty conclusively been shown to be merely assumed to be such, not shown to be such. Rover tracks would be too small to be seen, and they don't go in the right places. Ergo, what was shown can quite easily be torn apart on the stand. I have the common sense to know that. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 22, 2010 14:22:48 GMT -4
But it also stated photos were looked at by scientist, so you are stating the scientist are wrong? It has been known to happen.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 22, 2010 14:01:15 GMT -4
Could you provide that list? 1.an expert witness must be qualified by the court, based on expertise, accomplishments, and training directly related to the subject matter of the case. 2. but an expert witness can also be qualified based on experience and skills alone. The second is more where i can come in. No, that's insufficient. I asked for a specific list of credentials. Not vague handwaving. What expertise? What accomplishments? What training? What experience? What skills? I asked for specific answers, not the same sort of thing you've been saying all through the thread. Oh, and yes, you kind of do have to know about photographic analysis to know what will hold up in court. What you've shown so far would be laughed away by any reasonable jury (and you don't get to pick whether you have a jury or not in most situations), much less a judge with access to real experts, not just guys who say they know what experts need.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 22, 2010 12:58:55 GMT -4
So obviously, a photo analyst must need to be an MD, because that's what's required to be an expert witness in medicine, and all expert witnesses need the same qualifications, right? (Hint: sarcasm for effect.)
Oh, that's not what you meant? You meant they all have to be shown to be experts in their fields? Great! We agree. Though that does leave the question, which is the one everyone is asking, of what qualifications specifically show a photo analyst to be an expert in the field, because they're quite obviously different from a medical expert or handwriting expert or financial expert, right? So a specific list of criteria to call oneself an expert would be required, right?
Could you provide that list? Or will you, by merely saying, "It's enough to hold up in court!" demonstrate that you don't actually know?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 21, 2010 20:48:22 GMT -4
Wait--the person isn't falling for the fact that the guy who made it is a fraud?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 21, 2010 12:52:54 GMT -4
And, okay, let's say we were. (I'm not saying we are.) Would this be an effective method of convincing us we were wrong? I think not. It is patently obvious that half of what we've said isn't being listened to. It is patently obvious that, when we are, we're not being understood. When information is presented, it's vague and often contradictory. Much of it relies on "because I said so." Or "I've done research, so I know what I'm talking about," which negates the possibility that anyone else might have done research. The best teachers I know do their best to speak plainly and politely. Shouting doesn't generally convince anyone; if anything, it makes them more determined to hold their ground against the rude person.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 20, 2010 13:35:56 GMT -4
But my background as a crew chief on recon aircraft does give me experience from being around photo analsys. Which is somehow superior to people on here who have done photo analysis?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 20, 2010 12:39:01 GMT -4
Okay, I give up. Lionking, you have no visible awareness of the scientific method nor any interest in learning what it is. You're more interested in anecdotes and argument from authority in any subject where you think you're right than learning whether you are or not. You don't take legitimate criticism of your points on board; you simply deny that they're legitimate. Tell me again what the point of discussing things with you is if I don't just mindlessly agree with you?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 20, 2010 12:36:39 GMT -4
OK, so now we can all agree that Apollo put 3 reflectors on the moon via the manned Apollo missions and the USSR put to via unmanned missions. "Now"?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 20, 2010 3:17:37 GMT -4
Yeah, but he's still talking about astrology, which is wrong. If he is, why should anything he involves with it be right?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 20, 2010 3:16:24 GMT -4
Ultima1, you're making it quite clear that you can't even research the people you're talking about. (I can pretty much guarantee you that at least three people here have far exceeded the level of work you've put into researching Apollo, and probably more.) You can't read our posts. Or else you can, and you're just a troll picking arguments for the sake of. I challenge you to pick any single one of us who have commented on this thread, go through their posts, and find one HB comment that isn't obviously facetious, ironic, or sarcastic. With the obvious exception of the person we're all calling an HB. Can you do that?
Can you also look into the websites listed at the bottom of the page, several of which were made by either board members or friends of board members? Can you show that you've done any research other than using a search engine which didn't return the results you were looking for?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 19, 2010 12:29:43 GMT -4
Carl Jung believed in astrology, too.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 19, 2010 12:27:52 GMT -4
Okay. I'm going to try writing this out as clearly as possible; I won't be the first one to do so, but it's worth a shot. I'll try to stick to single-syllable words.
The Moon landings (drat!) were real. We all know that. The probes you're talking about were real. We all know that. The probes all imaged the landing sites. We all know that. So far, I hope you can see that we agree with what you're saying.
Here is what you are getting wrong. Life is not like CSI. The computer (double drat!) program they use which lets you resolve a car's license plate which is a blur on the original image doesn't exist. In the real world, they are limited by the limits of the camera. On some of the probes we're talking about, the camera could not take pictures with enough detail to show the landers. They were not built to. You can see things which show that there were landings there, but that is not the same as seeing the actual landers. They are two different things. Having training in analyzing photos does not let you see what cannot be there, even if you know it should be. Look at what a pixel is.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 18, 2010 16:12:02 GMT -4
You've managed to confuse about ten long standing members here - something that no HB has been able to do. I think the only person here who is confused is Ultima1. Oh, I think we're all confused as to how we're being so obviously misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 18, 2010 13:27:57 GMT -4
No, you didn't, because you don't understand what you posted.
|
|