dude wrote:

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"dude" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Now I just have to take issue with your blanket assumption. It
| might be right for some things but take the JFK "magic bullet"
| theory.

Nearly every conspiracy theory contains oversimplification. That does not
mean every oversimplified theory is a conspiracy theory.



I just hope you don't buy the "Magic Bullet" theory. That would make me
nervous......

Ofcourse he buys the 'magic bullet' and the 'lone gunmen' theory,
because he is brainwashed!






| Just to reiterate sometimes experts agree with conspiracy theories
| like with the "magic bullet" theory.

Expertise is not insurance against error. But the lack of expertise is
almost a sure guarantee of error where complex subjects are concerned.

| But it would also be helpful if you sited how Hogland was wrong
| instead of just saying he is.

W-a-v-e-l-e-n-g-t-h.



Just for the record I am not for or against Hoagland. I haven't taken the
time to see what he is really arguing but just telling me:

"W-a-v-e-l-e-n-g-t-h"

Pretty soon he'll be calling you a kook too. Better keep quiet.


Does not solve any debate. To make a valid argument you should list what
Hoagland says is the reason for the mismatch in color then you can say that
variations in the wavelength on Mars as compared to Earth is the reason that
Hoagland is wrong. Also does Hoagland claim to take the wavelength into
account?

Thats asking too much. Don't you know, pink wavelengths on Mars make
everything pink.


I've looked at his website for only a short time and don't feel like digging
through his explanations.. However, if I wanted to say he was right/wrong I
WOULD dig through it so I could either validate or invalidate his reasoning.

Did you dig through his research?


Are you kidding? Him do actual research? Thats like going back in
history and asking the church fathers to look through Galileo's telescope.



| His website supposedly gives the reasons he is right.

It merely places a picture of the lander on the Martian surface next to
a picture of the lander in the lab. One can easily see how the lander
magically turned pink in his pink light wavelengths.


Lots of web sites that make outrageous claims give reasons why they think
they are right. Most of Hoagland's readers and supporters are not experts
in the material he covers.

You don't have to be an expert to see when a lander goes from white to
pink. Or do you?

And neither, of course, is Hoagland. He has
made a living for the past 20 years trying to convince the public that

NASA

is lying about one thing or another.

That is not true. NASA does a good job convincing the public it lies
all by itself.

Alien ruins on the moon, shopping
malls on Mars. You name it. Just because he throws some

technical-sounding

mumbo-jumbo at you or applies random Photoshop filters doesn't mean he

knows

what he is doing or talking about.

The picture of the white lander and the pink lander transformation isn't
Hoagland's work, it just appears on his web site.




And to borrow from one of my other posts: Why don't they have a color
palette on all landers?

If it was good enough for one of them why wouldn't they do it for all?

Are you kidding? Then NASA wouldn't be able to state, "getting acurate
colors of Mars is very difficult and delicate a task" and I really love
this one, "a color palette would serve no useful purpose".

Still waiting for Jay Windley to explain why the Martian sky is blue in
some images, when he says pink wavelengths are supposed to make
everything pink.






--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org