I know it is frustrating that science is such a separated world that requires so much study to be approached properly. But I don't see much ways around it. Now you Simon called photography a science. Well, maybe so (and so is propaganda, certainly), but you must admit that it is not a science like rocket engineering or nuclear physics. It is a technology, with lots of human aspects to it, that most of us can handle and understand and experience directly. That's why it is, like you say, a much safer, logic, proper terrain for us.
I believe the two of us share a lot in common - as far as confining our research within a manageable range of knowledge which we can both comprehend and - as we reach a given conclusion - expound in a convincing fashion. However, I also believe that the word 'science' applies equally to any sphere of knowledge determined by a set of reasonably verifiable and repeatable rules, laws, parameters, etc. Now, you mentioned two words (photography
) which I am not alone in considering as having a 'scientific basis' (and I don't care if the word 'scientific' sounds pompous to many folks). Let me just link to wickedpedia for simplicity's sake:The Science of Photography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_photography The Science of Logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_Logic
I encourage you to read the first article (a decent introduction to photographic science) while, for the second (I'm sure you are already familiar with Hegel and Aristotle) I'm not asking you to read La Critique de la Raison Pure, don't worry! Rather, I'd like to bring your attention specifically to Aristotle's second of the so-called three classic laws of thought: The Principle of Contradiction
The Principle of Contradiciton
"The oldest statement of the law is that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. This is the statement of the law given by Aristotle. It takes no account of the truth of either proposition; if one is true, the other is not; one of the two must be false."
This law of Aristotle is helpful when performing photographic comparisons of one and the same object or scenery. Let me put this in simple words: if two photographers in the jungle snap synchronous pictures of the same blue parrot crashing into a tree, it would not only be unlikely - but totally impossible
for one of the two photos - once developed - to show a grey monkey crashing into the same tree. That is, of course, unless the guy is a silly joker and enjoys playing around with Photoshop.
Is photography a 'science'? Is logic a 'science'? I would certainly say so - and none of them are any more or any less 'established and academic' than, say, the science of astronomy or rocket science. In order to stay on topic here, let me get back to that 'Damaged Solar Panel' incident of November 2008 at the ISS. As I go along, I will set forth how we may use basic notions of logic and photography - in tandem - to expose the phoniness of this umpteenth, astoundingly crude NASA propaganda tripe.
But first, let me amend an incorrect caption I made in one of my earlier posts on the subject. I presented this cropped NASA picture as 'an artist impression'
of the ISS's solar panels. Why did I do that? Well, because I could see it was a digital graphic image (not a photograph) at first glance - but this is of course no scientific manner of making a case, so I will elaborate further on:
But then I went back to the NASA website to read their
original caption more carefully:
Here is the full, uncropped image as posted by NASA (who clearly contends that this is a REAL photography):
I don't think I need to use arrows and circles to point out why this is not a photograph. The only fairly photo-realistic-looking part of this image is the very top, white/metal suspension structure. It is clearly lit from behind (correctly I guess, since the sun appears to be behind it - and below the Earth's horizon). So what light source is illuminating all of the solar panels in such smooth and even way?
If, after 40 years+ of Moonhoax imagery analyses, we cannot agree and establish beyond debate that this alleged authentic NASA image is wholly phony, I guess we can just pack our bags and hop onto Nasa's next shuttle to Mars - and see if we can find intelligent life up there. But I know: for anyone unfamiliar with photographic science (yes, that's what I henceforth will call it) the above may not constitute a satisfactory demonstration. So let's get on.
Let's now use a little logic - and common sense - to tackle the bizzarre NASA-tale of the "Damaged Solar Panel". As the story went, it was a "highly-dangerous business" as Scott-the-astronaught had to balance upon a long robotic arm, risking electrocution if he touched the surface of the solar panels (???). Just read this article if you wish - to get a feel of the 'drama' involved:http://www.space.com/3878-nasa-space-st ... ority.html
One has to wonder - why didn't they just haul the damn thing down?
As an ol' Norwegian sailor, that's what I would do if I had a hole in my sail.
Anyhow, remember Aristotle's Principle of Contradiction? Remember my story of the blue parrot and the grey monkey? Here are 3 pictures released by NASA and ESA to the press - to illustrate their astronaughts' harrowing day of work up at the ISS:
And here I compare the parrot and the monkey:
Now you will ask: "Why do they make such ravingly blatant blunders? Couldn't they do a better job of all this image fakery?"
Well, I think I have an answer for that. But before I formulate this answer, consider that the most common question of ALL is:"How can so many people be kept quiet about this? Surely, there must be too many people involved?"Precisely. There are too many people involved.
An organizational nightmare. I would imagine that between NASA, ESA and other secretive government agencies, the people involved number in the thousands. Among those, you'll probably have a few hundred graphic designers/photo retouchers/video editors/CGI animators in charge of the relentless manufacturing of fake imagery, given the amount of phony space photos needed to uphold the ongoing sham. And they would, most likely, have deadlines to meet whenever any given mainstream media-timed newsbite of their space adventures would be needed. Imagine the stress endured by the coordinators/supervisors of this constant, chain assembly of fake images - checking and comparing them all for consistency.
Now, if you had such a golden, plum job (yes, NASA & co are rich) with a life/family to care for - and a gag order hanging over you, let me ask you: would YOU YOURSELF ever consider to speak out? No you wouldn't. It's called survival instinct
- and it is the foremost priority observed by all human beings.
And that's it for today folks. Need more incontestable proof of NASA's hocus-pocus skulduggery? Stay tuned.