-=> Quoting Patrick Ford to Fred Austin <=-
    Hello Patrick,
     
 PF> In a message of 26 Apr 98 Fred Austin wrote to David Bloomberg:
 DB>> photographer.  Several people who are somewhat knowledgeable on the
 DB>> subject looked and looked and couldn't find evidence of tampering. 
 
 FA>          My comment is simple, if  several 'knowledgable'  people think
 FA> it is genuine, why is it so hard to believe it is not.  
 PF> This is how non facts become news. From "couldn't find evidence of
 PF> tampering", you have interpreted, created and misreported "think it is
 PF> genuine".  
    I have  misreported nothing  actually.  I  was speaking  with hard 
line skeptic Mr. Bloomberg.  The comment was more in the line of "your 
people see nothing wrong" so why do you  still follow  that with  well 
"its still  not good  enough".  Patrick  I am  quite aware  how people 
embellish everything in this world.
 PF> This is exactly how UFO journalists do it! I suppose by  the time 
you
 PF> get it to your editor it would be, "A team of the country's top
 PF> experts, have, after exhaustive study, confirmed the photos as
 PF> genuine." 
    I am aware what many embellishers would like us to believe.  And I 
haven't tripped over any aliens yet...
 PF> A well done  fake photo  simply /has/  no evidence  of tampering. 
That
 PF> does not make them genuine. 
    You see you are creating catch  -22 here.   Many photos  have been 
analyzed over the years  by the  experts using  technology that  keeps 
advancing of course.  And you are quite correct, many that looked good 
were of course  fakes.  Secondly  the people  are looked  over, as  in 
credibility and reason to hoax.  Now, if we cannot find a problem  with 
a photo, and no problem with  credibility and  circumstance, should  we 
discount them.  You are back to well its not genuine  regardless.  But 
now under these circumstances in reality nothing can  be genuine.   So 
an  endless  loop, all  photos are  therefore useless.   Therefore all 
people who took them have no  credibility.  Therefore  you are  wasting 
your time.
    The simple point is who do you trust.  Somewhere along the way one 
has to make a reasonable stand.  Or distrust everyone and everything.
And that leads to paranoia.
    On another note, what makes one article more genuine than another.  
If Hubble shows me a supposed black hole in the center of some galaxy, 
or some old lady from Kansas has a  photo from  a 110  camera of  some 
object in the sky, explain to me which is more genuine.  I  would like 
the parameters......
    
PF> _patrick_ (email: patrick.ford@amiga.gen.nz) PF> Team *Amiga*
 PF> -!- Spot 1.3a #1649
 PF>  ! Origin: ====Patrick Ford====Auckland, NEW ZEALAND=====Fidonet:
 PF> (3:772/235.3)
Happy Trails,
Fred.
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
---------------