In a msg to Patrick Ford on , Fred Austin of 1:167/133 writes:
 DB>> photographer.  Several people who are somewhat knowledgeable on the
 DB>> subject looked and looked and couldn't find evidence of tampering. 
 FA>  
 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".  
 FA>     I have  misreported nothing  actually.  I  was speaking  with hard 
 FA> line skeptic Mr. Bloomberg.
Actually, you HAVE misreported it (as I pointed out in an earlier message 
today before I saw Patrick's) and it doesn't matter WHO you are speaking 
th.
 PF> A well done  fake photo  simply /has/  no evidence  of tampering. 
 FA> That does not make them genuine. 
 FA>     You see you are creating catch  -22 here.   Many photos  have been 
 FA> analyzed over the years  by the  experts using  technology that  keeps 
 FA> advancing of course.  And you are quite correct, many that looked good 
 FA> were of course  fakes.  Secondly  the people  are looked  over, as  in 
 FA> credibility and reason to hoax.  Now, if we cannot find a problem with 
 FA> a photo, and no problem with  credibility and  circumstance, should  we 
 FA> discount them.
That's pretty much the question that started this whole discussion (when Ross 
brought it up).  The general consensus seems to be that photos simply have 
too many problems (are too easy to fake) to be taken as good evidence.
 FA> You are back to well its not genuine  regardless.
No, now you're misrepresenting Patrick.  He never said that such a photo is 
"not genuine."  But just because it LOOKS real doesn't mean it IS real -- nor 
does it mean it's fake.  We just don't know, and that's what makes them poor 
evidence now.
 FA> But now under these circumstances in reality nothing can  be genuine.   
So 
 FA> an  endless  loop, all  photos are  therefore useless. 
Quite possibly true.
 FA> Therefore all people who took them have no  credibility. 
YOU are the only one claiming this.  Neither I nor Patrick have said anything 
like that.
 FA> Therefore  you are  wasting your time.
Actually, YOU are wasting OUR time by arguing points that have never been 
raised.  It would be a much more constructive discussion if you stuck to what 
we've actually said, rather than making up straw men to knock down.
 FA>     The simple point is who do you trust.  Somewhere along the way one 
 FA> has to make a reasonable stand. 
That reasonable stand is to stick to evidence that can be proven or 
disproven.  It's called science.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
---------------