In a message of 29 Apr 98 Fred Austin wrote to me:
 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.  
 FA>     I have  misreported nothing  actually. 
You did. You quoted people as sying the photos were genuine, when in fact 
they just sid they could see no evidence of tampering.
 
 FA> I  was speaking  with hard line skeptic Mr. Bloomberg.  
Hmm. There are a lot of us around, you know!
 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.  You are back to well its not genuine  regardless.  
Not I. I will say it may or may not be genuine and so can prove nothing.
 FA> But 
 FA> now under these circumstances in reality nothing can  be genuine.   So 
 FA> an  endless  loop, all  photos are  therefore useless.   
As evidence, yes. But I wouldn't call the photo of my daughter flying like a 
bird useless (severe telephoto fore shortening, and the contributing 
trampoline out of the frame). It serves its purpose of amusing people 
admirably.
 FA>     The simple point is who do you trust.  Somewhere along the way one 
 FA> has to make a reasonable stand.  Or distrust everyone and everything.
 
Scientists don't even trust themselves or each other. Scientific proof gets 
published but is not accepted until the scientist's rivals have failed to 
prove him mistaken or lying. And they try very hard.
FA> And that leads to paranoia.
No it doesn't. It leads to scientific truth!
 FA>     On another note, what makes one article more genuine than another. 
 FA> If Hubble shows me a supposed black hole in the center of some galaxy, 
 FA> or some old lady from Kansas has a  photo from  a 110  camera of  some 
 FA> object in the sky, explain to me which is more genuine.  I  would like 
 FA> the parameters......
I'm sorry, I can't give them to you. I have mine; you will have to get your 
own.
_patrick_                 (email: patrick.ford@amiga.gen.nz) 
             Team *Amiga*
--- Spot 1.3a #1649
(3:772/235.3)
---------------