<a href="mailto:email@example.com?subject=Re: Crediblity .. you have none">Biruni</a> wrote:
> I don´t know, what to say. You stubbornly denying the danger
> of the so called "enhancement" of images, which is obvious
> for anyone else and reject sharply the proposal to link the
> images only from the official sites, which would give more
> credibility to your claims. It is sad to see, you still don´t
> see, that your assertion about calling those clear impact
> craters "vents", is by all means absurd and nonsense. But
> beside this, I appreciated your postings on this MB. They
> have some interesting insight and I learned something new,
> but you should also know your shortcomings about them and
> rethink some clearly faults of your claims about
> themUnfortunately you seem to be one of those guys, who
> think, every thing they say is absolutly correct and there is
> nothing wrong of what they say
1) -- There is no "danger" from enhanced images, nor will the sky "fall", Chicken little. Ehanced imagery is not altered.. .it is what the term implies, enhanced for presentation purposes and to direct attention to specific, real valid image detail. I provide links in all cases to the source imagery at MSSS/JPL/USGS for those who quesiton any detail and wish to validate that imager. Persenting the whole entire image from the site on the size of 4 to 7 Megabites is unrealistic for web presentations and merely saying "here" does not constitute image analysis nor a presentation.
2) --- If you wish to challenge these "vents" are impact craters than employ a graphics porgram and create a presentation with rationale for such an argument. I have detailed an in depth argument along with powerful and compelling imagery showing a direct link between tube and "vent" feature.
I have no need to change my argument nor presentation and *NONE* (most certainly yourself) has yet to present any argument AT ALL, none whatsoever, against these features being "VENTS" and for their being typical "impact craters" -- which every salient image detail *screams* they are not.
I've done my work and presented the evidence and I've yet to hear ANYONE reject these as "vents" with a rationaly. You hae no rational and only assert ugly personal attacks and employ demeaning adjectives to myself and my claims. I DO NOW sugggest you are unqualified to analyze the imagery and know NOT what an impact crater is to begin to even argue in favor of these being such.. nor have you addressed ONCE any salient detail.. .any image.. NOR put forward any counter argument. Your argument is *NULL* and your sole approach is a personal attack...
I submit, given these facts, that You, Biruni, are part of the ugliness here at GHMB and you personally are causal in this board's closing.