Brad Guth <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: George William Herbert;
I will say these two points very simply:

1) You have to provide scientific grade evidence of your
claim that any of these features are artificial in order
to proceed with making any further claims with any
credibility.

No Sir/Lord George;
I actually only have to show with reasonable cause that these items of
interest are not natural, as what in hell is left.

It is either artificial, or not.  If you want to phrase that
as 'not natural' or 'natural' then fine, but there is no semantic
difference.

You have to demonstrate that it is not a natural phenomenon / object.
 

2) You appear to have about 1% of the required understanding
of SAR, image interpretation, and the scientific method
needed to formulate and present an argument of scientific
grade evidence that those are artificial structures.

I have more first hand radar imaging as well as photographic expertise

Radar imaging: what college/university/professional courses in SAR
and SAR data interpretation?  Working with which company, government
organization, university, etc?  On which Earth SAR data sets, from
which platforms?

Photoimaging: same questions.

than your entire staff of braille image interpreters that's been
looking for those WMDs. I also understand what is a rock, a mountain,
a rille or canyon, as for what's being soil or fluid like as
represented by SAR, as well as what's a secondary erosion pattern and
that of what something actively flowing looks like. I still know the
difference between a rugged mountainous sequence of rock formations
and that of an intentionally smooth looking tarmac (sub-service bays
no less and rounded corners no less, possibly even equipment on deck).
I've seen loads of bridges and photographed them from the air, so that
I can tell the difference between a rille or of some other erosion
wrinkle, over that of a substantially spanning bridge (obviously you
can't, as your white cane simply isn't picking anything up, so perhaps
you should ask your dog).

How's that for being scientifically proper, up to snuff and all?

You are claiming hard data in 10 pixels.

*no* credible image interpreter is going to claim
hard data with 10 pixels.

You are claiming experience in the field; and yet make freshman
mistakes right and left.  What is your experience?

I also happen to know, that out of all the photographic processes,
there's absolutely nothing that beats SAR as far as eliminating doubt
and offering the utmost of confidence there is. Obviously our resident
expert/critic (George William Herbert) would rather preemptively
disqualify if it's SAR, or perhaps just disqualify for the sheer hell
of it.

This is paranoid rambling, and does not represent my viewpoint at all.

SAR is just fine as a data source.  You need to understand how it
is collected and the limitations and benefits, but it's just fine.
I have no problem with working off SAR data, .

What I have a problem with is anyone 'seeing meaning' in fewer
pixels of data than it is possible to actually discern anything
useful.    What I have a problem with is anyone interpreting any
apparently straight line as obvious evidence of artificial origin.

I strongly suspect you have no proper university or professional
education in image interpretation or SAR, and that you have never
worked in a government, commercial, or university group working
on SAR or overhead imagery data.  Or observational geology.
I strongly suspect this because you don't apparently know
how to do the very basic lowest level interpretation tasks
and grading the quality of your own data.

So, show us your work history.  Show us your educational history.
Demonstrate that you have any sort of proper professional 
background to justify the claims you are making that you
are qualified to interpret those images.


-george william herbert
gherbert@retro.com