Here's the problem in a nutshell. All of my critics, except for one, try to use anecdotal observations to counter tangible evidence. They'll also say something like, "Well, it looks real to me," as if the mere mention of their opinion carries the same weight or level of proof as an experiment performed with a real, paper COLB.
They also fail to fully read what I write when they start harping on something I explained in what was read.
I'm not trying to be a hard-ass here, but you have to understand that there are also a lot of people out there who criticize my research simply on the basis of some "thought exercize," that they think is equivalent to tangible evidence. Especially, when that exercise does not address to the problem. That's the nonsense.
What was particularly irksome to me, as someone with a Doctorate in Experimental Psychology, is implying that I don't understand "basic physics," after telling you that I tried all kinds of lighting scenarios (which included using a different angle of the camera, or the light source, or the orientation of the subject) to replicate the effect in Photo #6. It's not simply a matter of whether the thumb is on the corner of the COLB in #5 as it was in #6.
Especially, when the test to verify that does not involve the Seal at all. I'll let you think about what test I performed to answer that question.
Except for passing a light through a slit with the width of a proton, I found no other viable ways to replicate the effect.
Rather than unsuccessfully arguing your point without any tangible evidence, you're not going to get much response to it on here.
Comparing a pencil that's a 1/3 of an inch high, to an embossed seal that is about 1/180 of an inch high, could be called, a "nonsensical comparison," if you like.
When I have genuine 2007 and 2008 COLBS to use as test subjects, and I said that I could orf could not replicate an anomaly, I'm not BS'ing or lying, but accurately reporting the results of an experiment as I am trained to do.
I do not expect everyone to see the same things that I see in the FactCheck photo, because of differences in experience moreso than any differences in opinion.
It certainly is not for any lack of know-how on my part, even through my critics constantly try to paint me with that, old brush.
I have over 700 photos and images of COLBs that I've created to empirically test out my theories. I do not engage in heresay or making anecdotal reports, or using my opinion as a substitute for pragmatic research.
There is precious little that someone can use to counter my assertions when I have in my hands genuine, paper COLBs with which I can recreate pretty much all of the conditions under which FactCheck had their photos taken.
To the extent that they don't match, within what I consider a reasonable tolerance level, I'll admit it -- just as I admittd to you earlier that one of the photos of the date stamp is slightly tilted off to the side.
So, unless someone publically presents, for all to see, a compelling example that runs counter to mine, I really have no reason to take someone's word for anything, prima facie.
I would expect the same of me as of anyone else.
polarik wrote:
“I’m not trying to be a hard-ass here, but you have to understand that there are also a lot of people out there who criticize my research simply on the basis of some “thought exercize,” that they think is equivalent to tangible evidence. Especially, when that exercise does not address to the problem. That’s the nonsense.”
You’re saying that I have to provide “tangible evidence” that light travels in a straight line? Is this a joke? So if I say that a 25 ohm resistor with 5 volts across it has 200 milliamps of current flowing through it, I would have to take a photograph of an ammeter measuring the current through the resistor instead of simply citing Ohm’s Law?
“What was particularly irksome to me, as someone with a Doctorate in Experimental Psychology, is implying that I don’t understand “basic physics,” after telling you that I tried all kinds of lighting scenarios (which included using a different angle of the camera, or the light source, or the orientation of the subject) to replicate the effect in Photo #6.”
Your photographs don’t change the underlying physics which dictate that because light travels in a straight line there is an angle at which only the outer edge will be illuminated. Your claim here is tantamount to claiming that light does not travel in a straight line. That’s quite an extraordinary claim in the context of little bumps on a birth certificate.
“Except for passing a light through a slit with the width of a proton, I found no other viable ways to replicate the effect.”
You do not have to pass light through a slit the width of a proton. You just have to understand that light travels in a straight line in order to understand the effect.
“Rather than unsuccessfully arguing your point without any tangible evidence, you’re not going to get much response to it on here.”
Since no one has bothered to tell me how to post pictures here I guess I will have to rely on those reading this to have a basic understanding of light.
“Comparing a pencil that’s a 1/3 of an inch high, to an embossed seal that is about 1/180 of an inch high, could be called, a “nonsensical comparison,” if you like.”
The principle is the same whether you’re talking about little bumps on a birth certificate, or pencils, or skyscrapers in Manhattan.
“When I have genuine 2007 and 2008 COLBS to use as test subjects, and I said that I could orf could not replicate an anomaly, I’m not BS’ing or lying, but accurately reporting the results of an experiment as I am trained to do.”
Ok. You’re not BS’ing or lying. But unless the basic properties of light have changed very recently then the problem is with your experiment.
“There is precious little that someone can use to counter my assertions when I have in my hands genuine, paper COLBs with which I can recreate pretty much all of the conditions under which FactCheck had their photos taken”
The basic properties of light counter your assertions. Or to put it another way your assertions are counter to the basic properties of light.
“So, unless someone publically presents, for all to see, a compelling example that runs counter to mine, I really have no reason to take someone’s word for anything, prima facie.”
Just tell me how to post pictures here.