NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, Liberals sometimes lie, too.

Fair.org refused to answer questions I had about the hump story.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

To whom it may concern,

I've emailed fair@fair.org, asking legitimate questions about the 'hump' story and they were not answered. Please, do not mistake me for some Conservative out to "debate" with you, and prove you wrong. I am a Liberal and that's not my intent.

The first two replies to my emails didn't really get to the heart of the issue. Jim Naureckas explained, briefly, about the picture of Bush's hump on his ranch and when I asked about the NASA scientist, he just reiterated what the story said. But when I further questioned the methods of the NASA scientist, I was not responded to. I sent two emails after this. The first, I sent directly to Jim Naureckas. But then, when I thought you might only recieve emails through fair@fair.org, I sent the email to fair@fair.org, as well.

My past emails were replied to within 24 hours. With these last two, however, it's been almost two days and no reply.

If your intent is to put forth Liberal propaganda, I'd still support you, not financially, as I'm not able to do that right now, but I *fully* agree with what you're doing. Because with all of the Conservative propaganda out there, the only way to win is fight fire with fire.

However, in the future, it would be better to construct something far better than poorly-founded, Conspiracy Theorist ramblings, especially if your intent is *not* propaganda. Anyone with a basic knowledge of science (simply one science course in college) knows that if a scientist makes a claim, he needs to substantiate it. He needs to publish his data and his methods. That's clearly not realistic to request that he publish a journal NOW, but you at least should ask the scientist or the reporter who interviewed him, and elaborate upon it. Conservatives have suggested this NASA scientist is just an astronomer with photoshop. Is that true or false? We don't know.

You expect the readers to automatically assume the NASA scientist is credible, just as Terri Schiavo's family expects us to believe that the doctors which say she *ISN'T* a vegetable are credible. In both cases, it's presumptuous. If you expect to have a solid story, you need to elaborate on the scientist's specific data and methods: Are the photo-enhancing methods used on photos of Mars from space-probes, comparable to the same methods used on photos of Bush from regular cameras? Once again, we don't know. And these are key questions that need to be addressed.

Maybe they simply arent interested in holding your hand or spoon feeding you. If you do just a little bit of research you find out that what he did is enhance the contrast and edge definition using Photoshop.

Yes, Liberals sometimes lie, too.

Fair.org refused to answer questions I had about the hump story.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012
Why are you so obsessed with Bush's "hump?" Jeeze, you must have a boring life! :(

I'm one and I agree. Everyone does.

What's your point.

Maybe they simply arent interested in holding your hand or spoon feeding you. If you do just a little bit of research you find out that what he did is enhance the contrast and edge definition using Photoshop.
It wasn't clarified that it was photoshop. He said it was done with something like photoshop. And there was never any link between whether or not his authority with NASA also makes him an authority on clothes.

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/republicans/bushs-got-back-024556.php

Playing around with the image myself, I found that even those pictures they used seemed somewhat doctored. In other words, after it was "sharpened", parts of it were cleaned up, considerably. In Paintshop Pro, if you enhance the image, what looks like Bush's "halo" is much stronger and there's some distortion. That was cleaned up in those photos. (I can post comparisons later, if you'd like.)

Also, it's obvious, seeing what he claims is a wire going up. But he says it's over his shoulder. Looking more closely at the photo, you can see that there's a point where the "wire" gets significantly smaller, with a small line shooting up and a small line shooting down. In other words, if you're primed to believe there's a wire there, you'll see it. But if you examine it closely, you'll see there's just as much evidence that there's a wire, as that there's no wire, because it splits in two.

This is a valid complaint. There was nothing to research. Their page lays everything out, as if it's supposed to be a solid case. If I'm supposed to 'research' it, then why create such a long page, like that, and not include a basic description of the tools he used and how he applied his image analysis skills to the Bush photo?

Here's a photo, showing the extra halo as well as the fact that the wire splits in "two" (if it exists), so that invalidates the scientist's theory.
http://fapfap.org/bushhump.jpg
http://fapfap.org/bushhump.jpg