"I have no doubt that a laboratory analysis of the meteorite would produce more definitive results Grizzly Bear."
"I'm not asking that he do a laboratory analysis, I'm asking if you would be capable of asking him for more feedback on his opinion. It puts my argument in a corner if he can explain A) whether or not he saw any malign culprits for what he saw, and B) whether my comments are off base or not. Our entire exchange so far has boiled down to me explaining what leads me to conclude from the photos that the "meteorites" aren't molten steel hunks at all, and you complaining that my analysis is inferior without offering any reasoning beyond you just think it is.
My suggestions were supposed to encourage you to improve your arguments, but you're refusing to do it in favor of appealing to assumptions and confirmation bias. Big difference between what you consider evidence and what I do."
My argument does not require your encouragement oh condescending one.
You are relying on denial as the basis of your argument and that is a door I cannot open.
I haven't said, and the architect Bart Voorsanger certainly did not say, that the meteorites are strictly
"molten steel hunks".
Bart Voorsanger said:
"This is fused element of molten steel, and concrete, and all of these things, all fused by the heat into one single element."
"My point is that your limited ability to analyse this evidence, a photograph, cannot be used to trump the analysis made by a professional with direct access to the physical evidence.
Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
All you are succeeding at is revealing the depth of your bias."
"I have no trouble comprehending that a photograph is a form of representation; it was a big component of my graduate thesis. That doesn't make it useless, photographs record information indiscriminately.
I've explained already that I use the visual information in the picture and complement it with both my studies, and my background to make a judgement call on it. What you've repeatedly failed to do is offer a case that disproves what I've written, nothing even close. You're either intentionally avoiding detail or don't know how to analyze it and the the explanations that come with them in favor of deferring to an authority. Now that is bias."
I agree that photographic evidence can be quite valuable. Especially in lieu of the actual physical evidence being available.
But in this case we have a professional examining the actual physical evidence, so he is not dependent on a photographic representation to draw a conclusion.
What, you appear to be trying to argue, is that if you spend more time scrutinizing a 2-dimensional photographic image, that it will somehow result in a higher quality observation than a professional who is able to scrutinize the actual physical specimen but for somewhat less time than you.
Without some proof that Bart Voorsanger was only able to make a very brief cursory physical examination of the specimen, on what basis can you possibly argue that your simple photo analysis is a superior analysis?
He is in effect, examining a far superior image than you are, and 3-D at that.
MM
