Quote:
Originally Posted by rat156
It's not negativity, it's simple skepticism. When you claim something it has to stand up to scrutiny, if it passes, then it can be taken as factual until someone else comes up with a better explanation. It's not personal, it's the way scientific discoveries are validated.
I'm sorry if that offends you, but I am a scientist, so I suppose I'm used to having my results questioned. Water off the proverbial ducks back for me.
As I said I'll be happy to confirm your picture if you send me the full res image, use the link above and PM me for my email.
Cheers
Stuart
|
Stuart,
I can appreciate where you are coming from, I really can. Ultimatley it would be of a scientific purpose, to qualify an image as plausible. However given the arena we are conducting such analysis within, it seems almost tainted to be on the side of scepticism. I as I believe you, have indicated our doubts, unless convinced otherwise. Getting back to the "arena", perhaps we should not thus excruciate answers to the upmost, yet be qualified with saying "Well done".
Just my two cents, not that it's needed.
