In which the scientist quoted that the "Enhancements" as done on the photos were routine, nothing extraordinary, and necessary to make the photographs intelligible. The author is a genuine expert in his field and Scott also sends along his credentials:
http://gis.ess.washington.edu/keck/gillespie.html
I should mention that so far the critics that have spoken against the photos are only amateurs with no real knowledge of the processes involved or of underwater photography in general. Let me repeat that in case you missed it: they have no idea what they are talking about.
The flipper photos happened to coincide with an underwater sonar scan. Scott Mardis also sends along this notice concerning opinions advanced about the simultaneous sonar scans:
The sonar scans indicated a body length of about fifteen feet with flippers about four to six feet long coming off of it. the second body was smaller than the main one. The report was sometimes read as if the flipper was meant to be ten to fifteen feet long. The total length would also include the extension of the head and neck, which was not clearly indicated by the sonar contact. The sonar contact would indicate a stronger contact on something in the field of the scan that was holding a significant quantity of air. Mackal makes that remark.
To Joe Richardson:
ReplyDeleteObviously you have missed the point. Whenever anybody publically makes a false and misleading claim based on a misunderstanding of the technical processes involved, he is still making a false and misleading claim based on a misunderstanding of the technical processes involved no matter WHO makes the statement. And once again I must remind you that appealing to authority is not the mark of the scientist, it is the mark of a pseudoscientist. Your remark was NOT passed through moderation for these reasons.