So after a pleasant weekend of watching football and blocking the fake Facebook profiles of douche bags that don't even have the balls to use their real names, I came back to work today only to find I'm still very popular with the psychopathic cyberstalking hater crowd. My manager Adrienne Loska pointed me to a so-called rebuttal of my last post by "Dr." Stuart Robbins on his hate-blog.
I skimmed it, but most of it was so silly and just plain wrong that I felt my time would be better spent cleaning the cat box or working on the promotional tour for my new book, Ancient Aliens on the Moon. By the way, AAOTM is already up in the top 30,000 range out of 4 million books on Amazon.com. That's pretty good for a book that hasn't even been released yet, so thanks for all the pre-orders folks!
Anyway, in the course of skimming this latest attack ad from Stuart "I don't hate you, Mike" Robbins, I came across something so bizarre I just had to mention it. In the post, Robbins sets out 3 points that I have to "explain" to his satisfaction to get him to change his opinion that either Richard Hoagland or me "faked" the Ziggurat photo. Or at least that somebody did.
Now setting aside for a moment the issue of whether I give a shit what his opinion is, one of the points he wants me to explain was just too weird to pass up:
"Why other images of the same place taken by several different craft (including non-NASA ones), including images at almost 100x the original resolution of the Apollo photo, don’t show the feature."
That of course is not so weird, but then he fails to show any of these mythical images he claims exist save one. This one:
UPDATE: I see that Stuart Robbins has updated his blog yet again in response to this post. He now claims that, golly-gee, he never said that M118715682M was THE image that had "100x" the resolution of the Apollo image, it was actually the narrow angle camera image he was talking about. I'd like to believe him (OK not really...), but it's pretty hard when the only image he posted on the page that made the boast about "100x" resolution was the wide angle camera image. Plus, even if I wanted to look at the wide angle camera image and test his theory that it is close to the resolution of AS11-38-5564, I can't, because both the zoomable preview JPEG and the (supposedly) full resolution TIFF look like this: