Nasa edits Mars images before releasing them?Why?!? [edited]

[Planetside]

No present day NASA satallite has this capablity, so how could one have had it back in the 1970's?

- Then perhaps she was wrong to assume she saw pine tree's in the image. She sounds ignorant about this aspect of it. She says she will testifiy before congress. (Jail) Well she is accusing NASA of lying ot the pubic on more than one occaison.


Edgar Mitchell also said: "Yes, there have been ET visitations. There have been crashed craft. There have been material and bodies recovered. There has been a certain amount of reverse engineering that has allowed some of these craft, or some components, to be duplicated. And there is some group of people that may or may not be associated with government at this point, but certainly were at one time, that have this knowledge. They have been attempting to conceal this knowledge or not permit it to be widely disseminated….Perhaps a large part of the activity that’s classified as UFO abductions may very well not be due to ET activity at all. I would suspect if any is due to ET activity, it is a rather small part. A larger potion is due to human activity in a very clandestine fashion….People in high level government have very, very little, if any, valid information about this. Most have no more knowledge than the man in the street….[As to] the question, “How could it be kept secret?” It hasn’t been kept secret. It’s been there all along. But it has been the subject of disinformation in order to deflect attention and create confusion so the truth doesn’t come out….I believe it is a very important effort that we get Congressional oversight of all this. So far that hasn’t happened." - Edgar Mitchell.

No one has even been able to find a copy of the alleged photo or anything even similar.

What photo? She does'nt know the photo number or which one to look for from what I know. No one's looked for it. :wink:

The problem with her "story" as I see it is, is how long ago this was. Combined with the fact that she knows nothing about space imaging. In some way's her stories imperfect nature makes it seem more legitimate.

NASA is everybit as trustworthy as her, for it's nothing but people like her that are NASA. So if she's a liar she worked for NASA.

[Planetside]

http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk/nasa.htm

[PhantomWolf]

No present day NASA satallite has this capablity, so how could one have had it back in the 1970's?

Then perhaps she was wrong to assume she saw pine tree's in the image. She sounds ignorant about this aspect of it. She says she will testifiy before congress. (Jail) Well she is accusing NASA of lying ot the pubic on more than one occaison.

Perhaps she was wrong? How about she was wrong, and if she was wrong about that, what give her crediblity to the rest of the story? Heck for all you know, while the incident might have occured, the photo tech was merely yanking her chain as to what was in the picture and being done to it. You did know that she was a confirmed UFO nut before working at NASA? That she claims to have had an alien encounter at 25, that she was a UFO contactee counselor, and Associate Director of the UFO Contact Center International (UFOCCI)? Her views on UFO's even before working at NASA were hardly uncommon knowledge so I wouldn't put it past someone to have done it as a joke.

As to her claiming NASA has lied, wow, so has Bill Kaysing, Nancy Lieder, Bart Sibrel, Richard Hoagland, and dozens of others, are they all in jail for calling NASA lairs?

By the way, the quote I have from her on March 23, 1999 has her saying, "I will swear to this in any court of law. I have absolutely no reason to lie or deceive anyone about my experience. I swore about my experience at NASA before Congress, and if I were lying I could be placed in jail." Not that she -would- swear it before congress.

Of course all this doesn't include such fantasy as her claims that aliens caused the Apollo 13 accident to stop them landing on the far side of the moon, somewhere they weren't going anyways, and since the true cause of the incident is known and has nothing to do with aliens....

Edgar Mitchell also said: "Yes, there have been ET visitations. There have been crashed craft. There have been material and bodies recovered. There has been a certain amount of reverse engineering that has allowed some of these craft, or some components, to be duplicated. And there is some group of people that may or may not be associated with government at this point, but certainly were at one time, that have this knowledge. They have been attempting to conceal this knowledge or not permit it to be widely disseminated….Perhaps a large part of the activity that’s classified as UFO abductions may very well not be due to ET activity at all. I would suspect if any is due to ET activity, it is a rather small part. A larger potion is due to human activity in a very clandestine fashion….People in high level government have very, very little, if any, valid information about this. Most have no more knowledge than the man in the street….[As to] the question, “How could it be kept secret?” It hasn’t been kept secret. It’s been there all along. But it has been the subject of disinformation in order to deflect attention and create confusion so the truth doesn’t come out….I believe it is a very important effort that we get Congressional oversight of all this. So far that hasn’t happened." - Edgar Mitchell.

Why do you think that I used him? He's a UFO nut too, so you could hardly claim that he was lying about the spce missions not having UFO encounters. If I'm pulled Buzz and co out to refute the idea of every mission being chased by UFO's you'd have just claimed they were lying like the rest of NASA. Just because he was correct in saying that the Apollo missions weren't buzzed by aliens, doesn't mean everything he says is correct.

No one has even been able to find a copy of the alleged photo or anything even similar.

What photo? She does'nt know the photo number or which one to look for from what I know. No one's looked for it. :wink:

Again, incorrect. A number of people have looked for it, including doing what James Oberg termed "A vigorous search by several ufo buffs for such pictures in NASA's archives." They have never found any sign of anything resembling the described photo.

The problem with her "story" as I see it is, is how long ago this was. Combined with the fact that she knows nothing about space imaging. In some way's her stories imperfect nature makes it seem more legitimate.

NASA is everybit as trustworthy as her, for it's nothing but people like her that are NASA. So if she's a liar she worked for NASA.

Her story is more legitimate because it's full of holes that you can fly a UFO through?

Perhaps the real reason is that it happily confirms all the things you want to believe, that UFO's exist and are aliens, that the Government and NASA know and the evil duo are hiding it from the general public, regardless of the errors and idiocicies of it that to any logical and thoughtful person quickly move the story from the real to the fanciful.

By the way, I never said she was a liar, I said she was delusional, totally different thing, but from her past and apparent inablity to determine reality from fantasy, it is an apt description.

[edited to fix typos and reword sentence, now bolded.]

[ToSeek]

NASA is everybit as trustworthy as her, for it's nothing but people like her that are NASA. So if she's a liar she worked for NASA.

NASA has tens of thousands of employees (probably hundreds of thousands if you count contractors like me). It's ludicrous to pick out any single person amongst such a large population and say that they're all like her.

[jumpjack]

I am responsible for the images posted at http://www.lyle.org/~markoff/ and helped build the color formula's used at http://www.lyle.org.
[...]
-Daniel Crotty

Slinted, I really would like you visit this site! And then... :P

[dummy]

- NASA deletes original sky from rovers' photos becuase it is not good to see (image 1)

The way you word this makes it seem like JPL is doing something wrong or trying to hide something. I think a better choice of words is that they process the image to remove artifacts in the sky caused by contrast stretching. The colour and appearence remain the same, but unneeded detail in the image is removed.

- The image below has not been retouched, it's just the rover camera failure.

Which really isn't JPL's fault and can hardly be considered as intentional. Going back to your original post, are you still "disgusted by NASA public images policy" now that the reason behind the pictures has been explained?

[jumpjack]

- NASA deletes original sky from rovers' photos becuase it is not good to see (image 1)

The way you word this makes it seem like JPL is doing something wrong or trying to hide something.

I intentionally didn't add any comments, I just wrote what is happening.

I think a better choice of words is that they process the image to remove artifacts in the sky caused by contrast stretching. The colour and appearence remain the same, but unneeded detail in the image is removed.

It's the same thing, I just used less words.

- The image below has not been retouched, it's just the rover camera failure.

Which really isn't JPL's fault and can hardly be considered as intentional. Going back to your original post, are you still "disgusted by NASA public images policy" now that the reason behind the pictures has been explained?

Obviously no: this is the reason of my last post, of course.

[Spacewriter]

Anyway, the best thing would have been to place a commercial $300 digital camera on the rover, and let it take some color snapshots: it wouldn't be very scientific, but it would have solved the "true-color" problem! When take snapshots of my room with my camera, they LOOK yellow, due to artificial light... but they ARE ACTUALLY yellow, my room IS yellow, as the artificial light IS yellow!

And if you think about it for a few minutes, maybe do a little reading up about just what is required to send delicate cameras to Mars, you'll figure out why your suggestion of a $300.00 camera is not well thought-out.

I still don't see anything here that causes one to jump up and down and scream "conspiracy"...

It is, however, always easier to sit back and poke holes in other people's work than to actually do a little research and educate oneself about what the actual science is, what the actual issues are, and what the constraints are before blasting the people who have worked so hard -- and transparently -- to bring us the pics of Mars.

[dummy]

Obviously no: this is the reason of my last post, of course.

So basically if you had taken a minute to look around the forums and find information about what you were looking at, you wouldn't have even had to make your original post.

[jumpjack]

Obviously no: this is the reason of my last post, of course.

So basically if you had taken a minute to look around the forums and find information about what you were looking at, you wouldn't have even had to make your original post.

I'm currently following 5 different Mars forums (including this), and I also read several sites explaining the "true colors" problem.
Nowhere I found anything about the reason of sky-cutting (or "embellishment" if you prefer), only found people complaining about it. So I decided to post my mex in TWO forums, to have some opinions, and I eventually had them: is it a problem for you if I post in some forums to ask people their opinion?

But probably you are just another of those people which didn't read completely my posts, and you are still thinking that my compliant was only about "false-true-color"... :roll:

It's quite curios how 90% of people replied to my posts just to talk me about the true-color problem, just cutting&pasting what they read in some sites, while only a little 10% talked me about the sky-embellishment and tried to explain it... Maybe because it was a too complex problem for them, and there were no sites already made to cut&copy from? [-X

First read, then write. Thx.

[jumpjack]

Anyway, the best thing would have been to place a commercial $300 digital camera on the rover, and let it take some color snapshots: it wouldn't be very scientific, but it would have solved the "true-color" problem! When take snapshots of my room with my camera, they LOOK yellow, due to artificial light... but they ARE ACTUALLY yellow, my room IS yellow, as the artificial light IS yellow!

And if you think about it for a few minutes, maybe do a little reading up about just what is required to send delicate cameras to Mars, you'll figure out why your suggestion of a $300.00 camera is not well thought-out.

I used that simple sentence because I don't like reading long posts, and I think the other people don't, too, and anyway it was, IMHO, self explanatory.

Anyway, if you like reading...
A commercial 300$ camera would have been very useful to see which are "true colors" on Mars, as current non-professional digital camera uses one single CCD for the three RGB colors; this does not allow complex image processing, but it would also not allow calibration mistakes: it would be just like going to Mars with your camera, take some snapshots, and then look at them.
But, obviously, a commercial camera cannot be sent to Mars as-is, due to very hard environment conditions before the launch, during the launch, during the travel to Mars, during the landing on Mars, during the mission itself; each mission phase cause several problems to any scientific instruments, due to vibrations, acceleration, temperature changes, unpredictable events, un-maintenability, long-distance remote-control, and so on...
So, only the basic technology of a commercial camera should be used, we CAN'T just send a commercial camera on Mars: we should send a single-CCD-based camera, but the camera should have all the features to survive to all the foreseen (and even un-foreseen) conditions it will find during its mission.
Also, it shouldn't be the ONLY camera sent to Mars, the idea is to send it TOGETHER with highly-professional cameras (just like those ones actually there now).
(Should I go on? Ok...)
Obviously, not only the camera should be designed just for the mission: adding a new instrument to Spirit would require also re-designing the whole spacecraft and the rover, to ensure all the system will work fine: you can't just pick a camera at the local store and attach it to the rover.

Ok, I'm even bored of writing it.... :roll: Is it enough for you? Do you prefer a complete course for Aerospatial Graduation?... Sorry, I have no time to teach to you all about the Space, the Astronomy, the Physics, The Mathematic, the Chemistry a person must know to become a space-product designer; but I could, if just I wanted.

The worst thing all of this story is that The bad astronomer will say that I should moderate my speaking when posting, after reading this post... :roll:

[Daffy]

Anyway, the best thing would have been to place a commercial $300 digital camera on the rover, and let it take some color snapshots: it wouldn't be very scientific, but it would have solved the "true-color" problem! When take snapshots of my room with my camera, they LOOK yellow, due to artificial light... but they ARE ACTUALLY yellow, my room IS yellow, as the artificial light IS yellow!

And if you think about it for a few minutes, maybe do a little reading up about just what is required to send delicate cameras to Mars, you'll figure out why your suggestion of a $300.00 camera is not well thought-out.

I used that simple sentence because I don't like reading long posts, and I think the other people don't, too, and anyway it was, IMHO, self explanatory.

Anyway, if you like reading...
A commercial 300$ camera would have been very useful to see which are "true colors" on Mars, as current non-professional digital camera uses one single CCD for the three RGB colors; this does not allow complex image processing, but it would also not allow calibration mistakes: it would be just like going to Mars with your camera, take some snapshots, and then look at them.
But, obviously, a commercial camera cannot be sent to Mars as-is, due to very hard environment conditions before the launch, during the launch, during the travel to Mars, during the landing on Mars, during the mission itself; each mission phase cause several problems to any scientific instruments, due to vibrations, acceleration, temperature changes, unpredictable events, un-maintenability, long-distance remote-control, and so on...
So, only the basic technology of a commercial camera should be used, we CAN'T just send a commercial camera on Mars: we should send a single-CCD-based camera, but the camera should have all the features to survive to all the foreseen (and even un-foreseen) conditions it will find during its mission.
Also, it shouldn't be the ONLY camera sent to Mars, the idea is to send it TOGETHER with highly-professional cameras (just like those ones actually there now).
(Should I go on? Ok...)
Obviously, not only the camera should be designed just for the mission: adding a new instrument to Spirit would require also re-designing the whole spacecraft and the rover, to ensure all the system will work fine: you can't just pick a camera at the local store and attach it to the rover.

Ok, I'm even bored of writing it.... :roll: Is it enough for you? Do you prefer a complete course for Aerospatial Graduation?... Sorry, I have no time to teach to you all about the Space, the Astronomy, the Physics, The Mathematic, the Chemistry a person must know to become a space-product designer; but I could, if just I wanted.

The worst thing all of this story is that The bad astronomer will say that I should moderate my speaking when posting, after reading this post... :roll:

I would like to point out (if it hasn't been already) that this whole "NASA is covering up the true Martian sky" bit is completely silly. There is almost no atmosphere on Mars anyway! The place is about as close to a vacuum as you can get. Odds are, it's probably almost black except for the dust floating around. Is it really worth NASA's time to conspire to hide the color of dusty vacuum?

[LTC8K6]

You silly duck! NASA is hiding the UFO's / spacecraft visible in the Martian sky.

[Daffy]

You silly duck! NASA is hiding the UFO's / spacecraft visible in the Martian sky.

Well, yeah, but apart from that...

[Musashi]

There was a post or thread here about how commercial cameras don't give "true color" either. I will try to dig it up and post a link.

[Archer17]

All that technical photographic stuff aside ..I can't see how anyone could think that NASA is pushing false-color pics of the Martian sky as fact for the simply reason that such an action would only be delaying the inevitable .. other space agencies transmitting their own images of the Martian sky. One would have to presume no one at NASA considered such an obvious development and/or whatever foreign space agency sends their own hardware to Mars would be party to the same subterfuge.

(If someone else already brought up this point, my apologizies. I leafed thru this thread and didn't see it)

[dummy]

But probably you are just another of those people which didn't read completely my posts, and you are still thinking that my compliant was only about "false-true-color"... :roll:

It's quite curios how 90% of people replied to my posts just to talk me about the true-color problem, just cutting&pasting what they read in some sites, while only a little 10% talked me about the sky-embellishment and tried to explain it... Maybe because it was a too complex problem for them, and there were no sites already made to cut&copy from? [-X

First read, then write. Thx.

I think you'll find I read your post and didn't 'cut & paste' something I'd read about true-colour off of another site. I didn't even mention the true-colour problem in my post. I addressed your problem with the sky being clean and the raw image being noisy. The reason you got true-colour responses is probably because you also took a dig at JPL for that as well:

In this image, we only have red. Anyway, if you think we could never know the true colors of Mars, enjoy that nice red gradient for the Endurance sky! It looks like been painted by a kid.

Nowhere I found anything about the reason of sky-cutting (or "embellishment" if you prefer), only found people complaining about it. So I decided to post my mex in TWO forums, to have some opinions, and I eventually had them: is it a problem for you if I post in some forums to ask people their opinion?

The fact is that you didn't ask for other people's opinions. You immediately jumped on JPL/NASA, trashing their work simply because you didn't understand the imaging process. You initial post didn't even have a question.

[Spacewriter]

... drivel deleted...

Ok, I'm even bored of writing it.... :roll: Is it enough for you? Do you prefer a complete course for Aerospatial Graduation?... Sorry, I have no time to teach to you all about the Space, the Astronomy, the Physics, The Mathematic, the Chemistry a person must know to become a space-product designer; but I could, if just I wanted.

I didn't ask you to teach me. I've already studied it and worked in "the industry." Paid my dues. Been there and done that and know enough to tell when somebody who comes in and screeches about conspiracy theories and coverups doesn't have a clue.

I (and others) have been attempting to get you to clarify your statements. The result has been more drivel.

It's pretty clear to me you don't know what you're talking about and you don't seem interested in listening/reading explanations from people who do.

Simple competency in any field of endeavor requires that a person study, learn, open one's mind to what is happening IN that field. I've noticed (after reading many screeds from wannabe scientists and other assorted hangers-on) that the folks who scream the loudest about coverups and other such depredations are the ones who are hiding a profound lack of common sense about how science works, how procedures work in space missions, and who apparently want all the self-aggrandizing benefits of making a splash in science without actually having to do the work. You wouldn't go to a doctor who did that... you certainly wouldn't trust your life to someone without any accreditation (or experience) in medicine to diagnose your cancer or whatever... so why suddenly is it okay to disparage scientists who spend their lives gaining the skills and expertise to do these complex missions just because you (as an apparently amateur planetary scientist) have spotted something you want desparately to believe is some artifact in an image that has already been explained in a more rational way? I can think of a few reasons, and to tell the truth, I don't really care about your answers. I just want you to think instead of reacting in a wishful thinking kind of way.

[jumpjack]

The fact is that you didn't ask for other people's opinions. You immediately jumped on JPL/NASA, trashing their work simply because you didn't understand the imaging process. You initial post didn't even have a question.

"Nasa hoax: why?!?"
Sounds like: "It looks like NASA images don't correspond to how Mars actually is (=nasa hoax); I don't understand why NASA should tamper Mars images, can somebody give an explanation about this? (=why); I can't believe it (=the "?!?") ".

I think that It looks like NASA images don't correspond to how Mars actually is; I don't understand why NASA should tamper Mars image; I can't believe it, can somebody give an explanation about this? would have been quite a long topic title, don't you?...

Anyway, as I already said, the point is now clear, so this thread should be over, now.

[jumpjack]

... drivel deleted...

Ok, I'm even bored of writing it.... :roll: Is it enough for you? Do you prefer a complete course for Aerospatial Graduation?... Sorry, I have no time to teach to you all about the Space, the Astronomy, the Physics, The Mathematic, the Chemistry a person must know to become a space-product designer; but I could, if just I wanted.

I didn't ask you to teach me. I've already studied it and worked in "the industry." Paid my dues. Been there and done that and know enough to tell when somebody who comes in and screeches about conspiracy theories and coverups doesn't have a clue.

I (and others) have been attempting to get you to clarify your statements. The result has been more drivel.

It's pretty clear to me you don't know what you're talking about and you don't seem interested in listening/reading explanations from people who do.

Simple competency in any field of endeavor requires that a person study, learn, open one's mind to what is happening IN that field. I've noticed [....]

Sorry to disappoint you: I am an Electronic Engineer, and I am currently working in a space-related company in an European country.
People you are talking about are the "woo woo". They are so annoying and everywhere that all non-woowoo people in this forum always think that any new user arriving in the forum IS a woo-woo.

The same explanation of the title of "my" topic I wrote for Dummy is good for you, I think.

I think you guys should judge a person AFTER reading some post from him, in place of just offending him just because he put a "hoax" in the subject, or because he tries to look at things from a different point of view.

To change the subject: most of the "woo woo" are very stupid&annoying; but I think their ideas about the possibility of finding fossils on Mars CAN'T be condamned "a priori": it's a (little) possibility, but the even little probabilty that an event is possible is the engine of scientifical research.
Maybe we'll never find anything on Mars but dust&rocks. MAYBE. But SURE we'll never find anything, even if it's there, if we already decided it is not there.

Science does not decide, science looks and tries to explain. If you really are "open minded" as you stated, you should understand this.

[Tom Ames]

How about we stop beating this particular dead horse? IMO, it's become clear that jumpjack did not intend to imply a NASA hoax in the same way that Hoagland would.

Let's chalk it up to a misunderstanding of the connotations of the word "hoax" and get back to talking about the interesting stuff. I for one am enjoying jumpjack's contributions and would hate to see him chased off.

[jumpjack]

How about we stop beating this particular dead horse? IMO, it's become clear that jumpjack did not intend to imply a NASA hoax in the same way that Hoagland would.

Thanks...

Let's chalk it up to a misunderstanding of the connotations of the word "hoax"

I edited the original title of my topic, so nobody will see any more "hoax" word in the topic list.

and get back to talking about the interesting stuff.

Nice idea.

I for one am enjoying jumpjack's contributions and would hate to see him chased off.

Thanks again.

--== GAME OVER ==-- :wink:

[Grand_Lunar]

You mention how the NASA don't correspond to how Mars actually is.
But how are we to know what Mars actually is like? No one has been there yet. All we see of its surface is what the various probes has sent, which is data that has been processed and edited numerous times before we see it in public. And they're edited, not because NASA has something to hide, but to make the images turn out right. Read up on the BA's explaination of the Mars images in his Hoagland debunking, "What color is Mars?". As you will see, the cameras pick up different light than our eyes (in this case, infared), so the images must be edited to look as we might see them, which can result in effects as you point out here.
IMHO, the only way we'll certainly know how it really is is to go there and see for ourselves.

[Gullible Jones]

Jumpjack, I just don't get it. You're saying tha billions of dollars were spent, not for scientific research, but just to lie to the American public?! WHAT BLOODY REASON WOULD NASA HAVE TO DO THIS?!! It makes no sense whatsoever.

If what you said was true, NASA would be guilty of bad science (i.e. the synthesis of phony data). NASA exists largely for the purpose of the scientific study of space. What the heck would the use of such an organization be if they did not carry out any real scientific investigation?! Why have NASA when it has no function?

I seriously suggest that you take a look at the logic - or lack thereof - behind your arguments.

[JustAGuy]

Hey GJ,

Dead horse, really. JJ has basically stepped down from his more agressive rhetoric and chalked this one up as a misunderstanding. To his credit, tho, some of the MER images were quite obviously edited, although to imply a sinister MO behind this would be quite the stretch. The word "hoax" probably should never have been used, but live and learn, I guess.

On a totally seperate topic, JJ, when are we going to see some more Spirit animations? Those last few were awesome!

[jumpjack]

On a totally seperate topic, JJ, when are we going to see some more Spirit animations? Those last few were awesome!

Thanks
Unfortunately, I have some problems:
1 - I am veeery busy in these days
2 - The damned Spirit is no more looking at ALL the hills, but just at what is in front of it (him? her?...), which is only a very little portion of the hills
3 - I focused one animation on the strange objects visible on the top of one hill (rocks, trees, aliens , don't know...), but it is no more looked at by Spirit!
4 - I'm waiting for somebody to build color images of past sols (data are available, but I am not able to build good color images ), to build a really astonishing color animation

Anyway, I'm also trying to find good navcam images to build an animation of the journey around endurance, (especially images of the bottom part of the crater): any help about which filenames I sould look for would be very appreciated... 8)

Jumpjack

[Grand_Lunar]

Hey GJ,

Dead horse, really. JJ has basically stepped down from his more agressive rhetoric and chalked this one up as a misunderstanding. To his credit, tho, some of the MER images were quite obviously edited, although to imply a sinister MO behind this would be quite the stretch. The word "hoax" probably should never have been used, but live and learn, I guess.

On a totally seperate topic, JJ, when are we going to see some more Spirit animations? Those last few were awesome!

I actually agree here. It was certainly a misundestanding by people not reading his posts.
I have no doubt the images are edited, but not to decieve us, but for technical reasons. That goes for other images returned from space probes, like the Voyagers, Pioneers, Galieo and even Cassini. When we go to those places, we can then pass judgment on whether or not NASA was accurate or not.

[dummy]

I actually agree here. It was certainly a misundestanding by people not reading his posts.
I have no doubt the images are edited, but not to decieve us, but for technical reasons. That goes for other images returned from space probes, like the Voyagers, Pioneers, Galieo and even Cassini. When we go to those places, we can then pass judgment on whether or not NASA was accurate or not.

I read his posts. My only problem with them was his first few posts where he trashed JPL's hard work for no good reason other than that they were not what he expected. If he'd have worded the whole thing less aggressively he would have probably got a better response from people here.

[russ_watters]

Since this thread is still [barely] alive, one small comment:

I edited the original title of my topic, so nobody will see any more "hoax" word in the topic list.

Though I commend you for being open minded enough to change your opinion, I consider this dishonest. It implies you didn't mean to say it at the time (like a typo) rather than the truth that you changed your mind and wanted to cover it up. You'll get more respect here and everywhere if you just admit/accept the mistake and move on. That, and not the mistake itself, is why people are giving you such a hard time here.

[jumpjack]

Since this thread is still [barely] alive, one small comment:

I edited the original title of my topic, so nobody will see any more "hoax" word in the topic list.

Though I commend you for being open minded enough to change your opinion, I consider this dishonest. It implies you didn't mean to say it at the time (like a typo) rather than the truth that you changed your mind and wanted to cover it up.

I just tried to STOP people replies to this damned topic (it has been read 2030 times when I'm writing this reply!!! 2030!!!)

You'll get more respect here and everywhere if you just admit/accept the mistake and move on.

I already did it, I already did it, I already did it!!!
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Post 4

Guys, I'm really, definitely, absolutely bored by your replies, now...

That, and not the mistake itself, is why people are giving you such a hard time here.

No, it's just because they have nothing better to write than repating the same things other people already wrote before them, and none of them read my posts before writing those damned, boring, annoying, same things.