I do think it is a simple matter of whether the star is blue or red, just like the doppler shift of sound is a simple mater of the pitch is high or low, and believe that you are misinterpreting what is actually happening. I will come back to this later.
You know what this means? This means that you think you know more about spectral analysis than all of us, even though your lack of understanding of mainstream physics has been demonstrated elsewhere (see the rockets don't work in space thread). You're completely wrong.
Well, Tom, if you're just going to assert that without actually trying to understand the science, then I encourage everyone here just to give up. Repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true; this is not how scientists figure out stuff is blue-shifted. I don't know what else to say. We can't debate someone who relies on proof by completely unfounded assertion.
This will be the third time that I encourage you to take an AP Physics test. In this case, it is AP Physics 2, as you clearly don't even have a modicum of understanding of what absorption lines are and how we know what they are. As I said before, there's no shame in not understanding what absorption lines are and why they happen, but just plainly saying that the spectral analysis is based on the color of the star is just like saying doctors heal patients by giving them garlic -- no matter how much you assert it, it's not true, and demonstrably not so.
I deeply encourage you to throw out all of your preconceptions of the world and at least just try to understand physics on a basic level, starting with AP Physics 1 and AP Physics 2, which are introductory algebra-based physics (no calculus involved!). Otherwise you can sit here and spout as much wrong science as you want, and everyone who knows physics on a basic level can laugh at you. Now I will explain the absorption lines, even though you should've done this research before coming here and ignorantly and stubbornly asserting demonstrably wrong stuff. This is in addition to your completely ignoring the parallax argument, which completely eviscerated your assertions; you, however, have refused to address the issue of multiple measurements after the calculations have been done for you. You should easily note that you are unable to perform any complex calculations because you don't have a deep understanding of physics. I'm a new subscriber to the idea of the "credit score" in the debates, although in modified form. I think you should see who's putting up all of the mathematical calculations and who's just tossing them out with a few words of pseudoscientific drivel.
Now for the useless explanation, as the education issue is far deeper than this one misconception in physics:
To understand absorption lines, you must first understand what a potential field is. A potential field arises from an object (for electric potential, an electric charge, for gravitational potential, a massive object) that exerts forces over a distance on other objects. I'll use a static electric potential field for the sake of explanation because it involves units you've heard of before.
Let's call E(x) the value of the potential field (in J / C = V) at the 3D point x. Then for a small test charge q (that exists at a single point), the amount of work that the electric force does on q from point x_1 to point x_2 is approximately q(E(x_1) - E(x_2)). So if the voltage between the hot and neutral pins in my wall outlet is 156 V, then for every coulomb (1 amp x 1 second) of charge that flows through the device I've plugged in, I get 156 joules of energy. For every electron I pass through that potential difference, the device gets 156 eV. By the way, potential functions exist only for conservative force fields, where the curl is 0, since the work is the line integral of the force field on a given path and the potential difference should be path-independent.
Now that you hopefully understand potential fields, it's easy to see that each atom nucleus also generates an electric potential field. Therefore, the electrons around the nucleus and the nucleus have potential energy between them (potential energy exists only in systems of objects). Of course, this is where the "small test charge" assumption fails a bit, as the other electrons mess around with the potential field (since they're charged particles), and the whole thing becomes super-hard to calculate. Fortunately, hydrogen only has one electron. Now, energy is quantized at these scales; an electron can only be in one of several energy levels (i.e. places in the potential field; see
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/hydrogen/transitions.html for hydrogen). Bohr explained this with quantized angular momentum as a result of the requirement of the orbit size to be a multiple of the electron's de Broglie wavelength, but that's been superseded by quantum mechanics. You can calculate these energy levels with Rydberg's formula or just look them up. Only incoming radiation with quantized energy (photons) that corresponds exactly to a difference in energy levels can be absorbed (apply conservation of energy + quantization of energy) or emitted. Because stars emit mostly black-body radiation, the surfaces of the stars will absorb the frequencies of light corresponding to the energy level differences (E = hf). These energy level differences, then, create "gaps" in the normal black-body spectrum that are seen as black lines on the spectrum. These are called absorption lines. We can also support this explanation of absorption lines with experiments showing that the emission lines (using high voltage to excite the atoms) of hydrogen fall right on where the absorption lines are... do you see how nice physics is when you're right?
Since these "gaps" depend only on the elemental composition of the stars (i.e. hydrogen, unless you want to deny that to patch up your hypothesis), we know exactly where they must be on the spectrum. If they're shifted back, we can conclude that Doppler shifting is responsible. So, no, your junk idea of not knowing what the starting pitch of the sound is can be thrown where it belongs: the garbage.