The images used in comparison to illustrate why the 'filter' argument is
patently absurd was explained on the two web sites. One the former
website listed, which no one commented on, used only the RAW images
released by NASA to demonstrate the coverup. For example in one image
released by NASA which shows the lander as being pink. Juxtapose the
image of a pink lander with picture of the lander while still in the
lab, shows the lander to be white. NASA's response was "it is very
complicated to get a true color image of Mars" when shown the two imagse
side by side. Your answer: you are a conspiracy nut. LOL My answer:
you need new glasses. Put your pink shades away and look again.

Jay Windley wrote:
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
|
| They call themselves 'scientists' and yet even a kid
| in elementary school can see that they are lying about
| the colours.

Yes, because the kid in elementary school hasn't yet learned about
wavelengths and filters and high-end image processing, remote sensing, and
all the other fields that pertain to this sort of study. The conspiracy
theorists basically have the same understanding as an elementary school
student and foolishly believe they'll never need any more in order to
understand the world around them. (Apologies to any elementary students
I've insulted.)

Oversimplification of complex topics is a standard ploy in conspiracism.
"You don't need to be a [insert expert title] to see that [insert naive
expectation]," is a very common argument. In fact, experts in fields exist
precisely because nearly all fields have elements that do *not* follow the
layman's intuition.