Mars Flow

Pretty lame.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16073785/

On 2006-12-07 14:35 +0900, Sam Wormley wrote:
Drunken Jay Walker wrote:
Pretty lame.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16073785/



You should say off the bottle!

But so much cheaper than proper meds, Sam. Be gentle. ;-)

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

As a (B&W) photographer, I am very sensitive to the subtle changes that
changes in camera position, changes in light intensity and position, and
changes in exposure can have on a picture. In looking very carefully at
many of the MSNBC slide show shots "showing" the beds of purported recent
water flows on Mars I can see those same, or very similar tracks on the
"before" pictures. Certainly the "after" pictures could have been
positioned, timed, and exposed to reveal or enhance details that were in the
shadows in the "before" pictures.

Look at them very carefully. I think there may be less here than meets the
eye.


"Drunken Jay Walker" wrote in message
news:CMJdh.19917$YV4.15890@edtnps89...
Pretty lame.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16073785/

"Pieter Litchfield" wrote:

As a (B&W) photographer, I am very sensitive to the subtle changes that
changes in camera position, changes in light intensity and position, and
changes in exposure can have on a picture. In looking very carefully at
many of the MSNBC slide show shots "showing" the beds of purported recent
water flows on Mars I can see those same, or very similar tracks on the
"before" pictures. Certainly the "after" pictures could have been
positioned, timed, and exposed to reveal or enhance details that were in the
shadows in the "before" pictures.

Look at them very carefully. I think there may be less here than meets the
eye.

The NASA TV briefing covered the subject of illumination and in fact the images
released were taken at the same Sun angle and season -- they've worked
very hard to make sure they are not being fooled by such.

"Joe D" wrote in message
news

"Pieter Litchfield" wrote:

As a (B&W) photographer, I am very sensitive to the subtle changes that
changes in camera position, changes in light intensity and position, and
changes in exposure can have on a picture. In looking very carefully at
many of the MSNBC slide show shots "showing" the beds of purported recent
water flows on Mars I can see those same, or very similar tracks on the
"before" pictures. Certainly the "after" pictures could have been
positioned, timed, and exposed to reveal or enhance details that were in
the
shadows in the "before" pictures.

Look at them very carefully. I think there may be less here than meets
the
eye.

The NASA TV briefing covered the subject of illumination and in fact the
images
released were taken at the same Sun angle and season -- they've worked
very hard to make sure they are not being fooled by such.


Yep..Litchfield's an idiot

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:45:43 GMT, "Pieter Litchfield"
wrote:

As a (B&W) photographer, I am very sensitive to the subtle changes that
changes in camera position, changes in light intensity and position, and
changes in exposure can have on a picture. In looking very carefully at
many of the MSNBC slide show shots "showing" the beds of purported recent
water flows on Mars I can see those same, or very similar tracks on the
"before" pictures. Certainly the "after" pictures could have been
positioned, timed, and exposed to reveal or enhance details that were in the
shadows in the "before" pictures.

Look at them very carefully. I think there may be less here than meets the
eye.

As somebody who has worked at JPL's imaging lab, albeit when techniques
were much less sophisticated (I was there when Viking data was being
processed), I can assure you that each and every one of these images was
studied with the solar angle being accounted for. There is no doubt that
the images depict actual changes in morphology; some may posit causes
other than flowing water, but nobody seriously suggests that the images
are just the product of different lighting conditions.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Didn't know that you were, must have been something else.
So, that first Viking image...the color one...what was the real story?
Did they really tweak it or was the sky blue? Just curious.

On 7 Dec 2006 18:38:01 -0800, "Patrick Edward Murray"
wrote:

Didn't know that you were, must have been something else.
So, that first Viking image...the color one...what was the real story?
Did they really tweak it or was the sky blue? Just curious.

Don't know... I started about a month after that, just before Viking 2
landed. Actually, I was a student at the time, which meant that most of
my work consisted of carrying around boxes filled with mag tape spools
g. Still, it was an exciting place to be, and I learned plenty. What I
really remember best was watching the Voyager 1 images coming in
real-time; the Viking stuff didn't come in that way.

In any case, the sky on Mars really is blue, although with a bit of a
shift towards violet compared with Earth.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Well Chris you are very lucky to have been even a small part of it...I
am impressed

The story (if it is indeed accurate) was that the very first color
photo showed a Blue Sky and I think I might have had a copy of it in
fact. One of the JPL or Viking folks said the color balance was wrong
and tweaked it to show a pink. The son of one of the scientists..the
guy that designed the Labeled Release, I believe, tweaked it back. At
least that's what I read.

The color that Mars presents has been an interesting question. It's
been called "Red" but in recent years, naked eye at least, it's been a
sort of ochre or even as I remember it a "Yellow". The only time I
distinctly remember it being red is way back in the early seventies or
even 1969 when it was close to the Moon and looked red, I think maybe
redder than brick red. Certainly very different than now.

At any rate, William Sheehan, in one of his Mars books, does indeed say
that the Martian sky, when it is devoid of dust, does look blue.