Unreliable Pioneer Data in Anderson Paper

In message , ralph sansbury
writes

"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message
...

Instead of posting your nonsense here, why not try contacting
the
various groups who have been mapping Venus by radar since the
1960s? You
will have quite a choice - Arecibo, the Russians, the Pioneer
Venus
team, and the Magellan team have all produced similar results
from very
different equipment.
I also pointed you toward mapping of asteroids such as
Kleopatra.
--

I have. And unlike you they know something about the
process that
was used to derive radar maps from very weak radar reflections as
opposed
to less questionable radar maps from stronger radar reflections.
There is reason to question the weaker signals and the method
used to dig
them out of noise see http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury. The
method can
sometimes be valid but it can be stretched to point where
legitimate questions
can be raised as to the validity of the results. This applies to
the earth venus case.
I think you, or someone like you said that the earth venus
reflections
were compared with the spacecraft venus reflections eg pixel by
pixel and the
original noisy radar map was shown to be an accurate
representation of
the more believable spacecraft map. But that is baloney and you
both know it.

I didn't say "pixel by pixel" or if I did, I overstated it. The first
maps of Venus were more crude than the first pictures of the far side of
the Moon. But they did show Alpha Regio and Beta Regio, where all
subsequent studies have shown them with increasing detail.
But I did make one mistake. The first work by R M Goldstein and S Zohar
of JPL was done at Goldstone; the Arecibo results are good enough to
compare directly with Magellan. See
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00207, for instance.
I don't see anything on your web page about radar or signal processing.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.