A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why is NASA lying to the public?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 24th 04, 03:53 AM
Mad Scientist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jay Windley wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
|
| The images on the webs site are the RAW images, what don't you
| comprehend about that?

The question is what *you* don't comprehend.

| Your answer below demonstrates that you really don't know anything
| about color imaging.

Really.


Yeah really.

I used to teach it to college freshman back when I was a grad
student. You originally appealed to the elementary school level of
understanding. Now you're trying to claim the intellectual high ground.
Please make up your mind.


Trying to make half ass sense there jimbob? Not doing too well I see.


| White appears white regardless of what planet your on.

Um, no. Take a white card and shine red light on it. Take a picture of it.
What color will the card look like in the photo? Now take the same card and
shine a blue light on it and photograph it. What color with the card look
like in the photo?


Yeah so I guess NASA figured before the first public conference, that
they should color in the blue sky for what apparent reason I might add?
Oh I suppose it was to give kooks like Arthur C. Clarke something to
talk about.


I'll give you a hint. Neither answer is "white".


Now you are saying filters have nothing to do with. Its all in the
sunlight which is pink on Mars. Hahahahahahahahahahahha


Sunlight seen from Earth's surface tends toward blue. Your eyes
automatically adjust for it, but film does not. And neither does digital
imaging. When we formulate film for sunlight, we "fix" it to correct away
from blue and toward the orange so that things don't come out blue. If you
go inside under incandescent light, that's orange. Again, your eyes adjust,
but you don't necessarily notice. But film does; if you photograph under
incandescent with "daylight" film, it comes out *very* orange, not only
because the light is orange but because your film is biased in that
direction. And fluorescent light is green. But again your eyes don't
notice but film does.

Go buy a camcorder and then read the instruction book under the section
labelled "white balance". Then answer the question again: what could
possibly be different about the wavelengths of light in a laboratory as
opposed to the Martian surface? Then explain why *uncorrected* photographs
taken under those circumstances, without filters, using the same equipment,
of the same subject, might look different.


Your argument sounds so good, except for one crucial point. We are
talking about RAW images released by NASA and Malin Space Sciences that
when simply passed through a filter process on my Corel Photopaint show
much better and more realistic colors I might add. Surely such an
expensive project could do better than my puny Corel Photopaint 8.
Those images have been analysed by independant researchers, and it is
their conclusion that you seem so bent in arguing against. I am just
the messenger. Why don't you set up your self a web site to show why
all these other experts in Image analysis are wrong, I am them I am sure
will appreciate it. Heck call Jeff Rense and offer to debate it with
them on live radio. Heck call in to Coast to Coast and offer the same.
Or call in to Larry King Live and offer to debate the same. You seem
to think you have it all figured out, whereas all these other experts in
the field of image analysis are wrong. i.e., they are just too stupid to
realize that sunlight on Mars is pink.

You people remind me so much of what real *kooks* are. They claim
anything...read that again..ANYTHING which goes against their sacred cow
beliefs is wrong, without even investigating. One guy told me that we
know how the Pyramids were built. (Ofcourse he fails to explain why kook
after kook keeps asking the Eyptians to go there and prove their pet
theory; in fact Egyptologists are sick of hearing about the construction
methods especially after they allowed a Japanese team from a university
in to reconstruct a scale model of the Great Pyramid using plastic - it
ended up melting and there was such a mess of oil all over the place in
the desert that the EAA was ashamed they had invited them in) I asked
him which engineer had signed and endorsed his thesis, and I got no
response. I again asked him to write into the Egyptian Antiquities
Authority (EAA) and tell them the world renowned expert engineers who
studied the great Pyramid(at quite a cost no doubt)at the request of
serious scientific scholars, and came to the conclusion "we do not know
how it was built, nor could we reproduce the same structure, using
*today's* methods and construction tools". So this dumbass figures he's
got Egypt all figured out, and has accomplished at his computer desk,
what every other architectural expert in the field of super-construction
have all failed to do. Ofcourse this guy didnt respond, well not yet
anyway and personally I don't expect him to reply any time soon.

  #22  
Old July 24th 04, 03:54 AM
Mad Scientist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Everything is *kooky* to those who can't be bothered to stop staring at
their own arse too!

Jay Windley wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| Why the discrepency? Because they are lying! Plain and simple.

Everything is "plain and simple" to the person who does not want to be
bothered with important details like wavelengths.

Obviously your attempt to claim to be some great expert in digital imaging
has fallen flat, so now you're back to the "any schoolkid can see this"
approach.

Thank you for playing.

*Plonk*


http://www.anomalous-images.com/



  #23  
Old July 24th 04, 04:38 AM
dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"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.


Now I just have to take issue with your blanket assumption. It might be
right for some things but take the JFK "magic bullet" theory. There the
"conspiracism" is totally correct. Unless you actually believe the "magic
bullet" that came out totally intact and undamaged...

So you can't just go making blanket assumptions about all conspiracy
theories.......


"You don't need to be a [insert expert title] to see that [insert naive
expectation]," is a very common argument.


Just to reiterate sometimes experts agree with conspiracy theories like with
the "magic bullet" theory.


In fact, experts in fields exist
precisely because nearly all fields have elements that do *not* follow the
layman's intuition.


Sorry for the interuption... Please continue. But it would also be helpful
if you sited how Hogland was wrong instead of just saying he is. His website
supposedly gives the reasons he is right.

I haven't looked closly at his evidence though but a good shooting down of
whatever facts he has would be better than just ripping on him...



--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org



  #24  
Old July 24th 04, 04:50 AM
dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. rogers.com...


Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message
.rogers.com, Mad
Scientist writes

The images on the webs site are the RAW images, what don't you
comprehend about that? Your answer below demonstrates that you really
don't know anything about color imaging. White appears white
regardless of what planet your on.



I seem to remember that the Mars lander in the mid 90s had a color palette
on it to compare the colors with. Since we knew the color value of the
palette it didn't matter what white looked like on Mars because the palette
would tell us the equivalent back on earth.

Don't the modern landers have something similar? Wouldn't that end the
debate?



_You_ are the one who doesn't know anything about colour imaging, and if
you think white appears white under a red light you should get out more.
Jay may have the time to argue with you - I don't.
Plonk.


I guess not just white appears pink on the Martian surface, but so does
the color blue, yellow and grey all appear pink when on Mars. Maybe we
should all move to Mars, and let 'light wavelengths and filters' solve
our racial problems for us. LOL

http://www.enterprisemission.com/ima...t/mercolor.jpg



  #25  
Old July 24th 04, 05:37 AM
Mad Scientist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



dude wrote:

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. net.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.



Now I just have to take issue with your blanket assumption. It might be
right for some things but take the JFK "magic bullet" theory. There the
"conspiracism" is totally correct. Unless you actually believe the "magic
bullet" that came out totally intact and undamaged...


Ofcourse not, don't you know that 'conspiracies' don't exist, they are
called Politics.



So you can't just go making blanket assumptions about all conspiracy
theories.......


Kooks can say whatever the hell they want to, and that includes 'blanket
statements' even though ofcourse we all know only other kooks believe them.



"You don't need to be a [insert expert title] to see that [insert naive
expectation]," is a very common argument.



Just to reiterate sometimes experts agree with conspiracy theories like with
the "magic bullet" theory.


Oh ofcourse, and some of these experts always need closer examination of
their own ass.




In fact, experts in fields exist
precisely because nearly all fields have elements that do *not* follow the
layman's intuition.



Sorry for the interuption... Please continue. But it would also be helpful
if you sited how Hogland was wrong instead of just saying he is. His website
supposedly gives the reasons he is right.


Don't put your money on it, kooks here in alt.astronomy are more
interested in denial, denouncements and denigrating than actually doing
or reading about ascience.


I haven't looked closly at his evidence though but a good shooting down of
whatever facts he has would be better than just ripping on him...



Yeah well pick on Hoagland, when there are plenty of others online who
suggest there are non-natural landforms on Mars as well.



--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org





  #26  
Old July 24th 04, 05:43 AM
Mad Scientist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



dude wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. rogers.com...


Jonathan Silverlight wrote:


In message
ble.rogers.com, Mad
Scientist writes


The images on the webs site are the RAW images, what don't you
comprehend about that? Your answer below demonstrates that you really
don't know anything about color imaging. White appears white
regardless of what planet your on.


I seem to remember that the Mars lander in the mid 90s had a color palette
on it to compare the colors with. Since we knew the color value of the
palette it didn't matter what white looked like on Mars because the palette
would tell us the equivalent back on earth.


This has already been pointed out by some researchers online and no
there is no color palette this time. NASA's reason for not sending one,
"getting accurate colors from Mars is very difficult and a color palette
would serve no useful purpose". They said this to an audience filled
with journalists while in front of a large picture of the first Martian
image that included a blue sky.


Don't the modern landers have something similar? Wouldn't that end the
debate?


Debate? Hah, surely you are jesting. There is no debate with the
alt.astronomy kooks.

The Viking lander also beamed back pictures which showed a Martian blue
sky. And ofcourse there were no 'pink' pictures of parts of the Lander
either. But back in those days, the public was quite ignorant, and
ofcourse there was no internet either.




_You_ are the one who doesn't know anything about colour imaging, and if
you think white appears white under a red light you should get out more.
Jay may have the time to argue with you - I don't.
Plonk.


I guess not just white appears pink on the Martian surface, but so does
the color blue, yellow and grey all appear pink when on Mars. Maybe we
should all move to Mars, and let 'light wavelengths and filters' solve
our racial problems for us. LOL

http://www.enterprisemission.com/ima...t/mercolor.jpg



Remember the above link to the image shows a pink lander and this was
explained as being caused by light wavelengths and filters. The dumbass
who said this failed to account for the presence of blue in the Martian
sky shown to the journalists at the first worldwide conference.

  #27  
Old July 24th 04, 06:17 AM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"dude" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Now I just have to take issue with your blanket assumption. It
| might be right for some things but take the JFK "magic bullet"
| theory.

Nearly every conspiracy theory contains oversimplification. That does not
mean every oversimplified theory is a conspiracy theory.

| Just to reiterate sometimes experts agree with conspiracy theories
| like with the "magic bullet" theory.

Expertise is not insurance against error. But the lack of expertise is
almost a sure guarantee of error where complex subjects are concerned.

| But it would also be helpful if you sited how Hogland was wrong
| instead of just saying he is.

W-a-v-e-l-e-n-g-t-h.

| His website supposedly gives the reasons he is right.

Lots of web sites that make outrageous claims give reasons why they think
they are right. Most of Hoagland's readers and supporters are not experts
in the material he covers. And neither, of course, is Hoagland. He has
made a living for the past 20 years trying to convince the public that NASA
is lying about one thing or another. Alien ruins on the moon, shopping
malls on Mars. You name it. Just because he throws some technical-sounding
mumbo-jumbo at you or applies random Photoshop filters doesn't mean he knows
what he is doing or talking about.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

  #28  
Old July 24th 04, 08:30 AM
dude
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"dude" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Now I just have to take issue with your blanket assumption. It
| might be right for some things but take the JFK "magic bullet"
| theory.

Nearly every conspiracy theory contains oversimplification. That does not
mean every oversimplified theory is a conspiracy theory.


I just hope you don't buy the "Magic Bullet" theory. That would make me
nervous......




| Just to reiterate sometimes experts agree with conspiracy theories
| like with the "magic bullet" theory.

Expertise is not insurance against error. But the lack of expertise is
almost a sure guarantee of error where complex subjects are concerned.

| But it would also be helpful if you sited how Hogland was wrong
| instead of just saying he is.

W-a-v-e-l-e-n-g-t-h.


Just for the record I am not for or against Hoagland. I haven't taken the
time to see what he is really arguing but just telling me:

"W-a-v-e-l-e-n-g-t-h"

Does not solve any debate. To make a valid argument you should list what
Hoagland says is the reason for the mismatch in color then you can say that
variations in the wavelength on Mars as compared to Earth is the reason that
Hoagland is wrong. Also does Hoagland claim to take the wavelength into
account?

I've looked at his website for only a short time and don't feel like digging
through his explanations.. However, if I wanted to say he was right/wrong I
WOULD dig through it so I could either validate or invalidate his reasoning.

Did you dig through his research?


| His website supposedly gives the reasons he is right.

Lots of web sites that make outrageous claims give reasons why they think
they are right. Most of Hoagland's readers and supporters are not experts
in the material he covers. And neither, of course, is Hoagland. He has
made a living for the past 20 years trying to convince the public that

NASA
is lying about one thing or another. Alien ruins on the moon, shopping
malls on Mars. You name it. Just because he throws some

technical-sounding
mumbo-jumbo at you or applies random Photoshop filters doesn't mean he

knows
what he is doing or talking about.


And to borrow from one of my other posts: Why don't they have a color
palette on all landers?

If it was good enough for one of them why wouldn't they do it for all?



--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org



  #29  
Old July 24th 04, 08:39 AM
Mad Scientist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



dude wrote:

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"dude" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Now I just have to take issue with your blanket assumption. It
| might be right for some things but take the JFK "magic bullet"
| theory.

Nearly every conspiracy theory contains oversimplification. That does not
mean every oversimplified theory is a conspiracy theory.



I just hope you don't buy the "Magic Bullet" theory. That would make me
nervous......


Ofcourse he buys the 'magic bullet' and the 'lone gunmen' theory,
because he is brainwashed!






| Just to reiterate sometimes experts agree with conspiracy theories
| like with the "magic bullet" theory.

Expertise is not insurance against error. But the lack of expertise is
almost a sure guarantee of error where complex subjects are concerned.

| But it would also be helpful if you sited how Hogland was wrong
| instead of just saying he is.

W-a-v-e-l-e-n-g-t-h.



Just for the record I am not for or against Hoagland. I haven't taken the
time to see what he is really arguing but just telling me:

"W-a-v-e-l-e-n-g-t-h"


Pretty soon he'll be calling you a kook too. Better keep quiet.


Does not solve any debate. To make a valid argument you should list what
Hoagland says is the reason for the mismatch in color then you can say that
variations in the wavelength on Mars as compared to Earth is the reason that
Hoagland is wrong. Also does Hoagland claim to take the wavelength into
account?


Thats asking too much. Don't you know, pink wavelengths on Mars make
everything pink.


I've looked at his website for only a short time and don't feel like digging
through his explanations.. However, if I wanted to say he was right/wrong I
WOULD dig through it so I could either validate or invalidate his reasoning.

Did you dig through his research?


Are you kidding? Him do actual research? Thats like going back in
history and asking the church fathers to look through Galileo's telescope.



| His website supposedly gives the reasons he is right.


It merely places a picture of the lander on the Martian surface next to
a picture of the lander in the lab. One can easily see how the lander
magically turned pink in his pink light wavelengths.


Lots of web sites that make outrageous claims give reasons why they think
they are right. Most of Hoagland's readers and supporters are not experts
in the material he covers.


You don't have to be an expert to see when a lander goes from white to
pink. Or do you?

And neither, of course, is Hoagland. He has
made a living for the past 20 years trying to convince the public that


NASA

is lying about one thing or another.


That is not true. NASA does a good job convincing the public it lies
all by itself.

Alien ruins on the moon, shopping
malls on Mars. You name it. Just because he throws some


technical-sounding

mumbo-jumbo at you or applies random Photoshop filters doesn't mean he


knows

what he is doing or talking about.


The picture of the white lander and the pink lander transformation isn't
Hoagland's work, it just appears on his web site.




And to borrow from one of my other posts: Why don't they have a color
palette on all landers?

If it was good enough for one of them why wouldn't they do it for all?


Are you kidding? Then NASA wouldn't be able to state, "getting acurate
colors of Mars is very difficult and delicate a task" and I really love
this one, "a color palette would serve no useful purpose".

Still waiting for Jay Windley to explain why the Martian sky is blue in
some images, when he says pink wavelengths are supposed to make
everything pink.






--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org





  #30  
Old July 24th 04, 07:07 PM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"dude" wrote in message
...
|
| I just hope you don't buy the "Magic Bullet" theory. That would
| make me nervous......

But you seem to be trying to change the subject and talk about some other
conspiracy theory, and trying to put words in my mouth about it. That makes
*me* nervous. I'm not about to delve into the Warren Commission and lone
gunmen.

| To make a valid argument you should list what
| Hoagland says is the reason for the mismatch in color

Hoagland says the reason is because NASA is lying and secretly manipulating
photographs behind the scenes. Does he have any proof? No, he just has a
straw man argument based on ramshackle attempts at image analysis. He
simplifies away many of the problems of digital imaging. He applies
basically ad hoc methods (or uses others' data to which ad hoc methods have
been applied) without justifying or explaining them. And then when the
actual observations fail to match up to his simplified version, he cries
foul. He doesn't for a minute let you think that his explanation of the
imaging problem might be wrong.

| I've looked at his website for only a short time and don't feel
| like digging through his explanations..

That's exactly how Hoagland wants you to approach his material. He wants
you to skim it and come away with the notion that with all that fancy
language and "analysis", he must have something to say. Oh, sure -- he
reports some legitimate findings every so often, just so he can't be totally
dismissed. But the stuff he claims as exclusively his turns out to be smoke
and mirrors.

When you dig, you find that the "analyst" claiming false-color skies has
taken the raw data through each filter, obtained from NASA, and tried to
duplicate NASA's photo reconstruction.

He has the green component (535 nm) and the blue component (482 nm). But
instead of a visible red component (ca. 650 nm) he has used the
near-infrared component (753 nm). Instead of trying to reconstruct a
defensible approximation of the visible spectrum (which can be -- and
commonly is -- done using the first three wavelengths I mentioned), he has
merely "promoted" the infrared to the red. A filter centered at 753 nm will
not have a bandwidth sufficient also to pick up visible red at 650 nm, which
is the wavelength corresponding to the three-color reconstruction method the
author has used, i.e., the "red" in Photoshop.

NASA would have been faced with a similar problem: how to turn infrared
into red. As has been repeated said, getting true color images from random,
exotic slices of the spectrum -- visible and otherwise -- is very difficult.
Even the standard RGB color system doesn't always get it right, even for
Earth's sky. Whatever algorithim NASA used to generate a red-end signal
from the infrared obviously "pinkified" the sky too much. But to say this
is evidence they are "lying" about the color of the sky is pure garbage.
NASA doesn't claim the color in that picture is spot-on. Nor in any of the
photos where L2 data has been transformed into visible red.

The author goes on to argue that the sky has been painted over in the image,
with some false color. He notes that the noise in the original images
hasn't been preserved in the final image. The original data is obviously
noise, regardless of where it comes from. It's not inappropriate simply to
filter the noise in the original signals and then do the color correction
from there. That *is* an adjustment to the image, but it's not a lie. Is
the image *more* correct with noise in it?

Hoagland's "wrong lander color" arguments are just the same. His comparison
to the shot taken in the lab uses the same red, green, and infrared bands,
and is therefore not really a true-color image. It's pinkified because the
650 nm signal had to be inferred from 752 nm data. That's why it's labelled
an "approximate" true color image. It is exactly as I said -- the
photograph you're seeing is taken by a camera seeing a different spectrum
that what your eyes naturally see.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/ima...t/mercolor.jpg

Now the question is not why different versions of the photos are available
from NASA or from any other source or why you can plausibly create these
different versions. The question is whether NASA is *deliberately* doing
this in order to deceive. The question of filters and wavelengths is
sufficiently hairy in this imaging context to allow room for interpretation,
for differences of opinion, and for equally justifiable technical approaches
in different cases. In fact, it's sufficiently hairy in normal Kodak
terrestrial photography to make this a concern for photographers trying to
get color reproduction right. But Hoagland doesn't buy any of this. To him
it *has* to be deliberate deception.

When you study Hoagland's past, you see why he leaps to that conclusion.
With Hoagland it's all about making NASA look bad. NASA committed the
unpardonable sin of failing to realize Richard Hoagland's genius when
Hoagland was working closer with them, and now Hoagland is making them pay.
Hoagland demands to be recognized, and if he can't do it within NASA he'll
do it against NASA.

The only way Hoagland can make the "NASA is lying" hypothesis stick is if he
makes it seem like reconstructing these photos is child's play, that any
yutz with Photoshop and a spare afternoon can do it. That way NASA's
"failure" to have One True Color Scheme seems suspicious. But that only
washes if Hoagland's readers don't know anything about how true color is
approximated in imaging using "slices" taken at key points along the visible
spectrum, or how difficult it is to get accurate visible spectrum data when
some of those samples are taken from outside the visible range. We need
those wavelengths for science, but they aren't the best for National
Geographic covers.

| And to borrow from one of my other posts: Why don't they have a color
| palette on all landers?

Spirit and Opportunity have color palettes, but they don't appear in every
photograph because you can't simultaneously point the camera at the palette
and at what you're interested in.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA is coming along just fine now. Cardman Policy 2 July 8th 04 07:33 PM
Pres. Kerry's NASA ed kyle Policy 354 March 11th 04 08:05 PM
Space Access Update #102 2/9/04 Henry Vanderbilt Policy 1 February 10th 04 04:18 PM
NASA Selects Explorer Mission Proposals For Feasibility Studies Ron Baalke Science 0 November 4th 03 11:14 PM
NASA Testing K9 Rover In Granite Quarry For Future Missions Ron Baalke Technology 0 October 31st 03 05:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.