|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |