Why is NASA lying to the public?

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.