Why is NASA lying to the public?

"Paul Lawler" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"dude" wrote in message
...

Would including a regular analog camera help at all for just getting the
Martian sky color?

They might have a heck of a time finding a 24Hour Photo on Mars to develop
the film.

An anolog camera can transmit to Earth. Or, like in the Voyager mission it
could record it then transmit it back. This could all be done in analog if
they wanted. But I'm sure they want the digital for more versatility.

Kook alert!

Wally Anglesea wrote:

"dude" wrote in message
...

"Wally Anglesea" wrote in

message

news
"Odysseus" wrote in message
...

dude wrote:

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?


Sure they do. A "MarsDials" and a mini-DVD, provided by the Planetary
Society, are attached to each rover and include colour-calibration
targets for its "Pancam".

See http://www.planetary.org/mars/tpr_marsdial.html.


And just so the mad "scientist" can understand:

"How do we make sure the colors are correct? The MER team has taken a
two-part approach to this problem. First, we calibrated the cameras

before

launch to determine how each filter will respond to sunlight reflected

off

Martian rocks and soils. Second, because we don't know how or if the

cameras

' response will change after the turmoil of launch and landing on Mars,

we

carry with us a calibration "target" that has known grayscale and color
properties. By imaging the target and getting its color balance correct,

we

will be assured that subsequent images of the landing site will have

their

colors properly displayed."


Another big lie of the assclowns of the world exposed. Everything else

is

just nitpicking.


Then what is the debate about? with color calibration doesn't that end the
whole debate???


Mad ":scientist" isn't interested in debate, or science, or the truth. There
is no debate.
He just has a huge conspiracy chip on his shoulder.

Assclown alert!

Paul Lawler wrote:

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

Jay

Jay Windley wrote:

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.

Your argument is identical with Hoaglands, but with opposite conclusions
proving how much of a kook you are.


No, this does not "prove" anything. Nor does your incessant yelling of,
"kook" prove anything.

Jay Windley wrote:

"dude" wrote in message
...
|
| Would including a regular analog camera help at all for just getting the
| Martian sky color?

Possibly, but even regular analog cameras require color correction.

There's a funny story about that from the old Star Trek series. They were
doing makeup tests for the Orion dancing girl (the green chick) and the lab
was unwittingly "correcting" her skin tone, infuriating the makeup artists.

If you go back to the shot comparing the lander in the lab with the lander
on the Mars surface, you can see that the strap is the wrong color in the
onsite shot. You know it's supposed to be a certain color, and you can
tweak the knobs until it comes out that color. But the problem is that the
data that is supposed to render it the correct color -- that energy at 650
nm -- simply isn't there. Making the strap yellow (or whatever it's
supposed to be) by the calibration chart biases the whole image uniformly.
You haven't really accounted for that missing data. You've just adjusted
the tint knob

Another bit of movie magic: Back when we used blue screens to make
traveling mattes, part of the process involved removing the blue film
element -- which of course was perfectly white where the blue was and was
thus useful in making the mattes. But to get the blue data back in the
foreground image without spoiling the separation, the green component was
printed with blue printing lights, and this approximated the original
foreground colors. The green element would be black where the blue had been
in the original scene, so it wouldn't print. But the colors would never
come out exactly they way they were supposed to. You can't substitute green
for blue without wrecking something. But it was deemed close enough for the
general public, and you just knew not to allow certain colors in the
foreground elements.

| But since there is a palette can't they just calibrate the camera and go
or
| are you saying for the most accurate interpretations they would need that
in
| every shot?

To be scrupulously accurate we'd need it in every shot, because the incident
wavelengths can change over time. Light on earth changes wavelength between
sunny and overcast for example. Most people just aren't that picky about
exact color. It's only important if you're trying to get perfect visible
light shots. That's what most of the public is interested in, but that's
not necessarily what the scientists want to see. They're happy working with
the raw elements.

| Thanks for the informative response though, they can't accuse you of just
| being a blind debunker now.........

You're welcome. I may be wrong on occasion, but I'm not blind.


You're still blind to the blue sky. Must be those pink filters causing
you color blindness.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:06:10 GMT, Mad Scientist
wrote:
Kook alert!
***********************************************
Wally Anglesea wrote:

"dude" wrote in message
...

"Wally Anglesea" wrote...
SNIP SNIP
Sure they do. A "MarsDials" and a mini-DVD, provided by the Planetary
Society, are attached to each rover and include colour-calibration
targets for its "Pancam".
See http://www.planetary.org/mars/tpr_marsdial.html.
**************************************
And just so the mad "scientist" can understand:
"How do we make sure the colors are correct? The MER team has taken a
two-part approach to this problem. First, we calibrated the cameras
before launch to determine how each filter will respond to sunlight reflected
off Martian rocks and soils. Second, because we don't know how or if the
cameras' response will change after the turmoil of launch and landing on Mars,
we carry with us a calibration "target" that has known grayscale and color
properties. By imaging the target and getting its color balance correct,
we will be assured that subsequent images of the landing site will have
their colors properly displayed."
********************************************
Mad ":scientist" isn't interested in debate, or science, or the truth. There
is no debate.
He just has a huge conspiracy chip on his shoulder.
**********************************************
Poor little "Mad Scientist" is definitely determined to disrupt and
display his rudeness.
Count up the number of his sudden posts.
Consider how many he desperately posts for just one day.
Have pity on the poor little guy.
He seeks validation of his existence by believing he has secret
knowledge which is being denied others so his self-esteem can register
as being of worth.
Considering his defense of Haogland and the hoax's, and his wild
interpretation of statements by A.C. Clarke, expect him to soon start
posting one-liners and displaying profanity to justify his existence.
---Mac

I am not the one doing the disrupting, its the alt.astronomy kooks doing
so, and that is obvious to anyone watching the number of obsessive posts
by these kooks.

Mac wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:06:10 GMT, Mad Scientist
wrote:

Kook alert!

***********************************************

Wally Anglesea wrote:


"dude" wrote in message
...


"Wally Anglesea" wrote...

SNIP SNIP

Sure they do. A "MarsDials" and a mini-DVD, provided by the Planetary
Society, are attached to each rover and include colour-calibration
targets for its "Pancam".
See http://www.planetary.org/mars/tpr_marsdial.html.

**************************************

And just so the mad "scientist" can understand:
"How do we make sure the colors are correct? The MER team has taken a
two-part approach to this problem. First, we calibrated the cameras
before launch to determine how each filter will respond to sunlight reflected
off Martian rocks and soils. Second, because we don't know how or if the
cameras' response will change after the turmoil of launch and landing on Mars,
we carry with us a calibration "target" that has known grayscale and color
properties. By imaging the target and getting its color balance correct,
we will be assured that subsequent images of the landing site will have
their colors properly displayed."

********************************************

Mad ":scientist" isn't interested in debate, or science, or the truth. There
is no debate.
He just has a huge conspiracy chip on his shoulder.

**********************************************
Poor little "Mad Scientist" is definitely determined to disrupt and
display his rudeness.
Count up the number of his sudden posts.
Consider how many he desperately posts for just one day.
Have pity on the poor little guy.
He seeks validation of his existence by believing he has secret
knowledge which is being denied others so his self-esteem can register
as being of worth.
Considering his defense of Haogland and the hoax's, and his wild
interpretation of statements by A.C. Clarke, expect him to soon start
posting one-liners and displaying profanity to justify his existence.
---Mac