A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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
  #1  
Old July 22nd 04, 07:34 AM
Mad Scientist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why is NASA lying to the public?

Why is NASA lying to the public about the true colours of the Martian
landscape and sky? They call themselves 'scientists' and yet even a kid
in elementary school can see that they are lying about the colours.

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsindx.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/

Ads
  #2  
Old July 22nd 04, 08:40 AM
Wally Anglesea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
Why is NASA lying to the public about the true colours of the Martian
landscape and sky?


The simple answer is they are not.

don't use hoaxland as evidence.




  #3  
Old July 22nd 04, 09:34 AM
Mac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:34:13 GMT, Mad Scientist
wrote:
Why is NASA lying to the public about the true colours of the Martian
landscape and sky? They call themselves 'scientists' and yet even a kid
in elementary school can see that they are lying about the colours.

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsindx.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/

************************* ***************************
Why, just to stir people as yourself up so much that you will believe
anything Darla sprouts forth and seek out the Mystical Priestess of
Planet-X and go off into the wilderness with such and leave the rest
of us comforted by your absence and silence.
---Mac
  #4  
Old July 22nd 04, 12:22 PM
Paul Lawler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
Why is NASA lying to the public about the true colours of the Martian
landscape and sky? They call themselves 'scientists' and yet even a kid
in elementary school can see that they are lying about the colours.

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsindx.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/


Now, now... do you remember our discussion about how the credibility of
evidence/sources matters? Richard Hoagland (enterprisemission.com) has
pretty close to zero credibility. He is not even a scientist... and his web
site is not a credible source. If you would care to provide some (primary
source) evidence other than Hoagie's rantings, we would love to hear (read)
it.


  #5  
Old July 22nd 04, 02:25 PM
anon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
Why is NASA lying to the public about the true colours of the Martian
landscape and sky? They call themselves 'scientists' and yet even a kid
in elementary school can see that they are lying about the colours.

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsindx.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/


tell us, why is NASA lying to the public?


  #6  
Old July 22nd 04, 09:05 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
Paul Lawler wrote:
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
Why is NASA lying to the public about the true colours of the Martian
landscape and sky? They call themselves 'scientists' and yet even a kid
in elementary school can see that they are lying about the colours.

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsindx.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/


Now, now... do you remember our discussion about how the credibility of
evidence/sources matters? Richard Hoagland (enterprisemission.com) has
pretty close to zero credibility. He is not even a scientist... and his web
site is not a credible source. If you would care to provide some (primary
source) evidence other than Hoagie's rantings, we would love to hear (read)
it.


Wouldn't he have negative credibility? The impression I get is that
anybody using him as a source usually loses some of their own credibility.

--
john R. Latala

  #7  
Old July 22nd 04, 09:26 PM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.
"You don't need to be a [insert expert title] to see that [insert naive
expectation]," is a very common argument. In fact, experts in fields exist
precisely because nearly all fields have elements that do *not* follow the
layman's intuition.

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

  #8  
Old July 22nd 04, 09:46 PM
Paul Lawler
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.
"You don't need to be a [insert expert title] to see that [insert naive
expectation]," is a very common argument. In fact, experts in fields

exist
precisely because nearly all fields have elements that do *not* follow the
layman's intuition.


Hear, hear! Very well put, Jay. If there was a k00k contravening award,
you'd get my vote!


  #9  
Old July 22nd 04, 10:38 PM
Mad Scientist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The images used in comparison to illustrate why the 'filter' argument is
patently absurd was explained on the two web sites. One the former
website listed, which no one commented on, used only the RAW images
released by NASA to demonstrate the coverup. For example in one image
released by NASA which shows the lander as being pink. Juxtapose the
image of a pink lander with picture of the lander while still in the
lab, shows the lander to be white. NASA's response was "it is very
complicated to get a true color image of Mars" when shown the two imagse
side by side. Your answer: you are a conspiracy nut. LOL My answer:
you need new glasses. Put your pink shades away and look again.

Jay Windley wrote:
"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.
"You don't need to be a [insert expert title] to see that [insert naive
expectation]," is a very common argument. In fact, experts in fields exist
precisely because nearly all fields have elements that do *not* follow the
layman's intuition.


  #10  
Old July 23rd 04, 12:25 AM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
|
| Your answer: you are a conspiracy nut. LOL My answer:
| you need new glasses. Put your pink shades away and look again.

No, my answer is still that you don't understand wavelengths and filters.
You discuss only filters. What about wavelengths? Would you consider the
spectrum of light in the lab equivalent to the spectrum of sunlight on Mars?

--
|
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 09:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.