New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#1 2002-10-15 03:58:25

Adrian
Moderator
From: London, United Kingdom
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 642
Website

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Please continue discussion here from the Face on Mars thread.


Editor of New Mars

Offline

#2 2002-10-15 04:46:08

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Thanks Adrian!!
                                         smile


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#3 2002-10-15 05:50:29

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

CALLING JOSH CRYER!

    Hey, Josh! ... Are you out there anywhere?

    The Enterprise Mission is back on deck at a temporary server (or something) and its files are now accessible again.
    As you will remember, we were all hanging out for the so-called 'real' IR image of cydonia - the one Laney alleges he downloaded on July 25th, at the laboured behest of Noel Gorelick at ASU.

    I think you said something to the effect that as and when the raw TIF became available, you would try to find time to analyse it and tell us what those artificial looking shapes really are.
    If you've been following this thread, you will have seen that Tripp McCann has already given his verdict. He maintains that grossly inappropriate processing of the data has given rise to what looks like right-angled structures in the image. In other words, they are easily explained and easily duplicated introduced artifacts.

    For my sake, and the sake of other interested parties, would you please take a look at the data and provide us with a 'second opinion' about it?
    If you corroborate Tripp's evaluation, I think it must very severely compromise the whole TEM position, probably beyond redemption.

    Waddyasay, Josh? Can you spare the time?           :0


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#4 2002-10-15 07:03:51

Josh Cryer
Administrator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

I just downloaded the .tif this morning. I probably won't get around to looking at them in depth until late tonight (hey, it's Buffy night, I can't miss my shows! ), but what I'll try to do, is recreate the image using the ASU image. Then I'll challenge anyone to create the ASU image from the TEM image.

One should, of course, note that there is a Gaussian blur on the images, so it will prove to be physically impossible to create the ASU image from the TEM image. Since there is a Gaussian blur on the ‘real’ image, there really is no need to take him seriously. And I would honestly feel that it would be a waste of my time to do some sort of ‘spectral debunking.’

The scientific process doesn't go by hearsay.

All's I can say, is that I'll agree with Tripp with regards to the IR data. I've said before (in the other Mars Face thread, in fact), that PR images shouldn't be taken seriously.

It just pisses me off that the conspiracy community didn't get too pissed off at Hoagland for not releasing this ‘real’ data earlier, like he does [i:post_uid6]every[/i:post_uid6] damn time NASA takes their time releasing PR images (and eventually PDS data).

BTW, NASA did manage to release the PDS data [i:post_uid6]on time[/i:post_uid6]. So there is no legitimate reason to complain here. I haven't looked around there at the Odyssey node (everything is different from how they had it- ahh, I found it- I'll check it out later), but it wouldn't surprise me if we couldn't find the RAW Cydonia data there.


Some useful links while MER are active. Offical site NASA TV JPL MER2004 Text feed
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#5 2002-10-15 19:06:36

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Thanks for coming back to me on this, Josh!

    Interesting that you've mentioned Gaussian blur on both the official image and the so-called 'real' image.
    I was labouring under the impression that Laney had Gaussian blurred the image he downloaded on July 25th, but that a completely untouched 'real' image was recovered from somewhere - and that this is the one TEM is presenting now on its site as the 'real' image.
    If, as you say (and I do NOT suggest I doubt you for one moment), there is Gaussian blur on BOTH images, official and 'real', then I take it that will complicate things? If so, does it then become impossible to determine who's pulling a fast one and who isn't?
    You can see from my questions that you'll have to explain what you do, step by step, because I'm unfamiliar with the processes you describe and even the terminology you use. I apologise profusely for my ignorance, which must be as irritating to you as it is frustrating to me!

    Josh wrote:-

.... (hey, it's Buffy night, I can't miss my shows! ), ...[/quote:post_uid6]

    I wouldn't dream of asking such a sacrifice of you!
    But, just as and when you get an idle moment ....      big_smile

    Thanks again, Josh!


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#6 2002-10-16 04:12:14

Tripp
Member
From: Valley Forge
Registered: 2002-09-22
Posts: 16

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Thanks for coming back to me on this, Josh!

    Interesting that you've mentioned Gaussian blur on both the official image and the so-called 'real' image.
    I was labouring under the impression that Laney had Gaussian blurred the image he downloaded on July 25th, but that a completely untouched 'real' image was recovered from somewhere - and that this is the one TEM is presenting now on its site as the 'real' image.[/quote:post_uid2]
I dont believe Josh was referring to gaussian blur on the ASU image. I believe he was referring to there being Gaussian blur on "both" of the TEM "Real" images, the one that was initially released as well as the one released most recently.

There is no evidence of gaussian blur on the official ASU release.

Additionally, inherent in Josh's statement, "One should, of course, note that there is a Gaussian blur on the images, so it will prove to be physically impossible to create the ASU image from the TEM image." there is the implicit understanding that the Gaussian blur in teh Laney "Real" image makes it impossible to create the ASU image (having more real detail) from the Laney image.

With  regard to the recently released supposedly "raw" "REAL" data, in addition to gaussian blur there is also evidence of employ of "sharpen' in concert with that blur.  Furthermore there is also  evidence of gross augmentation of contrast or "equalization" in the image, as shown by areas of shadow that maintain detail of a shadowed surface in the ASU image now being only inky black featureless areas in the Laney "real" image bands.

Curiously, these three components, gaussian blur, sharpen and equalization have all been admitted to have been used in pre-processing by Laney.


<a href="http://pub39.ezboard.com/fhuntforplanetxfrm56">Mars UnEarthed Forum</a>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/marsunearthed">"Mars UnEarthed" - Web Site</a>


<i>The *PROOF* Is Out There...</i>

<i>.. Per Ardua Ad Astra </i> ~ Through Struggle To The Stars!

Offline

#7 2002-10-20 11:52:10

Josh Cryer
Administrator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Yeah, the ASU image is literally unfiltered, except for the inital infrared to grey map they did to get it in the visible range. It does absolutely not have a gaussian blur on it, that much is certain.

Anyway, my computer has been on the fritz recently, but I'll write up some image comparasions later (and hopefully a nifty reproduction! wink ), and try to be more coherent. Sorry if you thought I bailed on ya.

But there really is nothing to email TEM and the ASU guys about, though. Since TEM didn't come through with a really well done fake. I would like to contact MarsNews, though. It's a damn shame a mainstream site like that supports TEM in the way that they do (they may have changed their position though, haven't been to their page in a few weeks).


Some useful links while MER are active. Offical site NASA TV JPL MER2004 Text feed
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#8 2002-10-21 00:50:22

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Thanks in advance, Josh.

    You're right in voicing your reservations about MarsNews. People like me look at articles in MarsNews and think to themselves: "Hmmm. The staff at a site like this can't be as ignorant as I am about image processing. Yet, they seem to place considerable credence in the TEM position on this IR image deal. If THEY think there might be something in it, maybe there is!"

    And such thinking is encouraged by the fact that Enterprise Mission has been able to publish all these claims without a recognised authority coming forward to explain to the layman, in simple terms, exactly why the TEM position is false and untenable.
    If TEM is as annoying to NASA as some have suggested, it would surely be in their (NASA's) interests to publicly humiliate TEM by showing, in plain language, that they have misrepresented the truth. And it IS apparent that NASA has tried to discredit TEM in the past, with it's appalling and reprehensible release of the deliberately distorted "catbox" image of Cydonia, and its disingenuous use of MOLA data to create a shapeless blob out of the Face mesa.
    If they are THAT irritated by TEM, why don't they blow them out of the water over this IR image thing today?   ???

    While I'm at it, where are all the night-time IR images taken by Odyssey?
    They must have taken dozens of them by now.

    And how far into the northern summer do we have to get before the CO2 'hood' lifts and we can get an overview of the hydrogen (read water ice) distribution in the top metre of regolith in the northern hemisphere? Many of us have been hanging out for this information and can't fathom why it hasn't appeared.
                                           :0


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#9 2002-10-21 12:55:19

Tripp
Member
From: Valley Forge
Registered: 2002-09-22
Posts: 16

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

MarsNews.com and Jim Burk do not evidence any knowledge nor understanding of Infrared imaging nor of the basics of graphics filters and processes required to address  the relevant issues here. Additionally there is a gross lack of objectivity on Burk's part which I have addresssed (with him) in numerous TEM and Anomalies forum posts.

Given that the ongoing discussion here here involves a conversation I had recently with Bamf (Noel Gorelick), I will share this log with you with only some additions put in for clarification purposes of this audience.

***NOTE: there are two image URLs within the log, evidencing currupted data in the Laney image.***

Session Start: Sun Oct 20 16:52:12 2002
Bamf (~Bamf@ip68-2-134-137.ph.ph.cox.net)
[16:52] <Tripp> Hey Noel.. got a minute to answer a Q about specific image detail?
[16:52] <Bamf> Sure, if I can.
[16:52] <Tripp> ok thank you
[16:53] <Tripp> Here is an image comparing the ASU release and the last Laney release in the
10.11 filter range. Area examined is east of the D&M pyramid - http://www.sentientstorm.com/cydonia-ta … omp-dm.jpg

.
•¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Whois Bamf
[u@h: *!~Bamf@ip68-2-134-137.ph.ph.cox.net (IP)
[realname: foo
[channels:  #Enterprisemission
[server: irc1.anomalies.net Colorado Springs, Colorado
[idle: 2mins 10secs Sun Oct 20 14:21:04 2002
•____ whois (from irc1.anomalies.net)
.
[16:55] <Tripp> got it yet? notice the S/E corner and the 3 feint impact craters evident in the ASU image.
[16:55] <Bamf> yes
[16:56] <Tripp> see how those are blured and blackish  and appear as monotone square-ish areas in the Laney image.
[16:56] <Bamf> Yes
[16:56] <Tripp> to me this indicates that a contrast (Levels Adst) was first applied..darkening the craters (on the ASU image). .and then blur and sharpen were applied repeatedly to give the squarish monotone result.
[16:57] <Tripp> Obviously also the image edges are no longer aliased (not jaggy and stepped) in the laney image..but the aliasing there in the Laney "Raw" shows a similar applicaiton of blur and sharpen, indicating it is no longer RAWQ
[16:57] <Bamf> I don't know that that's an accurate statement.  It's just a point of argument, but who couldn't it have happened in the reverse order?
[16:57] <Bamf> s/who/why
[16:58] <Tripp> reverse how?
[16:58] <Bamf> sharpen/blur then contrast.
[16:59] <Tripp> well because then the dark rims of the impact craters (in the ASU image) that were blurred to make the dark gray areas would be insufficiently dark to result in the Laney blotches.. If these were blurred and then sharpened first a shade would result that would not be quite so different from surrounding area.
[16:59] <Bamf> ...ok.
[17:00] <Tripp> in undertaking stark contrast or as laney erronously called it "equalizaiton" FIRST then applying the blur, then the contrasted areas more effect the surrounding areas.
[17:00] <Tripp> make sense?
[17:00] <Tripp> anyway.. this is sort of a lead-in to my question
[17:00] <Bamf> Ok.
[17:00] <Tripp> i took the image you are looking at now and equalized it in Photoshop.
[17:01] <Tripp> Here is the result of equalization of the first image.. Note the rectilinear features now standing out in the Laney image - http://www.sentientstorm.com/cydonia-ta … -dm-eq.jpg
[17:02] <Bamf> Yes.
[17:02] <Tripp> Whereas the ASU image has smooth natural gradients
[17:03] <Tripp> a part of my Q is, you do not believe these recilinear monotonal areas in the Laney image represent that CDD temp problem you've mentioned before, do you?
[17:03] <Bamf> No.
[17:03] <Tripp> ok that was my thought on this as well.
[17:03] <Bamf> Instrument effects span the entire width of the image.
[17:03] <Tripp> Do you think the CDD temp problems can be brought out using equalization?
[17:04] <Tripp> oh they DO? i didnt catch that in previous discussions.
[17:04] <Bamf> Uh... probably.  they're pretty obvious.
[17:04] <Tripp> are instrument effects not monotone but rather a banding SHIFT of the entire tonal representation?
[17:04] <Bamf> That sounds accurate.
[17:05] <Tripp> Obvious.. ok cuz in the log Laney posts of you and he, you state these instrument shifts are not so obvious..or so i recall.
[17:05] <Tripp> BTW have you seen Laney's own presentation on his site wherein he presents the log i mention?
[17:05] <Bamf> I state there's lots of different things that are going on, and I wanted to be specific about which ones we were talking about, to avoid this exact kind of crap.
[17:05] <Bamf> Yes, I have.
[17:05] <Tripp> RIght i recall you stating that too.
[17:06] <Bamf> This effect, which we call temperature wobble...
[17:06] <Bamf> effects the entire CCD at the same time.  But since the CCD is imaging different parts of the surface at different times, it ends up being spatially shifted when you compare multiple bands.
[17:07] <Bamf> If you just took a single band and equalized it, you may or may not see it.  (haven't tried it).
[17:07] <Tripp> Ok
[17:07] <Bamf> As soon as you do anything involving differences between bands they pop right out.
[17:07] <Tripp> so this temp wobble is not causative to the blockies of the "city"
[17:07] <Bamf> You can clearly see them on the TEM's version of the ASU data in ghost6.jpg, I think.
[17:07] <Bamf> Not possible.
[17:08] <Tripp> that's what i thought myself, evne though i didnt have a full grasp of how the temp wobble represents itself.
[17:08] <Bamf> http://www.enterprisemission.com/images … ghost6.jpg
[17:09] <Tripp> What do you think of the blockies that become apparent with equalization? I believe these in part ARE the "City" and the recilinear grid seen throught the Cydonia IR in Laney's image and are a result of the gaussian blur and sharpent techniques.
[17:10] <Bamf> I think there's a little more to it than that, but probably not much more.  There's just SO many different things that he could have done to the image, that it's nearly impossible to figure out exactly what it was.  And with the .1% rotation looking like a print/scan step, then you REALLY have no idea what's been introduced.
[17:11] <Tripp> i think SIMILAR to the Temp wobble, the equalization and sharpen produce different representations in each band even though these effects *MAY* and likely were applied uniformly across ALL the bands (as is indicated by the blur and anti-aliasing even to the image margins of each band in the Laney image) and these varied effects contribute to the "city" so called 3-D look.
[17:11] <Bamf> Yes, that's entirely possible.
[17:11] <Tripp> ALSO i believe it is important which band range he uses as the denominator in ratioing the bands used in the multispectral image.
[17:12] <Tripp> using A bands or specific bands creates "interference patterning" in the ratio process .. Does this sound reasonable?
[17:12] <Bamf> I don't have a feel for what happens when you do a DCS on band ratios.  It's just not done.
[17:13] <Bamf> You do one or the other.  Doing both is...  silly.
[17:13] <Bamf> DCS is decorrelation stretch
[17:13] <Tripp> right
[17:13] <Tripp> ok that's what i thought and is my own experience.
[17:14] <Tripp> Ok in your view what conceivably could be the result of applying both DCS and ratioing?
[17:14] <Bamf> Certainly if he's done even a single blur/sharpen and then divides by that band, it'll do wacky things.
[17:14] <Tripp> well we see those wacky things, for sure.
[17:15] <Bamf> The fact that you can see the square outlines in just an equalization means that those are going to stand out big time once you do DCS/ratios
[17:15] <Tripp> EXACTLY!
[17:15] <Tripp> so then you support my belief here?
[17:15] <Bamf> That...  it's all fake?
[17:15] <Tripp> yes ..
[17:15] <Tripp> induced bullshit
[17:15] <Bamf> Well duh.
[17:15] <Tripp> err i mean "induced by BULLITT"
[17:16] <Bamf> He's still able to claim "those were in it when I got it"
[17:16] <Tripp> Noel. ive always known that these did not resemble real IR signatures..but deminstrating how he SNAFU' the image to the satisfaction of the "believers" is what i am trying to get at.
[17:17] <Bamf> I think you're wasting your time.  At the end of the day, Laney can always claim "But it was in the data when I got it."
[17:17] <Tripp> Problem is.. he cannot claim these were in it when he got it, due to the fact that craters are turned into blured squarish splotches.. as well as other details i can demoonstrate showing high application of contrast.
[17:17] <Tripp> Well.. there's one problme
[17:17] <Bamf> Sure he can claim that.
[17:17] <Tripp> and I think i may have him by the short hairs
[17:18] <Bamf> The equalized image is something laney claims is pristine, except for a single blur, yes?
[17:18] <Tripp> Beyond it bieng impossible for ASU's image to be a derivative of Laney's image due to greater REAL detail.. Laney's image is SHY one whole row of pixels.
[17:18] <Bamf> ... is from something...
[17:19] <Tripp> Laney, on the original braadcast said he removed an entire row of pixels.. for some reason.. to help the images overlay (which he obviously did in a visuual art program and not ENVI first off)
[17:20] <Tripp> That "signature" missing row of pixels may tie laney to hving already altered what TEM is offering up as "RAW" and pristine.(even as indicated by Laney's own admission here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cydonia/message/18536) and also in the more recent admission to what I've stated all along: that he overwrote the original file name, saving his work and blurs,etc. in progress)
[17:20] <Bamf> Regardless of how fake the image looks, I don't believe there's anything left that will convince anyone else except a step-by-step recipe of getting from one to the other, and I don't think that's directly possible.
[17:21] <Tripp> i dont think laney could reproduce his results EXACTLY ..for that matter.
[17:21] <Bamf> Someone might just happen to stumble on it, but if there was a print/scan step involved, it'll never happen.
[17:21] <Bamf> Agreed.
[17:21] <Tripp> why bo you believe there is a print/scan step involved?
[17:21] <Bamf> Since he's overwritten his original at least one.
[17:21] <Bamf> once.
[17:22] <Bamf> The 0.1 degree rotation shows random effects in the upper left/lower right areas.
[17:22] <Tripp> oh it does? i have not examined those areas specifically
[17:22] <Bamf> That might be the result of filtering after rotation, or, as Holger pointed out, it could be caused by stray-light on a scanner.
[17:22] <Bamf> Holgers steps were real easy: load it up and set gamma to 4.
[17:22] <Tripp> Do you recollect his "Rationale" for the 0.1 rotation?
[17:23] <Bamf> I haven't heard anyone come up with any explanation of it.
[17:23] <Bamf> I *suspect* it's a byproduct of laney rotating the image forwards and backawards a couple of times.
[17:24] <Tripp> What i found notable in the that Laney presentaiton that neither Holger nor Rich could reproduce ANYTHING like Laney's results.. which laney proudly stated from his own ego, but really it demonstrates a serious FLAW in his processing.
[17:24] <Bamf> That makes more sense to me than print/scan, but if you were trying to destroy any traceable digital signature for some reason, print/scan would be the best way to do it.
[17:25] <Tripp> ok rotating it repeatedly to get the exact angle rather than rotating it from the original each time.. God he is really a dumbass when it comes to imagery.
[17:25] <Bamf> You already knew that.
[17:25] <Tripp> lol yeah
[17:25] <Tripp> Mayb i said that *ONCE*.. (or twice) somewhere.
[17:25] <Bamf> You know about his July 30th image?
[17:25] <Tripp> What's that?
[17:26] <Tripp> Not sure what you're referring to.
[17:26] <Bamf> The one where he claimed to have "done the analysis", but turns out he just did a saturation stretch.
[17:26] <Bamf> I'll find you a link in a second.  It's relevent because it doesn't appear to have been made from his "real" image, it appears to have been made from the ASU version.
[17:27] <Tripp> Ahh. .that IS RELEVANT. .as it establishes that what he was working with later on was only an image he scrawed up with blur, etc and saved to file.
[17:28] <Bamf> http://server2044.virtualave.net/bullitt/SSatC1.jpg
[17:29] <Bamf> It's possible this has already been munged a bit, but it was back before he asked how real image procesing is done.
[17:29] <Tripp> this linke is his original presentation?
[17:29] <Bamf> This is his original image.  The "presentation" is on the old TEM board.
[17:30] <Bamf> Which is down right now.  He didn't say much other than "TELL 'EM OLD BULLITT KNOWS HOW ITS DONE"
[17:30] <Tripp> so this was posted in an realy TEM thread, likely in responses to ongoings with you and Dan?
[17:30] <Bamf> Prior to dan.
[17:30] <Bamf> Well, actually, right when dan showed up.  same day.
[17:30] <Tripp> this image sure as hell was NOT done in EVNI .. .what is it jut an RGB composible of 3 bands?
[17:31] <Bamf> He said something like: Red=band1, yellow=band3, green=band5, blue=band7 and purple=band9.
[17:32] <Bamf> Which is silly, but possible.
[17:32] <Bamf> It's thread 3872 of the previous board.
[17:32] <Tripp> what color system is that? CMYK?
[17:32] <Bamf> I've got a copy of the page.
[17:33] <Bamf> Well, if he's got some silly program that will let you merge bands in such a manner, it's conceiveable.
[17:33] <Bamf> A stupid thing to do, but possible.
[17:33] <Bamf> Hang on a sec.
[17:33] <Tripp> He only uses whatchamakalit. that free App on the web
[17:33] <Tripp> Paintshop pro?
[17:33] <Tripp> no
[17:35] <Tripp> the company is Jasc i think.. manufacturer
[17:39] <Bamf> The bands in this image are represented as6.
[17:39] <Bamf> 62 Violet 7.88 Blue9.30 Green11.03 Yellow12.58 Red
[17:40] <Tripp> Ok .. thanks
[17:40] <Tripp> to do that you would have to have a colors system that involves those colors to produce "real" color imagery
[17:46] <Tripp> at any rate. .i think those blockes that appear in the EQUALIZED image are a sesult of the blur & sharpent to .. not obviously features like the impact craters, but rather to less than obvious image tonal changes.
[17:46] [Bamf is not on irc (from irc1.anomalies.net)]
[17:46] <Bamf> He claims PSP7 on his moc processing page.
[17:46] [Bamf is not on irc (from irc1.anomalies.net)]
Session Close: Sun Oct 20 17:48:14 2002[/quote:post_uid0]

The application of "Equalize" in photoshop or other programs does not distort nor introduce new tonal patterns at all.  Equalize only extends the display of tonal range from absolute black to pure white, thereby "stretching" that tonal range of the image and allowing  already present details to be more readily apparent under visual examination. Photoshop itself writes of the "Equalize function:

[b:post_uid0]Photoshop "Help" description of EQUALIZE:[/b:post_uid0]
The Equalize command redistributes the brightness values of the pixels in an image so that they more evenly represent the entire range of brightness levels. When you choose this command, Photoshop finds the brightest and darkest values in the image so that the darkest value represents black (or as close to it as possible) and the brightest value represents white. Photoshop then attempts to equalize the brightness—that is, to distribute the intermediate pixel values evenly throughout the grayscale. [/quote:post_uid0]

I  believe the blockies seen in the Laney version  of the "Equalize" Comparsion image are the direct result of repeated appications of blur and sharpen procedurally applied processes done PRIOR to ENVI which thoroughly and irrevocably corrupt the IR "data'.  Laney applies blur, sharpen and gross adjustments to contrast (Levels, which he refers to erroneously as "equalize")  to all his images, even those he does gratis for AMES, with these  gross adjustments to "contrast" (levels) making extremely dark areas of the image, which appear to the casual observer as more "crisp" and "clean" but in reality rob the imagery (and in this case "Data") of real detail.

These blockies, though not overtly apparent in the un-equalized image, do represent gross and extreme alterations to the data and are quite readily apparent to the ENVI program when compositing. The fact that these blocky features were induced in varied forms in each individual band is a result of each band having varied tonal variations and varied renditions of the terrian. The employ of each band in the "ratio" of these images, employing one band as a denominator, creates "interference patterns" that result in the so-called "3-D look" of the "City" but which in reality have no resemblance whatsoever to a real IR signatures.
----------------------

Shaun, Incidentally the reason Noel (Bamf) and ASU have not "Blown TEM (Laney) out of the water" in addressing this directly is due to a number of factors.  First as Bamf said in the above log, Laney can simply assert that the grossly improper corruption ot the "not-so-RAW" image he is allledging to have received was how he got it initially (which I viiew as highly unlikely given his own stated apply of these processes indicated by the image itself).  Additionally Laney has failed to specifiy his specifically applied processes overall. Laney has not even stated at all which filter range he used to apply as the denominator in "ratioing" of the bands.Also Laney himself has admitted this blocky "City-scape" has not appeared in all the results he himself does. Beyond that even Laney admits that his partners in this processing, Hoagland and Holger, have not achieved anything like his results doing the same steps:

[b:post_uid0]SOURCE:[/b:post_uid0]http://www.keithlaney.com - "The Politics"
I had been sharing my imaging results with Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara, who after review of them were astounded also. The strange thing about it was that no one else was getting near the same results as I. Holger Isenberg wasn't, Steve Wingate wasn't, (In fact he only seems interesting in debunking this image, which sadly he has looked very foolish doing)  Richard wasn't.. No one that tried did. The best attempts I saw from others were rather streaked and the color values were smudged, weak, with high noise levels. Not very good examples of true false color multispectrals worthy of the capabilities of the wonderful Themis, which for the most part are supposed to be clean and colorful where there are thermal and compositional differences being imaged.[/quote:post_uid0]

Herein, Laney obviously thinks he is endowed with some innate skill to create proper and "clean" IR composite results, as they should appear (in his view). However Cydonia is not like the IR imagery he is comparing. Cydonia is an area subjected to wide-ranging aeolian erosion and grain transport with large expanses of this area being covered with varied types of grains from differing lithologic origins. Translation: the IR data SHOULD NOT be coming back with a uniform, pristine color banding across the region. Laney has no surprisinjg "skill" here. He has ony INDUCED the results that were his apriori expectation to see and did so through improper processing and gross apply procudural processing methods that "smoothed" the results, removing noise and creating an overall more homogenous image. Even his own partners could not reproduce his results and should not have been able to do so, assuming they themselves were applying more appropriate pre-processing steps.

It must be recognized here that if these Laney results cannot be at all reproduced then they are not reasonably indicative of "scientifically reproducible results." Additionally,  and beyond doubt, Laney's own admitted application of pre-processing steps (blur, Sharpen & "Equalize") are not supportable as acceptable processing to IR Data.  As I've shown these steps corrupt the DATA.  Beyond this Laney's own image clearly is not pristine and has had these processes applied to it.  Additionally there is no reason to accept Laney's image as valid data given its more-than-questionable pedigree alone.

In short, this entire issue should be long since dead and buried; there is no "buried City" in Cydonia nor anything remotely evidencing artificiality.


<a href="http://pub39.ezboard.com/fhuntforplanetxfrm56">Mars UnEarthed Forum</a>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/marsunearthed">"Mars UnEarthed" - Web Site</a>


<i>The *PROOF* Is Out There...</i>

<i>.. Per Ardua Ad Astra </i> ~ Through Struggle To The Stars!

Offline

#10 2002-10-22 06:28:41

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Interesting stuff, Tripp.

    If nobody at TEM can reproduce Laney's result, then what hope has anyone else of doing so?!
    From what you've written, It appears probable that Laney himself has no record of what he did and the order in which he did it. As everyone knows by now, I'm not au fait with imaging techniques. So it will come as no surprise that I gleaned only a general idea of the complexities of image processing procedures from that 'conversation' with Bamf.
    But it was obvious that if a "print/scan step" was introduced by Laney, then that eliminates any possibility of identifying the source data.

    One of the most telling portions of the exchange comes when Bamf states:-

Regardless of how fake the image looks, I don't believe there's anything left that will convince anyone else except a step-by-step recipe of getting from one to the other, and I don't think that's directly possible.[/quote:post_uid7]

    It's becoming apparent to me that this whole episode will have no clear-cut and decisive outcome which would demolish TEM once and for all.
    However obvious it may be to people with the necessary skills that Laney's 'real' image, and the procedures he's performed on it, are the result of incompetence and/or deceit,
it seems unlikely that that understanding can be conveyed simply to the layman.

    A further complication seems to be the inherent distrust between the opposing camps. By rights, of course, the decision should be a 'no-brainer'. We should all just trust NASA and ASU and Noel Gorelick.
    But the whole thrust of the TEM case is that NASA has a hidden agenda and cannot BE trusted!! It's unlikely that Mark S, for instance, is going to believe what Noel Gorelick tells him!

    Having heard from Tripp, and looking forward to any help Josh Cryer may be able to offer, I'll also be interested to hear how TEM try to justify their position from here on. If nobody else can duplicate their results, the results are effectively worthless.

    Curious though, how Hoagland's magnified images seem to show such exquisite detail of what looks so very much like right-angled structures. How is it that 'blocky' imaging artifacts manage to look more like buildings the closer you peer at them? Shouldn't artifacts look even more like 'blobby', shapeless optical interference under closer scrutiny? These seem to do the opposite.
                                          ???


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#11 2002-10-22 10:23:44

Josh Cryer
Administrator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Good post Tripp. smile

That Bamf guy is something. A trove of information. I wish I knew of more NASA specialists who were so forthcoming (and friendly) with information like that.

His assertion that it could have been scanned back in (due to the .1% rotation), does seem very plausible, and would definitely explain the ‘blocks’ you see in a close up of the “real” image. How hard would it be for someone to take the ASU image, print it out in a high quality printer, do some light sketches of blocks, and scan it back in? This would very much explain why there is a gaussian blur on the “offical” image!

If you haven't noticed, I've been having a bit of a problem recreating the original. I've come close, of course, it's not hard to use contrast and blur filters to come to a very similar “real” image derived from the ASU image. The problem is that there are no ‘lines’ or ‘blocks’ in these filter derived images. I'm sure it's probably possible to come to one (I've been fiddling with custom filters for a few hours now), but it may have simply proven easier for Lanely to just print out the ASU after some contrast / blur filters were applied, enhance the blocky features that [i:post_uid6]are[/i:post_uid6] there with a pencil, and scan it back in, adding a final gaussian blur.

But the facts remain, as Tripp has pointed out very well, that there are some major inconstancies here.


Some useful links while MER are active. Offical site NASA TV JPL MER2004 Text feed
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#12 2002-10-22 17:45:49

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Ahaa! Now we might be getting somewhere!

    Thanks for that post, Josh. I'm following your progress on this with great interest.
    What you've said regarding the possibility of pencilling-in-of-detail being the easiest way to arrive at the detailed 'buildings' in the so-called 'real' image, is really getting down to the nitty-gritty!

    Looking at this as a layman, I've been impressed with the amazingly realistic 'buildings' Hoagland has come up with in his magnified images. They appear so real to me that I arrived at the conclusion they must either BE actual artificial structures, or they're the result of deliberate forgery.
    I couldn't understand how such detail could arise out of simple imaging artifacts caused by inappropriate processing.
    But I've been waiting to be shown, by people with the expertise required, that such detail IS possible without premeditated fraud, simply by repeated blurring, sharpening, stretching, or what have you.

    Thanks again, Josh! I'm very much looking forward to anything else you may be able to add to this discussion.
                                          smile


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#13 2002-10-22 17:55:17

kai
Member
Registered: 2002-10-15
Posts: 2

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

In the Marsnews BBS I found the following posting:
How Hogland was hoaxed.
The link includedshows the most likely processing to obtain the blocky structures I have seen before. Don't know, if the processing was performed exactly that way but the similatiry is stunning and shows, that they are on the right way. smile

Offline

#14 2002-10-22 18:39:17

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Many thanks, kai !

    It's looking more and more like a deliberate forgery by Laney and/or parties unknown.
    Assuming Hoagland was duped, he must know it by now. It will be interesting to see how he reacts.
                                                            wink


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#15 2002-10-23 18:48:17

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Hi Nida!
           That's the nicest thing I've heard from a young lady in a VERY long time!
           Unfortunately, I'm approaching my 104th birthday. Although I can certainly remember chasing women, I can no longer recall why!! (Slight exaggeration.)     big_smile

           Anyway, you shouldn't go around telling men you've got a crush on them. Men, as a class of people, are extremely susceptible to the merest hint of flattery and become insufferable in its wake! I've already started preening myself like some outlandish peacock!!

           But thankyou, Nida, for absolutely making my day!!!
                                           smile


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#16 2002-10-23 19:43:39

Tripp
Member
From: Valley Forge
Registered: 2002-09-22
Posts: 16

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

This was not done deliberately. It was done through ignorance shown by Laney's habitual employ of 'blur and sharpen' processing and then later claim that these do not effect the IR data at all because HE cannot recognize the changes that occured through only his superficial low scale examination of detail.  Laney just thought the darker and more contrasted image was "better looking".

The repeated apply of "Blur & sharpent' to naturally diffuse margines (seen even in the ASU Equalized image) result in areas of uniform tone.  In part the reason these areas in the IR image were quasi-rectilnear was that features that are perpendicular to solar direction and those that are paralel tend to absorb solar energies more readily than those that are more oblique to the solar direction.  When these areas are blured and sharpened they become even larger and more rectilinear and yet can remain inconspicuous in an unequalized image because the variations are so subtle. These variations become pronounced through processing the IR image.


<a href="http://pub39.ezboard.com/fhuntforplanetxfrm56">Mars UnEarthed Forum</a>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/marsunearthed">"Mars UnEarthed" - Web Site</a>


<i>The *PROOF* Is Out There...</i>

<i>.. Per Ardua Ad Astra </i> ~ Through Struggle To The Stars!

Offline

#17 2002-10-31 23:18:12

Josh Cryer
Administrator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

TEM gets their night time Face on Mars image. Personally, the NASA guys are digging themselvesdeeper and deeper by complying with conspiracy theorists. The harrassment is just going to continue.

http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20021031A.html


Some useful links while MER are active. Offical site NASA TV JPL MER2004 Text feed
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#18 2002-11-01 09:33:03

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

TEM gets their night time Face on Mars image. Personally, the NASA guys are digging themselvesdeeper and deeper by complying with conspiracy theorists. The harrassment is just going to continue.

http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20021031A.html[/quote:post_uid3]
*Whoopie-do.  I looked at the photos in the link.  Nothing outstanding there [of course, those evil NASA mindscramblers might be pointed in my direction, who knows?!].  Looks like bumps and flat areas on the Marsian surface; I've seen ::lots:: more genuinely interesting photos of Mars than these ho-hum ones.

Yes, Josh, you're right; the harrassment will continue.  In my experience with most [but not all] conspiracy theorists, ANY response to them is SUSPECT.  Any response. 

How do you deal with people like that?  If you try to give them some satisfaction, they grumble and growl that you're "HIDING!!" something, or willfully withholding "THE TRUTH!!"  If you don't respond, it's the same accusations, even more vehement.

Whatever.

--Cindy


We all know those Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#19 2002-11-01 20:44:54

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Josh and Cindy, you're both right, of course!

    When it comes to hard-core conspiracy theorists, if you tell them anything, you're lying; if you say nothing, you're witholding!

    Unfortunately,NASA's most successful response to the conspiracy theorists was to deliberately deceive most of them.
    The so-called 'catbox' image of the Face was obviously made to look as bland and uninteresting as possible, with little contrast or detail. And the MOLA image of the Face, which reduced it to a blob for obvious reasons to do with the very poor lateral resolution of the MOLA instrument, was foisted on the public as some kind of 'final proof' that we were looking at a shapeless mesa.
    Blatantly disingenuous acts, to say the least.
    But they worked supremely well! The majority of newspapers and other media publications and broadcasters immediately ran stories to the effect that the final nail had been hammered into the Cydonia coffin. You hardly hear any mainstream media references to the Face any more. And research papers about it, even from reputable scientists, are no longer accepted for publication. The taboo is almost complete.

    I can understand why NASA resorted to such deception - sheer bloody frustration!! They recognised the "damned if we do and damned if we don't" situation they were in and decided to just bluff their way out.

    They certainly bought themselves some respite, at least from the mainstream media. But stoked the fires of the extremists in the conspiracy field at the same time, because the subterfuge is so obvious to anyone other than a casual observer.

    Plus, they have succeeded in suppressing absolutely any further serious study of the Face by regular scientists who may be suspicious of its vaguely artificial-looking shape.
    I must point out here that I am no rabid 'believer'. I admit I have still to dismiss, in my own mind, the possibility that the Face might conceivably be artificial. But I recognise the odds are against it!
    However, the side effect of NASA's deception, the complete suppression of further rational enquiry, is something I am deeply uncomfortable with. I am a firm supporter of the scientific ideal, in which everything is always open to investigation and possible refutation. No idea, however outlandish, should be dismissed simply because it doesn't fit in. And no paradigm, however established, is too sacred to be questioned.

    I condemn those at NASA responsible for allowing the scientific ideal, in this instance, to be corrupted. No amount of frustration is worth that.
                                          :angry:


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#20 2002-11-01 21:21:40

Phobos
Member
Registered: 2002-01-02
Posts: 1,103

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

I can understand why NASA resorted to such deception - sheer bloody frustration!! They recognised the "damned if we do and damned if we don't" situation they were in and decided to just bluff their way out.[/quote:post_uid0]

Forgive me for butting in here, but I find it disturbing to think that NASA could be playing the deception game with these conspiracy theorists.  I think the best action would be for NASA to just report what data they recieve and just ignore the conspiracy nuts.  If you find yourself in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type situation, the best action is sometimes to simply ignore it.  And I think that's what NASA should do about these people, just pretend they're not there.  Of course you can't always ignore a situation but I think it could work in the case being discussed.


To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd

Offline

#21 2002-11-01 21:31:16

Josh Cryer
Administrator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

When NASA releases a PR image, it's totally up to the people who are working on whatever project at the time. True, the catbox image wasn't as great as it could have been, the sampling done to it was totally unnecessary. However, since it's a PR image, and up to the scientists at hand to manipulate, you cannot expect perfect. Indeed, you cannot expect [i:post_uid7]anything[/i:post_uid7] from a PR image. There are no ‘higher ups’ saying, ‘you cannot release a sharp image that looks suspicious!’ There are only scientists who work on their individual projects.


Some useful links while MER are active. Offical site NASA TV JPL MER2004 Text feed
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#22 2002-11-02 01:41:48

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

Phobos writes:-

Forgive me for butting in here, but I find it disturbing to think that NASA could be playing the deception game with these conspiracy theorists. I think the best action would be for NASA to just report what data they receive and just ignore the conspiracy nuts.[/quote:post_uid14]
    This is a wide-open discussion, Phobos, and your opinion is always more than welcome in my book.  smile
    And I couldn't agree more with your sentiments on this. NASA should just present the data and stand back ... no monkey business, thankyou, whatever the provocation.
    If I were a PR guy at NASA, presented with the kind of assertions being made by the pro-artificiality brigade, I would be up front and open about it, and as transparently neutral as possible. I would be saying things like: "Yes, the Face mesa does look eerily face-like from more angles than you might expect of a natural object. Yes, there are surprisingly long straight sections at right angles to other surprisingly long straight sections. Yes, the left side does look vaguely humanoid and the right side could be interpreted as looking leonine. But out of all the mesas on Mars, of all shapes and sizes, it is perfectly possible for nature to produce a shape with these attributes. In other words, it does NOT have to be artificial. The prevailing consensus of opinion is that we are dealing with a natural object which happens to have triggered our well-recognised tendency to see order in chaos. Nobody here at NASA is getting too excited about this so-called Face yet, but if any interesting new information about it comes to light, we will be delighted to discuss it further."
    Such an approach is not only honest and open, it is the best way to disarm the nutcases out there whose paranoia is matched only by their stupidity.

Josh writes:-

True, the catbox image wasn't as great as it could have been, the sampling done to it was totally unnecessary. However, since it's a PR image, and up to the scientists at hand to manipulate, you cannot expect perfect.[/quote:post_uid14]
    We all understand that perfection in any situation is rarely, if ever, obtainable. I'm sure most of us don't expect such standards from NASA, operating a complex machine, as they are, millions of kilometres away in a hostile environment.
    But can't we expect an image adjusted to look as much like a human's-eye-view as possible, as though a human were there aboard the MGS? And NOT an image made to look as indistinct and washed-out as possible!

Josh goes on to say:-

There are no 'higher ups' saying, 'you cannot release a sharp image that looks suspicious!'[/quote:post_uid14]
    But there must be somebody who cares what the public thinks about NASA or they wouldn't release any PR images at all, would they?
    And if such people exist at NASA, why are they allowing the release of such badly degraded images as part of that PR? And why claim a MOLA image of the Face proves it has no interesting human-like features, when the MOLA is known to be entirely incapable of resolving the features in question?

    At the very least, this is gross incompetence and would be an obvious PR disaster for a commercial company listed on the stock market! The credibility of the company would be questioned and the value of its shares would probably drop.

    If I were a 'higher up' at NASA, I'd be introducing some guidelines and control of standards among these freewheeling scientists who are playing fast-and-loose with the reputation of such an important organisation! Wouldn't you?

    Cover me in 'Top Secret' labels and throw me to the conspiracy freaks if you will, but it looks like an orchestrated and deliberate case of disinformation to me! Probably for reasons of frustration as I indicated in my last post here.
    Can anyone tell me why I'm wrong about this?   ???


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#23 2002-11-02 08:22:59

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

They certainly bought themselves some respite, at least from the mainstream media. But stoked the fires of the extremists in the conspiracy field at the same time, because the subterfuge is so obvious to anyone other than a casual observer.

However, the side effect of NASA's deception, the complete suppression of further rational enquiry, is something I am deeply uncomfortable with. I am a firm supporter of the scientific ideal, in which everything is always open to investigation and possible refutation. No idea, however outlandish, should be dismissed simply because it doesn't fit in. And no paradigm, however established, is too sacred to be questioned.

I condemn those at NASA responsible for allowing the scientific ideal, in this instance, to be corrupted. No amount of frustration is worth that.
                                          :angry:[/quote:post_uid4]
*I agree with you, Shaun.

I didn't stop to consider the possibility of disinformation/manipulation by NASA.

::kicks self::

--Cindy

P.S.:  I nominate Mr. Shaun Barrett as Official Public Relations Spokesperson for NASA.  smile


We all know those Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#24 2002-11-02 11:45:44

Josh Cryer
Administrator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

But there must be somebody who cares what the public thinks about NASA or they wouldn't release any PR images at all, would they?[/quote:post_uid0]

No. There are not. NASA does not tell mission scientists what to do. They are completely automonous for the most part. Missions scientists could, if they wanted, not release any PR images at all. Mission outlines never say anything about releasing PR images! Look at GRS, there hasn't been an update with PR data in, say, 6 months. I want northern hemisphere GRS compilations, damnit! I could care less about daily B&W images. There's at least one taxpayer who's pissed off he's not getting his PR images, right? That's exactly why mission scientists do release PR images. To satisify the normal guy who knows nothing about the PDS.

And if such people exist at NASA, why are they allowing the release of such badly degraded images as part of that PR? And why claim a MOLA image of the Face proves it has no interesting human-like features, when the MOLA is known to be entirely incapable of resolving the features in question?[/quote:post_uid0]

Allowing?! They have no control over it! That's the whole point. If I get a grant from NASA, they better damn well not ‘tell me what to do,’ because I have yet to see a proposal or mission statement that does more than require scientists to report back to NASA at given intervals to tell them about their progress and perhaps get more grant money.

The key here, is, that if I go around editing PR data to make it ‘look’ suspicious, NASA will be pissed, because their review board will think I myself am a cook! If I run a sharpen and edge filter on the face on Mars image, then add some dark dots in the middle where the eyes and mouth are, I am surely going to get in deep shit.

The MOLA thing [i:post_uid0]was[/i:post_uid0] a stupid move, because it was somewhat of a misrepresentation, but it's just a mission scientists that did that. I'm sure he got heat for making that up without actually looing at all the information. And now, it will never be let go, because now there's ‘bonified proof’ that ‘NASA’ is covering things up!

If I were a 'higher up' at NASA, I'd be introducing some guidelines and control of standards among these freewheeling scientists who are playing fast-and-loose with the reputation of such an important organisation! Wouldn't you?[/quote:post_uid0]

NASA [b:post_uid0]does[/b:post_uid0]. It's called the Planetary Data System. Does it really make sense for NASA to dictate what presampled, very little scientific quality, images are supposed to ‘look’ like? It's ridiculous! The THEMIS guys could release infrared images that are totally red. Or totally green. Or blue! How doyou ‘define’ what a PR image is ‘supposed’ to look like? I cannot see whyNASAwould, orshould dictate that to mission scientists, when, after all, PR images aren't even necessary to the scientific community. They're there to let taxpayers know that progress is happening.

Repeat this a thousand times. Then repeat it a thousand more times. NASA is not responsible for PR images. Now, repeat this a thousand times. PR images are not of pure scientific quality, any criticism should be focused on the PDS.


Some useful links while MER are active. Offical site NASA TV JPL MER2004 Text feed
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#25 2002-11-02 20:05:49

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: Face on Mars 2 - The sequel

NASA is not responsible for PR images.
    NASA is not responsible for PR images.
    NASA is not responsible for PR images.
    NASA is not re .............

    .... Awww, Josh!! Please don't make me write it any more times!    ???

    I GET THE PICTURE .... Honest !!!        big_smile

    Your explanations of how NASA functions are very illuminating, Josh. I confess to being quite ignorant of the protocols they employ and I daresay I'm not alone in this. But your responses are helping to educate me, for which I do thank you.   

    I'm getting the feeling that NASA is a much more monolithic edifice than I ever realised. And, from what you've said, it's almost completely disinterested in what 'Joe Public' thinks of it, at least on a day to day basis.
    You state that NASA doesn't tell its mission scientists what to do with their grant money, other than "to report back to NASA at given intervals to tell them about their progress".
    My point was that these mission scientists, spending tax dollars, could and, perhaps, SHOULD be required to release data to the layman at decent intervals. I REALLY AND TRULY UNDERSTAND, Josh, that the PDS is the only type of data a SCIENTIST is interested in!! And I also understand your disdain for "presampled, very little scientific quality, images", as you expressed it. But many people are genuinely interested to see the kind of stuff coming back from MGS and Odyssey - but want it in a form they can understand.

    A part of your post which is relevant to this:-

How do you 'define' what a PR image is 'supposed' to look like? I cannot see why NASA would, or should dictate that to mission scientists, when, after all, PR images aren't even necessary to the scientific community. They're there to let taxpayers know that progress is happening.[/quote:post_uid9]
    I would like to suggest that we do, in fact, attempt to define what a PR image is supposed to look like! As I started to outline in a previous post, why not simply take the data and produce a picture which, as closely as reasonably possible, mimics what the human eye would see if it were right there at the camera? I include colour as one of the parameters which, if feasible, should be presented as naturally as possible also.
    This may be seen as a waste of the mission scientist's time and a worthless publicity exercise which should not be foisted onto scientists who have enough to do as it is. But it IS taxpayers' money and NASA isn't exactly at the top of the popularity polls these days! A little improvement in NASA's perceived accessibility to the public might be very beneficial all round.
    At the very least, some sort of control SHOULD be exercised to avoid further 'catbox' and inappropriate-MOLA-image debacles.

    At the risk of sounding critical, Josh (and I say this with no hostility intended), I feel that you are inclined to become impatient with those less well versed in information technology than you are. Such impatience is very natural and understandable, but we technological neanderthals really are [b:post_uid9]trying[/b:post_uid9] to keep up!   big_smile   Be gentle with us, Josh! We must look stupid, I know, but it's really just lack of IT training rather than congenital idiocy!!

Cindy writes:-

P.S.: I nominate Mr. Shaun Barrett as Official Public Relations Spokesperson for NASA.  smile [/quote:post_uid9]
    This is indeed a rare compliment! And one of which I am completely unworthy for reasons of IT ignorance ... see above!
    But I would love to give it a try one day, on one condition - that I can ask to have Josh as my Executive IT Officer, and Cindy as my Executive Media Liaison Officer!   tongue
    What a team we'd make! NASA would be the most popular organisation on Earth (and maybe Mars, too! )   big_smile


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB