NASA comments on accusations of manipulating Mars images!

reply to post by bearclaw70


That is what I call a short reply...

Was this post a mistake or did you really wanted to make a "blank" post?

PS: at least is not a one-line post.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
That website is one of the worst on the Internet.

Then you must not be familiar with the Internet, Blaine.

Pure crap. Purposefully manipulated photo's to make them look like what they are not.

I work from the originals he links to and i see no manipulation beside what he says he did.... If you can find him purposefully misleading by altering photo's in ways he does not admit to feel free to point them out as i will contact him again and ask about it.

An obvious attempt to alter the evidence to fit the theory.

What alterations?

I doubt there are many on ATS that are fooled by that site.

Some, I think, are pretending it has any value to support their own nonsense.

Count me in then and if you want to argue specifics lets do a bit of that.

Everyone should be pissed about sites like that which make us look like fools.

Speak for yourself Blaine. Which commonly held conspiracies do you actually believe in if any? Just want to know as i have found that a good percentage of ATS posters don't actually believe in conspiracies! Fascinating thinking there....

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I understand that and it is very odd someone from NASA would respond that way.

Why is it odd? What is he supposed to say? Isn't the best tactic of a liar to vehemently deny and attack the accuser?

That is just a site that gets under my skin. I don't care for confidence-men who turn these topics into jokes with sites like that.

What is funny about the deception involving altering the surface and atmospheric colors of Mars? I don't see anything funny about it and the deception is so obvious now that i have become more fascinated with the reasoning involved in denying it than i have with the issue itself.

People at NASA are human, just like us.

No, their not like us as they work for NASA who can't apparently even succeed at telling us that Martian skies would appear blue if you were standing on the surface and that on at least a third of a planet you might be standing in mud or even water.

They can get fed up with nonesense and say dumb things, just like us.

Just like you apparently feel about this 'nonsense'?

Stellar

Originally posted by ArMaP
That reaction does not surprise me, I know many people that would react in the same way if someone was suspecting their intentions behind a work of many years.

So much for customer service? Who pays his salary again?

The only time I "talked" (by e-mail) with someone from NASA the first thing I noticed was that he was delighted that someone like me would be interested in their work and wanted to clear some doubts.

So what your saying is that the person in question was not used to receiving mail from someone who didn't moan about cover-ups and the like? Is that not more telling than whatever he said? Why does so many people believe that NASA is in fact hiding the truth even if they can't seem to agree on what that truth is?

Also, MarsAnomalyResearch is one of the worst sites I have seen, extremely biased (they ignore new data when it proves them wrong) and with many technical flaws (if they are analysing images they should at least know something about photography and digital imaging).

More blanket statements without one single shred of proof. Marsanomaly research is NOT alone in what they do and the information presented there have in some instances been validated elsewhere and it's LONG been known that NASA refuses to acknowledge something as basic as the color of Martian skies. SInce we have discussed this at length i know what you know and find it interesting you are still starting out discussions in the same old way. Why is 90% of your post in the UFO related threads ( And i have far too much self respect to post in most of those threads) or about mars landers and the like and then only to deny, deny, deny everything and anything that isn't admitted in a NASA press release?

Will you at least start to admit that NASA has knowingly kept up the front to make Mars appear red from a surface point of view instead of having blue skies and typical desert scenes with volcanic debri's?

Stellar

Originally posted by Marked One
I don't know if anybody has ever heard of this but I read in a book written by an archaeologist named Jonathon Gray that a Soviet scientist defected to the US toward the end of the Cold War, if I'm not mistaken, with documents that included photos taken by a Soviet probe that was sent to Mars.

I get Jonathan Gray's newsletter and while it makes for great reading it's almost impossible to specifically validate the majority of his claims about artifacts and since i am not about to spend money on his videos and books i will probably never know. As for the Mars pictures there are plenty of 'official' pictures that provides sufficient civilization evidence to make it clear that neither the Nazi's who fled to the moon or a early US/Russian space program could have built so much so fast; someone were there a very long time ago.

The photos were in color, revealing city ruins with crumbling buildings and highways and so forth and so on. The Russians kept these photos a secret for a long time because they did not want anyone to know about their technological advancement.

Has anybody heard of this as well?

I have heard many similar claims and if i one day run into such photo's i wont be in the least surprised to find that the authorities in question had long ago managed far higher resolution pictures than we ever got to see.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
So what your saying is that the person in question was not used to receiving mail from someone who didn't moan about cover-ups and the like? Is that not more telling than whatever he said? Why does so many people believe that NASA is in fact hiding the truth even if they can't seem to agree on what that truth is?

I am not saying that, I am only saying that he appeared genuinely happy of having someone asking him questions about his work (in that case it was about a Powerpoint presentation about Mars), I can not say what kind of e-mail he is or is not used to receive.

But I suppose that what you have said is also true, his reaction at first was a bit cautious, and only after a second e-mail in which I presented myself in a way that could show that I was "on his side" did he show that behaviour.

(I would like to point that I was not on his side, I was just trying to know what explanation he would give about an image on that presentation and I thought that if I wrote in a polite and more pro-NASA way I would have a better chance of getting an answer )

More blanket statements without one single shred of proof.

You're right, I exaggerated a bit about Mars anomaly research, but from what I have seen (and I don't know if I have seen much of what they have or not) I have noticed a lack (either by ignorance or on purpose) of knowledge about digital images, and while I can accept that without any problem in someone that is just starting to analyse photos, I think that someone with some years of work in that field should be able to know what they are talking about, and that is not the idea I get from their site.

But while he presented the "Giant Plant Species Found On Mars" he did not presented any follow-up when we got the images from HiRISE that show (although not exactly the same, just a little more to the East) those things with a much better resolution and where we can see that they are not trees, although some people still think that they could have a biological origin (I agree that that is one of the possibilities and I don't dismiss it completely).

The "Massive Objects in Moon Terrain" that only appear on the old version of the on-line browser and do not exist on the published photos is another example.

If I had a site presenting some theories based on some data I would like to keep up-to-date on the data available and I would adjust (or dismiss) my theories according to the available data, and that is why I don't trust that site.

Marsanomaly research is NOT alone in what they do and the information presented there have in some instances been validated elsewhere and it's LONG been known that NASA refuses to acknowledge something as basic as the color of Martian skies.

The fact that they are not alone does not mean that they are right, it only means that there are more people that accept their ideas or that had those same ideas on their own, and the fact that some informations have been validated elsewhere (and I suppose that you mean by someone with some "weight" in their field of expertise) does not mean that they always right.

Since we have discussed this at length i know what you know and find it interesting you are still starting out discussions in the same old way.

Maybe I haven't had any reason to change my mind about those subjects yet.

Why is 90% of your post in the UFO related threads ( And i have far too much self respect to post in most of those threads) or about mars landers and the like and then only to deny, deny, deny everything and anything that isn't admitted in a NASA press release?

Maybe because I like space related subjects, specially Mars.

Also, I know that there are things flying inside and outside of the atmosphere for which I do not have any explanation, but as I don't think that the most likely explanation for them is extra-terrestrial life forms visiting our planet I get involved in more discussions about UFOs than I was expecting when I joined ATS almost 4 years ago (it will be 4 years next week).

And I have said it before, if what I say coincides with NASA press releases then it's because I have the same opinion, not because they say it (I don't follow, and never did, NASA press-releases) or because I agree with everything they say.

I have seen a photo from the Moon clearly altered by NASA, and I have seen high-definition TIFF files being taken down from a server and replaced by low resolution JPEGs, so I know that NASA is not an angel, but I think that at least some of things they say are true.

Will you at least start to admit that NASA has knowingly kept up the front to make Mars appear red from a surface point of view instead of having blue skies and typical desert scenes with volcanic debri's?

I cannot say what anyone is thinking when they do something, that is why I said above that I have witnessed those two things but I avoid making a judgement of the reasons that may have been behind those things.

Do they make Mars' sky look redder than it is? From what I have seen, probably yes (I cannot know for sure how it looks).

Do I think that they do it on purpose? Yes, I don't think that they would do it accidentally or by mistake.

Can I say what reasons do they have for doing it? No.

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
Marsanomolies is a joke. That skipper guy actually thinks NASA has software that automatically removes things from pictures without human intervention.

Removes, no, but he does believe that they originally employed software that automatically obscures ( with layers of 'fog', if you will ) any evidence of a prior or current martian civilization as pointed to by rectangular structures and general evidence of straight lines.

He also doesn't know the difference between compression artifacts and actual objects.

And you do? Can we discuss the difference and then compare it to the claims made on that website?

Yeah right, NASA has an automatic alien removal program that leaves obvious "image tampering" artifacts in all their photos.

What's so obvious about it if the vast majority of those who look at it do not seem to see anything blatantly wrong with it? Short of the obvious tampering with the color of the Martian sky and sometimes using bad resolution images when they have better how 'obvious' is that tampering to the uninformed public and the well indoctrinated 'experts' who have so much to lose by questioning agreed 'scientific' norms?

They are smart enough to have that software but not smart enough to make it undetectable.

And as we all know these people are not human and thus completely infallible? Since when has all conspiracies succeeded at fooling everyone all the time? What about technological limitations and the credulity of a public that are fooled by far simpler economic conspiracies against their common well being?

Stellar

What would a Martian say about the likelihood of Life on Earth?

reply to post by vze2xjjk


Why do you insist on using a conked out C64 to digitise those pictures with!

I have manipulated a 10 ft head carving in stone of a face that resembles African war masks. I have stretched the face to make sure people can recognize it as a face,then shrunk it down further toward nasa masked low detail image to show the subtleties of masking what they don't want you to see. Victoria crater 2007 St Vincent cliff. marsrover.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
I have manipulated

Pretty much all anyone needs to know about this garbage.

a 10 ft head carving in stone of a face that resembles African war masks. I have stretched the face to make sure people can recognize it as a face,

In other words, you manipulated an image into what you wanted it to look like based on your own presumptions and foregone conclusions. You superimposed your own idea of what "should" be in the image and then you screwed the image up to the point that you saw "figures in the clouds." Anyone could do that with any nature photography taken on earth, let alone a barren world. The very first step introduced so many compression artifacts that the image is unusable. The rest is just a shameless demonstration of how to create what you want to find in an image. Take a picture of a barren cliffside and post it here. I'll do the same thing to your image for you and discover "aliens" that you "masked" in your photo, accuse you of covering it up, and see how you feel about it.

And i apologise for the fact that this took a month or more.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I am not saying that, I am only saying that he appeared genuinely happy of having someone asking him questions about his work (in that case it was about a Powerpoint presentation about Mars), I can not say what kind of e-mail he is or is not used to receive.

But I suppose that what you have said is also true, his reaction at first was a bit cautious, and only after a second e-mail in which I presented myself in a way that could show that I was "on his side" did he show that behaviour.

And i would say that proves his human and would rather not interact with those who does not agree with what he either believes or are allowed to repeat for fear of his livelihood.

(I would like to point that I was not on his side, I was just trying to know what explanation he would give about an image on that presentation and I thought that if I wrote in a polite and more pro-NASA way I would have a better chance of getting an answer

)

It's also very human to pretend what we have to to get what we want; it's what i would have done to get a response and to assure that some communication and interaction results.

You're right, I exaggerated a bit about Mars anomaly research, but from what I have seen (and I don't know if I have seen much of what they have or not) I have noticed a lack (either by ignorance or on purpose) of knowledge about digital images, and while I can accept that without any problem in someone that is just starting to analyse photos, I think that someone with some years of work in that field should be able to know what they are talking about, and that is not the idea I get from their site.

I have so far 'enjoyed' his analysis but obviously i don't often see what he sees and in the vast majority of cases do not think that i can use it prove anything in the way i would like. That aside i have no problem with the fact that he manipulates ( yes, that's EVERYONE does with digital images) images and makes summaries of what he did to arrive at what he posts. As long as i can follow his actions i have no problem and unless you can show that he deliberately misinforms by not mentioning how images were altered i don't think you have any reason to take such a hostile stance.

But while he presented the "Giant Plant Species Found On Mars" he did not presented any follow-up when we got the images from HiRISE that show (although not exactly the same, just a little more to the East) those things with a much better resolution and where we can see that they are not trees, although some people still think that they could have a biological origin (I agree that that is one of the possibilities and I don't dismiss it completely).

I can understand how people would reject large scale plant life on mars based on photo's alone but since there is so much other data to do with atmospheric density, water activity, methane and other biological markers i take it all to mean that the positive signs of life at first acknowledge, and then dismissed, back in 1976 to have become validated many times over. Mars has current biological activity and anyone who still wishes to deny it will eventually have to invest in wiping the egg from their faces. What they will at that stage do is just deny that the 'evidence' was in but i for one wont believe them and will take the odd opportunity to mock them for thinking everyone as dull witted as themselves.

The "Massive Objects in Moon Terrain" that only appear on the old version of the on-line browser and do not exist on the published photos is another example.

The clementine photo's are indeed interesting with the box like 'editing' but since other structures ( glass frames&towers) seem to be in evidence on even publicly realised photo's you really have to wonder how only some agencies and people are judged for their success and never their failures. If we go back and investigate NASA claims about Mars over the last few decades a whole host of careers should be legitimately destroyed for shear incompetence. As one suspects that they were in fact not incompetent but just saying what they were allowed to it's understandable why these 'errors' are not often retold or their authors 'mistakes' exposed.

If I had a site presenting some theories based on some data I would like to keep up-to-date on the data available and I would adjust (or dismiss) my theories according to the available data, and that is why I don't trust that site.

Hence the fact that neither of us do.: ) At some stage we will both have to go over our thousands of posts on ATS and attempt to apologise for any oversights/mistakes we made in the last few years. Can't say i have the time but i know i should do so in the interest of fairness if i were to point fingers at those who are brave enough to host sites where their mistakes may be so plainly evident. I would be content if you believe as i do that Mr Skipper is in fact trying to spread the truth as he sees it...

The fact that they are not alone does not mean that they are right, it only means that there are more people that accept their ideas or that had those same ideas on their own, and the fact that some information have been validated elsewhere (and I suppose that you mean by someone with some "weight" in their field of expertise) does not mean that they always right.

Agreed. The question of NASA still using red sky tints today is in fact discussed in main stream press with some planetary scientist from other nations weighing in on the issue and saying that there is absolutely no justification for the apparently deliberate deception. When NASA claims that images reflect a 'best estimate' it really should be and knowing that it clearly isn't goes some way towards suggesting that NASA thinks itself preeminent enough to escape with very fundamental deceptions and lies.

Maybe I haven't had any reason to change my mind about those subjects yet.

And maybe you did but decided that you would look a complete fool to do so at such a late date? Hard as i try it's impossible not to have some pride invested in what one believes at a given time and having then propagated such disagreements and beliefs to a larger public does absolutely nothing to aid me in making apologise and accepting due criticism.

Maybe because I like space related subjects, specially Mars.

But how can the Mars and space as held forward by NASA be considered interesting? According to them, until very recently at least, it's red, freezing and absolutely lifeless? Why are they changing their tune at such break neck speed these days and is that why you find it so interesting? If so why not get ahead of their officially position of slowly acknowledging when interested lay people managed to derive from their published science data years or decades ago? What benefit is there to letting NASA lead you by the nose and away from timely realisations of just how wonderfully interesting Mars in fact is?

Also, I know that there are things flying inside and outside of the atmosphere for which I do not have any explanation, but as I don't think that the most likely explanation for them is extra-terrestrial life forms visiting our planet I get involved in more discussions about UFOs than I was expecting when I joined ATS almost 4 years ago (it will be 4 years next week).

It's funny how all these strange phenomenon 'HAVE' to be either secret pentagon projects or Aliens. The fact that the Russians led the space race for thirty years just does not seem to resonate with many here.

And I have said it before, if what I say coincides with NASA press releases then it's because I have the same opinion, not because they say it (I don't follow, and never did, NASA press-releases) or because I agree with everything they say.

I don't like that type of coincidences and mostly don't believe it when people arrive at the same conclusions as 'the authorities' based on the wildly different sets of information that are in fact available.

I have seen a photo from the Moon clearly altered by NASA, and I have seen high-definition TIFF files being taken down from a server and replaced by low resolution JPEGs, so I know that NASA is not an angel, but I think that at least some of things they say are true.

Absolutely. I would have no problem if NASA simple stuck to giving us raw data so that the scientist amongst us can reach their own conclusions and then compare it with NASA press releases.

Continued

I cannot say what anyone is thinking when they do something, that is why I said above that I have witnessed those two things but I avoid making a judgement of the reasons that may have been behind those things.

Why do you avoid judging it? Sure one may avoid judging people on moral choices ( god is supposed to the judge, at least according to some) but this is SCIENCE where logic and observation is supposed to reign? How can NASA NOT arrive at accurately portrayals of surface scenery when their equipment were expressly designed with the ability in mind? Why do they keep putting up deceptive images showing 'red' tints saying that it's a 'best estimate' when little to non estimation were required due to design choices made on earth? Why suddenly rob us of information when the tools sent there at such cost are more than able to furnish us with it?

Do they make Mars' sky look redder than it is? From what I have seen, probably yes (I cannot know for sure how it looks).
Do I think that they do it on purpose? Yes, I don't think that they would do it accidentally or by mistake.

But you CAN say for sure how it looks because of the color pallet sent along for comparison. The image rs were designed with the knowledge in mind that there are no known atmospheric phenomenon on Earth that over the distance in question allow for a inaccurate perception of how Mars would look for a human being standing there. That was the whole point of the color palette and for NASA to post pictures with the 'explanation' that it's a best guess is a obvious deception.

Can I say what reasons do they have for doing it? No.

But we can use all the data available and speculate can't we? Why would all the lies and deceptions uncovered have to do with making Mars seem inhospitable to human or other life? Is that not obvious to anyone but me?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Why do you avoid judging it? Sure one may avoid judging people on moral choices ( god is supposed to the judge, at least according to some) but this is SCIENCE where logic and observation is supposed to reign? How can NASA NOT arrive at accurately portrayals of surface scenery when their equipment were expressly designed with the ability in mind?

That is not why the equipment was sent to mars. It was sent there to explore and map the surface of the planet in ways that would give information as to such things as the mineral content present in the soil. That requires using color filters that will not produce a color image the way the human eye would see color.

Why do they keep putting up deceptive images showing 'red' tints saying that it's a 'best estimate' when little to non estimation were required due to design choices made on earth?

Actually the design choices made on earth require the "true color" to be approximated off of false color filters. If you wanted to know what color the planet mars is all you need is a telescope on earth. If you want to know what minerals are on mars you need equipment at mars producing false color imagery.

Why suddenly rob us of information when the tools sent there at such cost are more than able to furnish us with it?

If they were capable of it, all you'd have to do is combine the blue, green, and red raw images into a true color image. You wouldn't even have to rely on NASA to do it for you. The fact is that those are not the kinds of filters chosen for this mission as it would not produce scientifically valuble data. Why should NASA be forced to use "human vision" filters when other filters will produce valuable information into mars' past?

Originally posted by StellarX
And i apologise for the fact that this took a month or more.

Apologies accepted.

As long as i can follow his actions i have no problem and unless you can show that he deliberately misinforms by not mentioning how images were altered i don't think you have any reason to take such a hostile stance.

Well, I guess I was more hostile than I thought, and as I do not have anything to show that he deliberately misinforms people I will stop being so critic of his work as a whole and just point the things I can really find against his work as I find them. Until then I will be more carefull about my criticisms.

I can understand how people would reject large scale plant life on mars based on photo's alone but since there is so much other data to do with atmospheric density, water activity, methane and other biological markers i take it all to mean that the positive signs of life at first acknowledge, and then dismissed, back in 1976 to have become validated many times over.

The problem is that only the photos were used as evindence of that "large scale plant life", and they did not even looked like large trees to me.

Mars has current biological activity and anyone who still wishes to deny it will eventually have to invest in wiping the egg from their faces. What they will at that stage do is just deny that the 'evidence' was in but i for one wont believe them and will take the odd opportunity to mock them for thinking everyone as dull witted as themselves.

I do not wish to deny anything, but I will not accept something just because NASA says the opposite. What I would like to see is real unequivical evidence of life, and I haven't seen anything like that.

I would be content if you believe as i do that Mr Skipper is in fact trying to spread the truth as he sees it...

They only problem that I really have with Skipper is that he seems to work with a preconception that all that space agencies say is a lie and that what he thinks must be the truth, so he tries to prove that he is right and that the space agencies are wrong instead of trying to see where both are right and wrong to try to reach the truth, that may be something completely different from what he and the space agencies are thinking.

Maybe I haven't had any reason to change my mind about those subjects yet.

And maybe you did but decided that you would look a complete fool to do so at such a late date?

No, I do not have any problem in showing that I was wrong, in any subject.

What I do not like is to be seen as something I do not am, but I do not have any problems with truth.

Hard as i try it's impossible not to have some pride invested in what one believes at a given time and having then propagated such disagreements and beliefs to a larger public does absolutely nothing to aid me in making apologise and accepting due criticism.

Frankly, I do not give any importance to beliefs, either mine or other people's, they are just a representation of the way we think, and if we can change our minds about any thing why should we keep "glued" to some beliefs?

But how can the Mars and space as held forward by NASA be considered interesting? According to them, until very recently at least, it's red, freezing and absolutely lifeless?

I don't think that things must be alive to be interesting, I like geology, for example, so a completely dead planet is still very interesting to me. Seeing the rocks, mountains, craters, etc. may show how the planet evolved as a geologial entity.

Why are they changing their tune at such break neck speed these days and is that why you find it so interesting? If so why not get ahead of their officially position of slowly acknowledging when interested lay people managed to derive from their published science data years or decades ago? What benefit is there to letting NASA lead you by the nose and away from timely realisations of just how wonderfully interesting Mars in fact is?

I am not an imaginative person, maybe that is why I do not like to jump to conclusions based on almost nothing or create theories also less supported than the ones that NASA and other people present and that are consitent with what I see.

It's funny how all these strange phenomenon 'HAVE' to be either secret pentagon projects or Aliens. The fact that the Russians led the space race for thirty years just does not seem to resonate with many here.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.

Originally posted by StellarX
Why do you avoid judging it?

Because I do not have any information about it, but the fact that I do not judge does not mean that I don't think it's wrong to do it, regardless of the reasons behind it, I think that deception is always wrong.

Sure one may avoid judging people on moral choices ( god is supposed to the judge, at least according to some) but this is SCIENCE where logic and observation is supposed to reign?

Not really, those images are more public-relations than science, the science images (like the ones you can find on the PDS) do not suffer from those problems (at least the ones I have seen).

Why do they keep putting up deceptive images showing 'red' tints saying that it's a 'best estimate' when little to non estimation were required due to design choices made on earth? Why suddenly rob us of information when the tools sent there at such cost are more than able to furnish us with it?

I don't have an answer for that, but it is true that NASA photos presented to the public show a redder Mars than the ones I make using their own images.

But you CAN say for sure how it looks because of the color pallet sent along for comparison.

Not exactly, for that I would need a photo of the colour target in the same conditions, under the light of the Sun and not inside some lab.

But we can use all the data available and speculate can't we? Why would all the lies and deceptions uncovered have to do with making Mars seem inhospitable to human or other life? Is that not obvious to anyone but me?

The only problem I have with that is that the lies uncovered must be proved as such, some of the "uncovered lies" that I have seen were just misconceptions from the people who thought were doing an uncovering.

Originally posted by ngchunter
That is not why the equipment was sent to mars. It was sent there to explore and map the surface of the planet in ways that would give information as to such things as the mineral content present in the soil. That requires using color filters that will not produce a color image the way the human eye would see color.

This i know and obviously there are various filters to enable various means of investigation. Please read the following as you don't seem interested in acknowledging my specific claim:

Most of the red Mars images resulted from using filters out of the range of human vision. Even recent rover panoramas and close-ups labeled “approximate true color” are made with infrared filters standing in for red. Olivier de Goursac, an imaging technician on the Viking Lander mission, argues that the glut of phony colors is easily avoidable. “NASA’s rovers have the capability for true-color imaging with the left camera eye, but they simply choose to use the L2 filter [infrared] as their red and the L7 filter [near-ultraviolet] for their blue,” he says. “They do this because they want to maximize the data stream by sending back to Earth images that can be readily used for stereo imaging with the widest possible range in the spectrum.”

www.discover.com...

Levin, a physicist now at Lockheed Martin in Phoenix, knew exactly how to tell if something was amiss. Two years earlier he had written a paper titled “Solving the Color-Calibration Problem of Martian Lander Images.” Like earlier Mars landers, each rover carries a color-calibration target—a set of primary-color squares used as a reference for its cameras. If the settings are correct the, squares seen through the rover’s cameras look about the same as matching squares on Earth. Levin tracked down Mars images that included a view of the colored squares, and what he saw confirmed his fears: “When the color-calibration target is in the same scene as the Martian surface and sky, it looks completely different. The blue panel is red. It’s as if NASA color-coded blue to be red, and green as a mustard-brown color.” The results dramatically transform Mars from an ocher planet to a red one.

The myth of a red Mars should have died in 1998, when the Pathfinder imaging team finished analyzing 17,050 images from the mission. The researchers conclusively showed that the predominant colors of Mars are yellowish brown, with only subtle variations. Subsequent “true color” images of Mars from Hubble duly show a yellow-brown planet. More recently, images from the European Space Agency’s Mars Express orbiter in January and February of 2004 present Mars as a world awash in browns, blues, golds, even olives—hence Ron Levin’s surprise and dismay at seeing the garish old red Mars resurface in the cutting-edge pictures from Spirit and Opportunity

www.discover.com...

Actually the design choices made on earth require the "true color" to be approximated off of false color filters.

Actually the design choices allow for both 'true color' and whichever combination of false colors you might like.

If you wanted to know what color the planet mars is all you need is a telescope on earth. If you want to know what minerals are on mars you need equipment at mars producing false color imagery.

So a telescope on earth will allow you to see how the martian atmosphere would appear if you were standing on the surface? Why do NASA telescopes still come up with a 'red planet' when that's just a blatant misrepresentation?

If they were capable of it, all you'd have to do is combine the blue, green, and red raw images into a true color image.

They are and beside for the lay public such as yourself this is well known.

You wouldn't even have to rely on NASA to do it for you. The fact is that those are not the kinds of filters chosen for this mission as it would not produce scientifically valuble data.

All the filters and data were originally included to allow for true color imaging. You have been deceived but acknowledging as much is apparently too hard for some.

Why should NASA be forced to use "human vision" filters when other filters will produce valuable information into mars' past?

They are working with tax money and they are supposed to do what the public wants and not to misrepresent data even when they were originally forced to send all the required equipment. NASA sent sufficient means to find life in 1976 as well as sufficient means to give us true color images and in both instances they chose to misrepresent the data so as to best hide their true findings of biological activity under blue skies.

Stellar

[edit on 30-7-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by ngchunter
That is not why the equipment was sent to mars. It was sent there to explore and map the surface of the planet in ways that would give information as to such things as the mineral content present in the soil. That requires using color filters that will not produce a color image the way the human eye would see color.

This i know and obviously there are various filters to enable various means of investigation. Please read the following as you don't seem interested in acknowledging my specific claim:

Ah, so you're talking about the rovers, not the satellites. Well, if that's true, go here and assemble the "true color" images yourself. I think I mentioned in my previous post that this would be possible if you were talking about a mission that brought true color filters, but you seem to have ignored my point. It's so easy a caveman could do it. Pick a date with plenty of pan cam imagery and find a red green and blue image and make it yourself. It's actually quite addictive to view all these:
marsrovers.nasa.gov...
I can find images that have exposures at all the needed true color wavelengths, though perhaps not the entire panorama in those wavelengths. Doesn't matter though if all you're after is seeing mars' true color. I'll help you out. Look at Sol 811 and Sol 814 for Spirit.

So a telescope on earth will allow you to see how the martian atmosphere would appear if you were standing on the surface? Why do NASA telescopes still come up with a 'red planet' when that's just a blatant misrepresentation?

Actually it's the common name for the thing. NASA telescopes do not lie about the color as far as I can tell. Looks like rust to my scope too. And yes, ground scopes equiped with spectrometers can detect the composition of the martian atmosphere and tell you what it should look like.

They are and beside for the lay public such as yourself this is well known.

And you aren't assembling these RGB images yourself why? So you can whine I guess.

All the filters and data were originally included to allow for true color imaging. You have been deceived but acknowledging as much is apparently too hard for some.

I thought you were talking about satellite photography of mars, my mistake. As I said, the true color images are there for spirit and opportunity but you seem to have been decieved into believing that they don't exist, yet you won't admit it.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter
Ah, so you're talking about the rovers, not the satellites.

You don't say? Why would we want to rely on pictures from satellites when we have rovers that have the capacity? Why would i concentrate on satellites when my sources talks about rovers?

Well, if that's true, go here and assemble the "true color" images yourself.

I don't care if they are true color or not when they lack the ability or make it clear that it isn't but since they are in fact pretending to show 'best aproximations' ( a blatant lie) i feel the need to object to those who wish to defend such lies.

I think I mentioned in my previous post that this would be possible if you were talking about a mission that brought true color filters, but you seem to have ignored my point.

They did bring sufficient equipment to arrive at the images they seem so unable to.

It's so easy a caveman could do it. Pick a date with plenty of pan cam imagery and find a red green and blue image and make it yourself. It's actually quite addictive to view all these:
marsrovers.nasa.gov...

Oh please. Why don't they just use the right filters when they claim that they are doing the best they can to simulate what we would see?

I can find images that have exposures at all the needed true color wavelengths, though perhaps not the entire panorama in those wavelengths.

So can i? What the hell is your point beside feeling a compulsion to respond with more distractions?

Doesn't matter though if all you're after is seeing mars' true color. I'll help you out. Look at Sol 811 and Sol 814 for Spirit.

I know how it would look as there are in fact a good amount of such images who just don't seem to make it to your Tv screens.

Actually it's the common name for the thing. NASA telescopes do not lie about the color as far as I can tell. Looks like rust to my scope too. And yes, ground scopes equiped with spectrometers can detect the composition of the martian atmosphere and tell you what it should look like.

Obviously the telescopes don't lie but then telescopes don't build themselves and they don't adjust themselves to different specifications either. There are amateur photo's, as well as Hubble pictures, that does give us more useful data but they are not the one's you are likely to run into without looking.

astrosurf.com...

It's really not that hard.

And you aren't assembling these RGB images yourself why? So you can whine I guess.

Because frankly i would rather be doing something else such as pointing out the deceptive practices of those who don't do what their paid to do and misrepresents even those few things they do get to.

I thought you were talking about satellite photography of mars, my mistake.

Among many, yes.

As I said, the true color images are there for spirit and opportunity but you seem to have been decieved into believing that they don't exist, yet you won't admit it.

And the Viking; don't forget Viking.

Since i have looked at a few photo's i know that the clear blue skies images are in fact available and that the very first Viking images were in fact of clear blue skies before all monitors were adjusted and press releases altered to reflect the new 'red sky' policy.

Stellar

[edit on 31-7-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by ngchunter
Ah, so you're talking about the rovers, not the satellites.

You don't say? Why would we want to rely on pictures from satellites when we have rovers that have the capacity? Why would i concentrate on satellites when my sources talks about rovers?

Well, if that's true, go here and assemble the "true color" images yourself.

I don't care if they are true color or not when they lack the ability or make it clear that it isn't but since they are in fact pretending to show 'best aproximations' ( a blatant lie) i feel the need to object to those who wish to defend such lies.

Depending on the shots taken it may indeed be the best approximation given the data received. They rarely, if ever, take enough "true color shots" in all three true color filters to cover the entire wide panoramas that they present. That said, some of their filters, though not true color, aren't far off either, such as their 753nm filters. I believe that's near infrared, but it's very near, as in about 50nm near. But more importantly I think the burden is on you to show us the true color imagery and show how much it differs from imagery approximated using false color images they presented as close approximations.

I think I mentioned in my previous post that this would be possible if you were talking about a mission that brought true color filters, but you seem to have ignored my point.

They did bring sufficient equipment to arrive at the images they seem so unable to.

If it's so important, then why don't you do it yourself? They gave everyone the data to do so, so it's not like they're hiding anything.

It's so easy a caveman could do it. Pick a date with plenty of pan cam imagery and find a red green and blue image and make it yourself. It's actually quite addictive to view all these:
marsrovers.nasa.gov...

Oh please. Why don't they just use the right filters when they claim that they are doing the best they can to simulate what we would see?

Well for one thing, only one of the two pan cams has the needed filters. For images they want to present as stereo images the best you can do is approximate true color, and generally most publicity images I've seen them use have a stereoimage available of it, in approximated color. But once again, they DO use the right filters for some images. Make them into true color yourself if you think they're hiding something.

So can i? What the hell is your point beside feeling a compulsion to respond with more distractions?

I hardly think that the fact that true color images are available to you is a "distraction" given your apparent concern.

I know how it would look as there are in fact a good amount of such images who just don't seem to make it to your Tv screens.

How many thousands of images have they taken? Sorry, the public just isn't interested in all of them. They seem to like wide sweeping shots in 3d.

Obviously the telescopes don't lie but then telescopes don't build themselves and they don't adjust themselves to different specifications either. There are amateur photo's, as well as Hubble pictures, that does give us more useful data but they are not the one's you are likely to run into without looking.

I see hubble's shot of mars all the time, what are you talking about? I personally showed Mars to about 300 people during the great apparition(sp?) of 2003 and friends of mine showed it to many more people.

Because frankly i would rather be doing something else such as pointing out the deceptive practices of those who don't do what their paid to do and misrepresents even those few things they do get to.

Before you jump the gun and "point out the deceptive practices" perhaps it would behuve you to first make sure that the people you're accusing are in fact being deceptive and covering up the truth. From what I've seen, they haven't been. In fact, here's a "true color" press image from opportunity, taken at 603, 585, and 482nm:
marsrover.nasa.gov...
Even the shots you're complaining about being approximate were taken with a 750nm red filter, which isn't that far beyond human vision, just about 50nm. I can't believe you're making such a big fuss out of a 50nm difference, especially when all the true color images are there and they openly admit that 750 is an approximation for the purpose of bringing out tones.

And the Viking; don't forget Viking.

Since i have looked at a few photo's i know that the clear blue skies images are in fact available and that the very first Viking images were in fact of clear blue skies before all monitors were adjusted and press releases altered to reflect the new 'red sky' policy.

If they're "adjusting" all future images as part of a policy as you claim, then why aren't they hiding all the true color imagery from spirit and opportunity? I'll tell you why, because no such policy exists. The first viking images were improperly white balanced, resulting in a blue hue over everthing, not just the sky. This blue hue is not seen in photography of mars from earth, let alone properly balanced mars photos. Here's a viking panorama independentally calibrated by an amateur:
www.astrosurf.com...
Once again though, you can order up your own copy of all the raw lander photography:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 30-7-2008 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Comparing the image from the NASA press releases, this one


with my version of that photo, created with the photos from filters 4, 5 and 6 (601, 535 and 482 nanometer) available on the Rovers' site, this one



makes me think that the NASA version was not made in the same way as mine...

The version using the infrared instead of the red filter is not that much different, at least in this case.



It may be a subjective opinion, but I think my version looks more natural, specially considering the use of the abrasion tool.

And this is a "radiometrically-corrected RDR calibrated to absolute radiance units"


[edit on 31/7/2008 by ArMaP]