comments on "arguments" againsat premise that NASA
To all:
I have pointed out, numerous times before, that the unscrupulous defenders of patent falsity will resort to specious "explanations" to promote their point. They have to. If they are endorsing a lie, they will not have truth to support it, and so must utilize the non-valid, and rely on the unfamiliarity of others with the subject or the material addressed to defraud them.
It is also the case that those who behave reliably, even predictably conniving cannot, in any reasonableness, be characterized as not being inherently duplicitous and unprincipled.
In their "explanation" of the color of the "Mars pictures" - at this point, their veracity has to be as much called into question as those purportedly from the "moon mission"! - JerryB opines: "Personally, I can't see why people are fretting over this stuff. Firstly, cameras tend not to take exactly the same quality image time after time, even of the same composition (unless you spend alot of time setting up the shot, lighting, etc). This is even more true of digital cameras. Combine that with what may be some slightly inept use of Photoshop and the 'mystery' tends not be one after all."
Among other things - indeed, one of the first things to recognize! - is JerryB's admonishment that, essentially, people shouldn't "fret over this stuff". The unscrupulous always try to convince their targets that they shouldn't put their minds to what the unscrupulous is doing. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" They want their "pigeons" to be unthinking and disinterested, especially in things that are not right. To see anyone effectively counsel you to "sit down and shut up" is to see an insight into an endeavour with unsavory, even unethical, undercurrents.
They then go on to assert that "cameras tend not to take exactly the same quality image time after time." This is, apparently, intended to "explain away" the fact that an early "image from Mars", one showing a blue sky, included a close-up of the lander's sundial, with colored strips. Later images showed pinkish skies, and close-ups of the sundial showed the colored strips to have been altered, most especially, a blue strip converted to red! Indicating that blue tints in the pictures seem to have been changed to red. JerryB seems to want to defraud their targets into thinking that color must be expected to change, from one exposure to the next, so that a deliberate alteration of color should not be inferred. But better than 99% of all the images, from Viking, Sojourner and, now, Spirit have shown pinkish skies! If JerryB's suggestion is valid, there should be a significant proportion of pictures that have blue skies! It should not be the case that the majority have pink skies! For all that JerryB seems intent on suggesting a random artifact of the photographic process produced bluish skies in the pictures, the patent plurality of pink sky pictures utterly outweighs the idea! In fact, the proportion of blue sky to pink sky pictures mirrors that of individuals defiantly refusing to engage in connivery sneaking through real images, in the midst of false ones!
JerryB then goes on to talk about some "slightly inept use of Photoshop" in the "images from Mars". Are we to believe that millions are spent on a mission to the planet with no provision made for either providing consistent imaging, and, then, doctoring with a store-bought image software package? "Budget concerns" does not apply to the idea of providing automatically verifiable images! If the engineers were not there with the lander, how even would they know that their alteration was correct? An answer is, among other things, to use the color bands on the sundial. But it is observed that the color bands have been altered! Why does JerryB not address this issue?
Fortis "explains" that: "The problem with using the colour calibration charts is that you effectively adjust the colour balance until the coloured dots look the same as they would on earth. The illumination source on Mars is going to be a mixture of transmitted direct sunlight, and light scattered by the atmosphere (i.e. skyshine.) What this means is that you effectively have taken the martian landscape and simulated what it would look like under earthlike illumination conditions. (i.e sun in a blue sky.)" Blue is blue, no matter where the picture is taken! More glaring, however, is the fact that the photograph of the sundial was taken from only a few feet away, or less! No degree of "coloration" in the atmosphere should affect a photograph taken only a few dozen inches away!
There is no reason not to see JerryB's and Fortis' representations as anything more than calculated disingenuousness.
And color isn't the only issue at hand. AndroMan points out, correctly, that "apparent sharpness, polychromacity and clarity of the un-adjusted, redshifted images" disappears in the evidently red-tinted ones! Edges almost seem to melt, one into the other. The pink sky images also seem to have definite lack of clarity, from color borders between different regions being, essentially, erased. And no one in their right mind can possibly believe that the areas depicted could possible have so uniform a color scheme! Nowhere where there is any kind of geological process could there possibly be so solid and uniform a coloration! Even lava, extruded as a chemically homogenous mass, will solidify with striations and patches of different coloration! Add that sandstorms are credited with wearing down rock, and moving particles all over the planet, and you have to have a variation of colors! These facts seem to have been carefully left unanswered by JerryB and Fortis!
If you look at the web page, antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030827.html, you will see a photograph of Mars, taken from the Hubble telescope, in orbit. Above the major part of the earth's atmosphere, little, if any, effect on the color of the planet should be visible. Given, too, that Mars' atmosphere is no denser than the upper stratosphere, there should not be significant alteration of color, there, either. Yet the color is nowhere near the unbroken, deep maroon of the "Mars pictures"! Accepting their validity seems utterly unwise; counselling someone to accept them without question seems utterly disrespectful to them!
In the end, it does tragically appear as though there is no reason - beyond being ordered to slavishly believe everything that government tells you to believe! - that what are purported to be photographs from Mars are fabricated images from the earth!
Julian Penrod