Some people are starting to wonder…
Here are seven images for comparison: http://coasttocoastam.com/gen/page10.html
From the main page of the link:http://coasttocoastam.com/
RECAP:
“I am basically coming to the conclusion that the $15 billion we’re spending in NASA is not the real space program. It’s window dressing. The real space program is being run by other folks—maybe even from another continent for purposes that the American people haven’t a clue about,” asserted the always provocative Richard C. Hoagland in his Thursday night appearance on the show. …cont.
But here’s better info as to its coloration (or colorization for the Ted Turner Conspiracist)
http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/mgcm/faq/sky.html
So in other words, consider the source for coasttocoastam.com
A LOT of space images are color enhanced or have artitificial color. This is not a secret.
Consider the source? You mean the best you can do is a genetic fallacy?
Did the word “anomalies” pop into anyone else’s mind?
Lib, it is not a fallacy to consider the source of another person’s claim. Doing so does not dispose of the claim, of course, but it’s certainly relevant information.
Um, no, he means, Consider the source as in Art Bell.
George Noory is Art Bell’s replacement on the radio show “Coast To Coast”.
http://www.ktrs.com/pages/noorypage.htm
So, the source for the information that NASA isn’t telling us the truth about the color of Mars is, basically, Art Bell.
If the OP’s linked page had come up with the words “Coast to Coast with Art Bell” instead of “…with George Noory” blazoned prominently on its logo, would you have quibbled about the source?
I sometimes wonder how many of the conspiracy kooks are just in it for the money.
Actually, I found Richard C. Hoagland to be more of a dubious source. Reading his, err, treatise on the subject and his finger pointing more jittering that a 4 year old on no-doze:
Strap on the waders, it gets a bit deep
It is notoriously difficult to produce “true color” images from scientific imagery.
Scientific instruments do not take color pictures. They take black and white images. Filters are used to take images in different color bands. These filters do not correspond exactly to the usual red-green-blue color values.
So when you see a realistic-looking color image from HST, for example, you’re probably seeing images taken in the standard astronomical B (blue), V (visual, or green, to you and me), and R (red) filters, combined and adjusted until it looks good. This isn’t just cosmetic–usually the image is tweaked to bring out details and accentuate differences in color. Rarely does anyone try to represent what you would truly see with your eye, because this conveys no useful scientific information, so, from the scientist’s point of view, it’s not worth all the hard work, expecially when the results would probably be less informative and visually appealing than a “tweaked” image.
So the upshot is that “true color” images usually aren’t. They’re an approximation, not a scientific attempt to reproduce what the human eye would see (which would be pretty bland anyway.) I think images should be clearly labeled as “false color,” or “‘true color’” in quotes or “approximately true color,” but that’s just me.
It’s kind of amusing for me to hear these people who insinuate that the space program is a sham, because, geez, I work with HST images all the time, and just down the hall are the guys analyzing images from Mars Climate Orbiter and up one floor from the guys designing the next mission to God knows where . . . I mean, space exploration is as banal and routine as last week’s grocery list to me, and there are these goons squawking that it’s all fake, it’s all a massive consipracy!
Trust me, guys, it’s too boring and hard to be faked. If we were making it up, we’d make the data easier to analyze.
Lib, if one brings in evidence to debunk the space program over and over and over and said evidence is malarky. The new “evidence” should be taken with a more skeptical eye instead of readily accepted as truth. If, for example, the Raelians keep insisting that they have cloned a baby but do not provide proof or the proof shows that they haven’t, it’s a bit like crying wolf. Sure, maybe they have done it, but the preponderance is going to weigh much more heavily on them to prove it.
…and that’s what I meant by saying “consider the source”.
I seem to recall checking out Mars in my itty-bitty telescope when I was but a wee lad, and I coulda sworn it was a reddish-orange fuzzy blob. If NASA was going to fake the color of a planet, wouldn’t they pick one that any random Joe couldn’t take a gander at with a $50 telescope? Has NASA also been lying to us that the sun is kinda yellow-ish? Is the moon not really gray? Is the sky at night not really black?
Jeff
From this link:
Likewise, I would argue that a claim coming from someone who has, in the past, made false and or exaggerated statements on a consistent basis is likely itself to be false. Lib, would you feel more comfortable had stpauler first established that coasttocoastam.com has a history of bogus claims? Or do you feel that the origin of a claim is never relevant to its truth or falsity?
Zut wrote:
And that argument is a poison well fallacy.
Its origin is irrelevant. What matters is its content.
If the NASA website says that the moon is 150,000 kilometers from earth, then its assertion is an error. If the Westboro Baptist Church website says that the moon is 384,385 kilometers from earth, then its assertion is correct.
Yes, but Lib, Richard Hoagland has never been right about all the conspiracy stuff he’s attributed to NASA. He’s a regular topic of discussion over at the Bad Astronomer’s website, and he’s always being debunked.
Always.
all you have to do is say “hoagland” and they fall about laughing
So as this thread is no longer hijacked, I’ve started a new one regarding credibility of source vs. credibility of article:LINK
I swear, Lib, sometimes I wonder how you racked up 10,000 posts and can still come off sounding like such a pompous ass.
You act as if we have a third, inhuman, infallible source that has the unassailable facts of the situation. Instead, we have two human sources: the folks on coast to coast and the folks at NASA. We don’t have a cosmic referee to step in and say, “Mars really is more of a butterscotch color than a deep red.” In absence of such a third party, we have to choose among the two sources we do have. Whose opinion do you trust more–a DJ or a bunch of scientists at NASA whose job it is to calibrate and color-correct the mars photos?