| |
Main
Date: 07 Dec 2006 01:04:34
From: Drunken Jay Walker
Subject: Mars Flow
|
Pretty lame.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16073785/
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 15:45:43
From: Pieter Litchfield
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
As a (B&W) photographer, I am very sensitive to the subtle changes that
changes in camera position, changes in light intensity and position, and
changes in exposure can have on a picture. In looking very carefully at
many of the MSNBC slide show shots "showing" the beds of purported recent
water flows on Mars I can see those same, or very similar tracks on the
"before" pictures. Certainly the "after" pictures could have been
positioned, timed, and exposed to reveal or enhance details that were in the
shadows in the "before" pictures.
Look at them very carefully. I think there may be less here than meets the
eye.
"Drunken Jay Walker" <yoohoo_bottle@disaster.enet > wrote in message
news:CMJdh.19917$YV4.15890@edtnps89...
> Pretty lame.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16073785/
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 16:34:00
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:45:43 GMT, "Pieter Litchfield"
<pvcl@*nospam*plitch.com > wrote:
>As a (B&W) photographer, I am very sensitive to the subtle changes that
>changes in camera position, changes in light intensity and position, and
>changes in exposure can have on a picture. In looking very carefully at
>many of the MSNBC slide show shots "showing" the beds of purported recent
>water flows on Mars I can see those same, or very similar tracks on the
>"before" pictures. Certainly the "after" pictures could have been
>positioned, timed, and exposed to reveal or enhance details that were in the
>shadows in the "before" pictures.
>
>Look at them very carefully. I think there may be less here than meets the
>eye.
As somebody who has worked at JPL's imaging lab, albeit when techniques
were much less sophisticated (I was there when Viking data was being
processed), I can assure you that each and every one of these images was
studied with the solar angle being accounted for. There is no doubt that
the images depict actual changes in morphology; some may posit causes
other than flowing water, but nobody seriously suggests that the images
are just the product of different lighting conditions.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 16:05:41
From: Joe D
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
"Pieter Litchfield" <pvcl@*nospam*plitch.com > wrote:
> As a (B&W) photographer, I am very sensitive to the subtle changes that
> changes in camera position, changes in light intensity and position, and
> changes in exposure can have on a picture. In looking very carefully at
> many of the MSNBC slide show shots "showing" the beds of purported recent
> water flows on Mars I can see those same, or very similar tracks on the
> "before" pictures. Certainly the "after" pictures could have been
> positioned, timed, and exposed to reveal or enhance details that were in the
> shadows in the "before" pictures.
>
> Look at them very carefully. I think there may be less here than meets the
> eye.
The NASA TV briefing covered the subject of illumination and in fact the images
released were taken at the same Sun angle and season -- they've worked
very hard to make sure they are not being fooled by such.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 16:14:29
From: Drunken Jay Walker
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
"Joe D" <j.daviesnospam@ntlwierd.com > wrote in message
news:pZWdh.1901$493.384@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Pieter Litchfield" <pvcl@*nospam*plitch.com> wrote:
>
>> As a (B&W) photographer, I am very sensitive to the subtle changes that
>> changes in camera position, changes in light intensity and position, and
>> changes in exposure can have on a picture. In looking very carefully at
>> many of the MSNBC slide show shots "showing" the beds of purported recent
>> water flows on Mars I can see those same, or very similar tracks on the
>> "before" pictures. Certainly the "after" pictures could have been
>> positioned, timed, and exposed to reveal or enhance details that were in
>> the
>> shadows in the "before" pictures.
>>
>> Look at them very carefully. I think there may be less here than meets
>> the
>> eye.
>
> The NASA TV briefing covered the subject of illumination and in fact the
> images
> released were taken at the same Sun angle and season -- they've worked
> very hard to make sure they are not being fooled by such.
Yep..Litchfield's an idiot
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 05:35:34
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
Drunken Jay Walker wrote:
> Pretty lame.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16073785/
>
>
You should say off the bottle!
|
| | |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 18:29:11
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
On 2006-12-07 14:35 +0900, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Drunken Jay Walker wrote:
>> Pretty lame.
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16073785/
>>
>>
>
> You should say off the bottle!
But so much cheaper than proper meds, Sam. Be gentle. ;-)
trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 20:47:08
From: Patrick Edward Murray
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
The story (if it is indeed accurate) was that the very first color
photo showed a Blue Sky and I think I might have had a copy of it in
fact. One of the JPL or Viking folks said the color balance was wrong
and tweaked it to show a pink. The son of one of the scientists..the
guy that designed the Labeled Release, I believe, tweaked it back. At
least that's what I read.
The color that Mars presents has been an interesting question. It's
been called "Red" but in recent years, naked eye at least, it's been a
sort of ochre or even as I remember it a "Yellow". The only time I
distinctly remember it being red is way back in the early seventies or
even 1969 when it was close to the Moon and looked red, I think maybe
redder than brick red. Certainly very different than now.
At any rate, William Sheehan, in one of his Mars books, does indeed say
that the Martian sky, when it is devoid of dust, does look blue.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 09:56:57
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
Patrick Edward Murray wrote:
> At any rate, William Sheehan, in one of his Mars books, does indeed say
> that the Martian sky, when it is devoid of dust, does look blue.
My question: How often is it sufficiently devoid of dust to look blue
rather than, say, orange?
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 20:31:14
From: Patrick Edward Murray
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
Well Chris you are very lucky to have been even a small part of it...I
am impressed:)
|
| |
Date: 07 Dec 2006 18:38:01
From: Patrick Edward Murray
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
Didn't know that you were, must have been something else.
So, that first Viking image...the color one...what was the real story?
Did they really tweak it or was the sky blue? Just curious.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 03:01:43
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
On 7 Dec 2006 18:38:01 -0800, "Patrick Edward Murray"
<ed1ward2@verizon.net > wrote:
>Didn't know that you were, must have been something else.
>So, that first Viking image...the color one...what was the real story?
>Did they really tweak it or was the sky blue? Just curious.
Don't know... I started about a month after that, just before Viking 2
landed. Actually, I was a student at the time, which meant that most of
my work consisted of carrying around boxes filled with mag tape spools
<g >. Still, it was an exciting place to be, and I learned plenty. What I
really remember best was watching the Voyager 1 images coming in
real-time; the Viking stuff didn't come in that way.
In any case, the sky on Mars really is blue, although with a bit of a
shift towards violet compared with Earth.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 02:04:04
From: David Knisely
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
Chris L. Peterson wrote:
> In any case, the sky on Mars really is blue, although with a bit of a
> shift towards violet compared with Earth.
No, it is only blue in the area immediately around the sun when the sun
is just about to set. When the sun is high, the sky is sort of pale
"butterscotch" tan, mainly due to the very fine dust particles in the
martian atmosphere. The first color image from Viking was improperly
processed, producing a blue sky instead of the true more yellowish
coloration that later images showed. Both the Pathfinder lander and the
MER rovers tend to show the sky color closer to what it truly is than
that first Viking color image. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely KA0CZC@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
**********************************************
* Attend the 14th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 15th-20th, 2007, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 16:44:45
From: Gary Honis
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
Using the Mars images released by NASA on December 6, I created two GIF
animations. Instead of the side by side comparisons by NASA, these
animations show before and after images of the gully deposit and also of a
new impact crater:
http://ghonis2.ho8.com/marswater.html
Gary Honis
|
| |
Date: 08 Dec 2006 19:29:53
From: Patrick Edward Murray
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
Good question, but I bet that when you see a Hubble Photo and you do
see those blue areas along the terminators...that might mean the sky is
blue from that location?:)
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 04:32:39
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
Sky colors are local effects,they have nothing to do with the silly
pre-Copernican notion of the Sun rising or setting or its position high
or low in the sky,it has a lot to do with axial rotation into and out
of the direct solar radiation and the Earth's orbital shadow.
Here is an image of dusk in the desert -
http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/~hires/pictures/sunset.jpg
Pulling away from the Earth's surface and you see that as a location
sweeps into the Earth's orbital shadow there is a region where solar
radiation,when conditions are right,generates that familiar change of
color,something like an astronomical version of a rainbow -
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_pages/humberto2001/terminator1.JPG
Pulling further out into space and you see the entire effect -
http://wmthemes.jessanderson.org/sht/earth_terminator_ss.jpg
Do you really want the Sun to rise and set to explain observed
phenomena when it is so much easier and enjoyable to look at the these
things locally from an axially moving Earth ?.
What is the matter with you all,is heliocentric astronomy not
magnificent enough that you are still using notions of sunrise and
sunset to explain observed phenomena,is modern imaging of the Earth
from space not dynamic enough that you are still stuck in the 17th
century ?.
David Knisely wrote:
> Chris L. Peterson wrote:
>
> > In any case, the sky on Mars really is blue, although with a bit of a
> > shift towards violet compared with Earth.
>
> No, it is only blue in the area immediately around the sun when the sun
> is just about to set. When the sun is high, the sky is sort of pale
> "butterscotch" tan, mainly due to the very fine dust particles in the
> martian atmosphere. The first color image from Viking was improperly
> processed, producing a blue sky instead of the true more yellowish
> coloration that later images showed. Both the Pathfinder lander and the
> MER rovers tend to show the sky color closer to what it truly is than
> that first Viking color image. Clear skies to you.
> --
> David W. Knisely KA0CZC@navix.net
> Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
> Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
>
> **********************************************
> * Attend the 14th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
> * July 15th-20th, 2007, Merritt Reservoir *
> * http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
> **********************************************
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 01:47:02
From:
Subject: Re: Mars Flow
|
David Knisely wrote:
> Chris L. Peterson wrote:
>
> > In any case, the sky on Mars really is blue, although with a bit of a
> > shift towards violet compared with Earth.
>
> No, it is only blue in the area immediately around the sun when the sun
> is just about to set. When the sun is high, the sky is sort of pale
> "butterscotch" tan, mainly due to the very fine dust particles in the
> martian atmosphere. The first color image from Viking was improperly
> processed, producing a blue sky instead of the true more yellowish
> coloration that later images showed. Both the Pathfinder lander and the
> MER rovers tend to show the sky color closer to what it truly is than
> that first Viking color image. Clear skies to you.
If you want it scientifically accurate, look no further than here:
<http://thadlabs.com/LD_info/Covers/RCOM/jacket_front.jpg >
If you like the blue+violet, then here you go:
<http://thadlabs.com/LD_info/Covers/RCOM/disc+label.jpg >
|
|
