PDA

View Full Version : Hoagland Debunked!



The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-09, 05:59 AM
Fellow BABBers-

After many years, and as promised here in this forum, I have finally taken on Richard Hoagland's nonsense about Mars. He has been relentless with his rubbish on "Coast to Coast AM" over the past few months, and I couldn't stand it any more. :evil:

The opening page is posted on my site (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html) and from there you will find several more taking on the "Face", the "City", his generic, bizarre conspiracy claims, and even his claims about his credentials.

Enjoy. And of course, I welcome comments, and look forward to reading what you have to say, positive or negative.

Peter B
2004-Mar-09, 06:40 AM
Just read it.

Aaaaaawesome! :D

Chip
2004-Mar-09, 06:57 AM
Very nicely done! Well written and well organized. I forwarded links to Mindy, as well as to my sister, (who works at the Denver Science Museum,) and to mom, (who sends me astronomy press clippings,) and also to friends - (including a retired science editor for Encyclopedia Britannica.) =D>

StarStuff
2004-Mar-09, 07:04 AM
Fabulous job, BA - thank you!! =D>

Lycus
2004-Mar-09, 07:17 AM
All right, call up C2C! Time for the big debate! =D>

(just kidding :P )

Brady Yoon
2004-Mar-09, 07:56 AM
Wow,great job, Phil. But i still have to say, that face freaks me out. :-?

outerspacerock
2004-Mar-09, 08:12 AM
Excellent Job! =D>

Get ready for a nasty letter from Mike Bara though....

Musashi
2004-Mar-09, 08:53 AM
Nice job Phil. =D>

Kaptain K
2004-Mar-09, 11:21 AM
Exellent! Great job BA!! =D>

A couple of very minor nitpicks:

Typos in City Slickers. At the bottom of the page.

3) The number of features he chose yields thousands of potential numbers to pay with, and more like tens of thousands.

Should be play.

6) Furthermore, Hoagland himself claims this is the best case of artificiality on Mars. This relegates his other claims to even lower status then they were before.

than

In The White bunny:

Technically, rabbits are not rodents. I know that this is splitting hares ( :oops: ), but it is the equivalent of calling a supernova remnant a planetary nebula.

TriangleMan
2004-Mar-09, 11:46 AM
Technically, rabbits are not rodents.
Hey, Kaptain K is right (http://www.nafcon.dircon.co.uk/rabbits.html). I always thought they were rodents.

TriangleMan
2004-Mar-09, 12:14 PM
Okay, I just read that Hoagland page about that 1950s Space Cadet show - now my head hurts #-o

Glom
2004-Mar-09, 12:25 PM
Wow! Hoagland sucks. That city slickers bit was incredibly stupid.

On the worm page, seeing it as concave is not that easy.

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Mar-09, 12:38 PM
Hoagland, he says he always tells the truth
http://www.skepticalmind.com/HoagCNN2.jpg
lots of people thinks he is right

strange how people can believe so easily in martian people, I must say though, it was a good photo.
Sorry, no green men from mars.... just a strange rock formation

Jason Thompson
2004-Mar-09, 01:08 PM
A superlative piece of work, BA. So how much did NASA pay you for that? ;)

Andromeda321
2004-Mar-09, 01:29 PM
BA, good job! Thanks for putting it together, it's much appreciated.
Kinda sad the bunny doesn't exist though... :wink:

SciFi Chick
2004-Mar-09, 01:56 PM
Great job, BA. I've been waiting for this kind of debunking on Hoagland for years.

Regarding "The Glass Worm", I think there might be room for further clarification.

Here's why. You spend a great deal of time talking about how Ron Nicks is mistaken about the photo, that it's most definitely not convex. However, you came to this conclusion by flipping the picture over.

Just to play the devil's advocate, I must ask, how do we know which orientation is correct?

Also, with the dome/crater, they look completely different when you flip them. However, I could see no difference on the glass worm at all when it was flipped.

Therefore, I'm left with thinking I have to take your word for it. This means that if I was discussing it with someone, I could say, "Phil Plait said so." Then they could say, "But Ron Nicks said..." and there we would be.

I mean, on that one picture is it a dome or a crater? How do we know? 8-[

I'm just curious. Now, I'm going to go read some more of the pages. :D

kucharek
2004-Mar-09, 02:00 PM
I mean, on that one picture is it a dome or a crater? How do we know? 8-[
If one is checking the lighting conditions at the time the image was taken, it should be not too difficult to figure this out. And maybe there is MOLA data available or stereographic images or maybe Mars Express snaps it one day.

Harald

Ian Goddard
2004-Mar-09, 02:17 PM
Phil, it's a masterful job! The table of links to subpages on top is an ingenious format for presenting a lot of information in efficient manageable units. This report, as well as the whole BA site, is a stellar example of the best response to bad information: good information! =D>

Glom
2004-Mar-09, 02:19 PM
Don't forget to add a link at the top of the page with the other hot stuff.

SciFi Chick
2004-Mar-09, 02:30 PM
I've read all the other pages, and they are great! I particularly like the ones dealing with the fuzzy math he uses in the "city" of Cydonia.

It's also highly amusing that you touched on some of his more bizarre claims regarding Masonic and Illuminati connections.

Regarding the television shows - I don't know if these pages are still up, but he used to analyze the X-Files every week, convinced that Christ Carter is on the inside and attempting to reveal the conspiracy through Mulder. :roll:

foxd
2004-Mar-09, 03:08 PM
First off, a very good debunking of Hoaxland!

My only concern is the links going to his site, since he could change the webpages they are linked too. I think this is a real concern since I've seen this sort of thing happen before when someone's site was debunked.

BTW, it might be a good idea to rotate the "glass worm" 90 degrees instead of 180, since this makes it more obvious that it is a channel.

R.A.F.
2004-Mar-09, 03:14 PM
Okay, I just read that Hoagland page about that 1950s Space Cadet show - now my head hurts #-o

View-master slides??...is nothing sacred??? Richard Hoagland finds conspiricies everywhere!!

Well done, Phil!!! You are the Baddest. :)

Alan G. Archer
2004-Mar-09, 03:14 PM
Bravo! =D>

Two tiny nitpicks on the Hoagland's Credentials page:

I am not a historian by profession. I work in Specimen Management at a Quest Diagnostics (http://www.questdiagnostics.com/) lab in Oregon. Amateur historian is probably more accurate. (I am also an amateur photographer (http://home.teleport.com/~photoget/Allow_Me_Christmas.jpg).)

Peter Linde's last name was misspelled.

Good work, Phil!

xbck1
2004-Mar-09, 04:31 PM
Not really anything wrong about this, but you might put up an explanation about how those composites work to make different color on the "What Color is Mars?" page. Your link to Mr. Levay's site was a step in the right direction, for sure, but perhaps you could explain that the brightness in different areas of each of those grayscale images has an effect on the end image.

I volunteer to help! *raises hand and waves it a bit* :D


All in all it's quite well done. Very good, BA! Have a cookie!

digitalspector
2004-Mar-09, 04:32 PM
That was a fun read.

Great to see all of Hoagland's shortcoming debunked in a concise, thorough manner.

=D>

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-09, 04:37 PM
Thanks for the kudos, folks. I have fixed the typos. And seriously, if you have anything that you think could be explained better, let me know.

Scifi Chick, the Glass Worm is an interesting case. If you assume it's concave, as I did, then it all makes a lot more sense as a natural formation. If you assume it's concave, as Nicks did, then you have to make a zillion other assumptions, like kilometer-long arthropods once existed on Mars. :o

I looked into the lighting conditions on the original MOC image, but it was a bit confusing, so I decided to leave it off. I'll look into it again.

I will also add to the explanation about greyscale versus color, too. On the artifacts page, I plan on adding some pictures from Hoagland's site.

Oh, I almost forgot: I too am concerned about pages on Hoagland's site getting changed. Is there an easy way to spider the site and grab all the text? I'll probably do the pages individually so I have a backup in case things get changed.

xbck1
2004-Mar-09, 04:47 PM
Now, I was talking about how you can use grayscale images as channels to produce different colors. I could take a grayscale image of a lion, a motorboat, and a macaw and stick e'm all in the different channels of one image and come up with some pretty psychedelic stuff, or I could take the different grayscale images of the umbrella and stick 'em in the channels and come up with a white, yellow, red, and blue bumbershoot. That's what I meant, if you were referring to my last post when you said, "I will also add to the explanation about greyscale versus color, too."

I just thought that might be useful because if somebody didn't know about those things, then they'd just think you were posting weird umbrella pictures. ;)

SciFi Chick
2004-Mar-09, 04:50 PM
Scifi Chick, the Glass Worm is an interesting case. If you assume it's concave, as I did, then it all makes a lot more sense as a natural formation. If you assume it's concave, as Nicks did, then you have to make a zillion other assumptions, like kilometer-long arthropods once existed on Mars. :o


:lol: Ah, then Occam's Razor should apply very nicely here.



Oh, I almost forgot: I too am concerned about pages on Hoagland's site getting changed. Is there an easy way to spider the site and grab all the text? I'll probably do the pages individually so I have a backup in case things get changed.

It may just be a coincidence, but I've been unable to get http://www.enterprisemission.com/corbett.htm open. Is anyone else having this trouble?

Papermache Prince
2004-Mar-09, 05:10 PM
The Tom Corbett - Space Cadet (http://www.enterprisemission.com/corbett.htm) page opened fine for me.

Occasionally, something comes across our desks that is so obvious, so undeniable, so conspiratorial, that we just can't help but rub our critics noses in it. Just like the Hyperdimensional "Millennium Ball" dropped in New York's Times Square on New Year's Eve past, or Carl Sagan's otherwise inexplicable inclusion of footage of Richard C. Hoagland in the Viking portion of his televised authorized biography, we have found numerous examples of blatant "messages" being sent by those "in the know.".

Yet another case in point -- Tom Corbett, Space Cadet.Of course, now my head hurts.

SciFi Chick
2004-Mar-09, 05:15 PM
Okay, I got it open now. I'm feeling like I do when I visit GLP. Remind me never to open a page like that while eating lunch again. :-&

parejkoj
2004-Mar-09, 05:31 PM
First of all, great job. You rule 8) , though the puns for titles were rather painful...

It was nice to see all the bits put together in one place. Besides being a good read, those pages will make a great reference if I ever need to find specific discussions of this mess.



Scifi Chick, the Glass Worm is an interesting case. If you assume it's concave, as I did, then it all makes a lot more sense as a natural formation. If you assume it's concave, as Nicks did, then you have to make a zillion other assumptions, like kilometer-long arthropods once existed on Mars. :o

I looked into the lighting conditions on the original MOC image, but it was a bit confusing, so I decided to leave it off. I'll look into it again.


Yeah, I thought this could be a little clearer. I can see several possible orientations for the "worm" (edge of a steep cliff, broken side of valley, worm, valley interior, etc...) in those two pictures and the accompanying text was too short to clarify it properly, I'm afraid. I think if you note something about the lighting and the extra assumptions you have to make in on case vs. the other, that will help immensely.



Oh, I almost forgot: I too am concerned about pages on Hoagland's site getting changed. Is there an easy way to spider the site and grab all the text? I'll probably do the pages individually so I have a backup in case things get changed.

I'll pull his whole site down with wget and archive it for you. How best to send it to you? I'll only pull text pages, no images (it would be too big otherwise), but I suspect it will still be rather sizable...

Nowhere Man
2004-Mar-09, 06:00 PM
I'm working my way through your pages, BA, and so far you are giving Hoax, er, Hoagland and his ideas a right stomping.

Another typo: On the "Face" page, one section title is Who's Conspiracy Is It, Anyway? It should read Whose Conspiracy Is It, Anyway? The difference is, the former is the contraction of "who is" and the latter is the possessive of "who."

Fred

CJSF
2004-Mar-09, 06:49 PM
Phil,

Hooray!

I noticed you used the terms "high res" and "low res" without explaining them. Those of us who work with imagery for a living throw those terms around, but most folks don't really understand what they mean.

You could tie it in to Hoagland's (or his imagery "experts") propensity to zoom in past the image resolution and "see" image elements smaller than the sesnor is was able to detect (i.e. the Photoshop/compression artifacts). I believe the "teeth" in the "Face" were a result of such image manipulation.

I figure you don't want to turn the pages into Image Processing 101, though.

Great job!

CJSF

Grand_Lunar
2004-Mar-09, 06:57 PM
An outstanding job here! =D>

This was the first time of ever hearing (or reading) of the "Glass Worm". I really had no idea what it could be. First, I thought it might me a weird looking ledge of some sort. From the perspective, it was hard to tell. After reading on, I then saw its resemlbence to a valley. Wonder what made it? Water or lava?
The part with the "city" is great work too. Perhaps this guy is bored, thus has nothing better to do than look for odd coincidenes everywhere.
Or maybe he sees signs! But that's another story...

Archer17
2004-Mar-09, 07:19 PM
Well done BA! =D> Two-thumps up! This will help those "fence-sitters" that previously had only Hoagland's site and NASA links to rely on.

rsa
2004-Mar-09, 07:37 PM
Has anyone else noticed that Phil's article is mentioned in Universe Today on the Publisher's News page?

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/cat_index_11.html#1155

Free publicity!

8)

[edited to change "University Today" to "Universe Today". (D'oh!)

Wingnut Ninja
2004-Mar-09, 08:40 PM
Oh, you have got to be kidding me. (http://www.enterprisemission.com/corbett.htm) #-o

Very entertaining read, though. I liked the part on the different colors in the pictures, as that was one aspect I was actually wondering about. Hooray for thinking.

Spacewriter
2004-Mar-09, 09:10 PM
BA,

Good job! I'm still reading it, but had to tell you I loved the subhead: I MOC thee!

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-09, 09:37 PM
BA,

Good job! I'm still reading it

Thanks. But shouldn't you be at the 'tute learning about the HUDF? :D

N C More
2004-Mar-09, 09:42 PM
Oh, you have got to be kidding me. (http://www.enterprisemission.com/corbett.htm) #-o


Ok, I've just read this "stuff" and as far as I can tell Mr. Hoagland's reasoning is as follows: Old time science fiction has all sorts of references to pyramids and Egyptian-like civilizations on Mars. This was written because this is in fact "true" (and Hoagland's Cydonia ruins "prove" this). "They" were somehow encouraging such science fiction to prepare people's minds for this realization. However, "they" are now trying to deny and cover up all of this knowledge.

Something is really strange here, it doesn't make sense even if one actually believes in the conspiracy! Why would anyone even consider this confusing, irrational nonsense to "prove" anything? I give Dr. Plait a lot of credit for digging through this type of "stuff"!

SciFi Chick
2004-Mar-09, 09:56 PM
Ok, I've just read this "stuff" and as far as I can tell Mr. Hoagland's reasoning is as follows: Old time science fiction has all sorts of references to pyramids and Egyptian-like civilizations on Mars. This was written because this is in fact "true" (and Hoagland's Cydonia ruins "prove" this). "They" were somehow encouraging such science fiction to prepare people's minds for this realization. However, "they" are now trying to deny and cover up all of this knowledge.



Wow. You managed to sum up in one paragraph what it takes Hoagland and Bara pages upon pages to say. And you made more sense too. =D>

Starduster
2004-Mar-09, 10:03 PM
..

Fraser
2004-Mar-09, 10:06 PM
Has anyone else noticed that Phil's article is mentioned in Universe Today on the Publisher's News page?

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/cat_index_11.html#1155

Free publicity!


What?... Did I just give Phil free publicity? Pay up man. These electrons aren't free. You'll notice, however, that by mentioning the story, you just gave me free publicity. Mwaa ha ha.

Seriously, though. Great story Phil.

Nowhere Man
2004-Mar-09, 10:30 PM
Another apostrophe gaffe... On the Say What? page. The phrase that is in the middle of the filters color range needs an apostrophe to make the word filter possessive: filter's.

And a typo on the Credentials page: that Sagan froze Byrgess and Hoagland out of the should be Burgess.

Fred (edited to add Byrgess)

N C More
2004-Mar-09, 10:34 PM
Wow. You managed to sum up in one paragraph what it takes Hoagland and Bara pages upon pages to say. And you made more sense too. =D>

Ah yes, Mr. Bara. I ran into him awhile back on another BB. He manages to go on and on and really never says much of anything. He was going on about some sort of Masonic conspiracy and alien artifacts. When JayUtah and I kept trying to get him to actually present something akin to evidence he became rather angry and got himself banned! There's just no substance to any of the stuff this fellow presents,"all hat and no cattle" sums it up nicely.

JohnW
2004-Mar-09, 10:55 PM
Great demolition job, although I can't help feeling this is a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

One burning question for the BA remains unanswered, however:

How can you stand it?

One paragraph into a Hoagland page and my eyes are going round and round like pulsars. Three paragraphs in and I'm alternately laughing maniacally and biting the carpet. Five paragraphs in... well, I've never made it that far. My health insurance doesn't cover it. But you seem to have read each page all the way to the end. Does it get better later on (surely not), or are you spending all that Secret Government Disinfo Agent money on some really strong tranquillizers?

harlequin
2004-Mar-09, 11:59 PM
Oh, I almost forgot: I too am concerned about pages on Hoagland's site getting changed. Is there an easy way to spider the site and grab all the text? I'll probably do the pages individually so I have a backup in case things get changed.

If he does pull his pages, you can
[snip]

Save a copy to a disk. It is the only method you can rely on. If the BA or or Starduster what to know the reason why send me a private message.

Musashi
2004-Mar-10, 12:16 AM
Wow. You managed to sum up in one paragraph what it takes Hoagland and Bara pages upon pages to say. And you made more sense too. =D>

Ah yes, Mr. Bara. I ran into him awhile back on another BB. He manages to go on and on and really never says much of anything. He was going on about some sort of Masonic conspiracy and alien artifacts. When JayUtah and I kept trying to get him to actually present something akin to evidence he became rather angry and got himself banned! There's just no substance to any of the stuff this fellow presents,"all hat and no cattle" sums it up nicely.

Ah, I think I know which site you are talking about (though the name escapes me now, something about Brown Lights or something). I remember an incredibly rude gentleman talking about Masons and conspiracies... that is the Mr. Bara that Hoagland let's represent him? That speaks volumes to me (that and Bara's letters taht BA linked).

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-10, 12:33 AM
More typos fixed; thanks.

It was difficult writing these pages for a number of reasons. The sheer bulk of the nonsense was daunting, as was the level of detail of understanding I needed on what turned out to be trivial info. Going through his site was numbing, it is not well-organized, and finding anything proved hard.

Some things were easy, though, since others had already done much of what was needed, or could point me in the right direction.

Also, I now have a current copy of his website text. If anything changes, I can always link to the old stuff if needed.

nebularain
2004-Mar-10, 12:39 AM
Ok, I've just read this "stuff" and as far as I can tell Mr. Hoagland's reasoning is as follows: Old time science fiction has all sorts of references to pyramids and Egyptian-like civilizations on Mars. This was written because this is in fact "true" (and Hoagland's Cydonia ruins "prove" this). "They" were somehow encouraging such science fiction to prepare people's minds for this realization. However, "they" are now trying to deny and cover up all of this knowledge.

Oh - is that how it works?

I've always wanted to understand why he believes NASA would be trying to destroy all evidence of life when trying to find something that indicates life is what the rovers were sent there for in the first place!

What - does he believe the rovers have a completely different agenda than this in reality?

No wait #-o don't tell me - I don't want to know. :-?

N C More
2004-Mar-10, 12:53 AM
Ah, I think I know which site you are talking about (though the name escapes me now, something about Brown Lights or something). I remember an incredibly rude gentleman talking about Masons and conspiracies... that is the Mr. Bara that Hoagland let's represent him? That speaks volumes to me (that and Bara's letters taht BA linked).

Yep, that's the same fellow. He could really use a few classes in anger management and some lessons in how to communicate without resorting to extreme "potty mouth". I can't imagine communicating with someone like that in person, to say he's unreasonable is an understatement.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-10, 01:02 AM
In the "City" page, I give a link to his email exchange with Ralph Greenberg. You should read it. I had originally used a couple of adjectives to describe Bara's writing, then decided to take them out and let the reader decide for themself. Bara makes himself pretty clear. :o

outerspacerock
2004-Mar-10, 01:45 AM
New Hoaxland nonsense (http://www.enterprisemission.com/articles/03-08-2004/crinoid_cover-up.htm) posted to his website today...I believe

He is kind of behind the times here...
This was debunked on the forums here a week ago..

Hoagland would make a great sci-fi writer...No wait! Thats what he is! :^o

And again he seems to think just because it happened in movie (or a novel in this case) that it means there is some cover-up that they are hinting at... [-X

dummy
2004-Mar-10, 03:02 AM
Something I've always wondered about his site. I always see him simply taking JPL photos and repasting them, but with a "(C) 200x The Enterprise Mission" at the bottom. There's one at the top of that page from the post above.

I'm no expert on copyright. Do JPL not own the copyright because its scientific data or something? Or do they in fact own it and is what he's doing illegal?

outerspacerock
2004-Mar-10, 03:30 AM
Here is JPL's image policy (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/).




By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

1. that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.

2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."

3. that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.



Hmmm...I dunno. I'm no lawyer but Hoagland might be in trouble.

freddo
2004-Mar-10, 03:33 AM
They're good pieces Phil, there's not a lot out there that properly deconstructs Hoagland, so it's good to see it here - and prominent.


How do I know? Because someone did exactly this! Mathematics professor Ralph Greenberg at the University of Washington stumbled on Hoagland's claims one day, and set about showing how what Haogland is saying, is to be polite, full of it.

Another typo while I'm at it.

Mike Bara? Yeah he's a bit of a piece of work. I am sure that it was he that wrote the Moon Hoax debunking piece on LunarAnomalies.com. Quite an intelligent character, but what he does with his intellect defies reason. He goes from a sterling piece like that to the other stuff we're left scratching our heads about. I think the reason he is so stubborn headed is because of his intelligence - but it seems to have convinced him he can never be wrong. In addition to his comminiques with Greenberg, he's also taken swipes at One of our regulars (http://www.lunaranomalies.com/rebuttal.htm)...


I'm no expert on copyright. Do JPL not own the copyright because its scientific data or something? Or do they in fact own it and is what he's doing illegal?
Pointing you again to the Moon Hoax debunking piece that TEM did, I would say don't fret about these guys and copyright. Other woo-woo sites just copy and reproduce pictures and we have no idea where they came from. One thing that TEM has almost always done is cite the source (and usually the image ID) of pictures they reproduce (even if that info is sometimes incorrectly attributed). It's more than we usually get, at any rate.

freddo
2004-Mar-10, 03:56 AM
Just another comment about your Conclusions page (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/conclusions.html) this time...


If NASA didn't know about aliens, they certainly would after the first time they went to Mars, if finding the evidence is as easy as Hoagland claims. So why release any more images? They could simply claim the probe stopped working. Hoagland claims they digitally alter images, so following his logic they could just fake any more images they needed.

So if Hoagland is right, then why does NASA keep sending probes to Mars in the first place? And why release images immediately? If he is right, then obviously NASA must have a team of people examining every image for potentially embarrassing signs of aliens. Yet even with that, Hoagland says that all these images show obvious signs of aliens. See the inherent contradiction? If the signs are obvious, why would NASA release the images? The far more likely conclusion is that Hoagland is completely wrong. If he were right, we'd never see these images to begin with. So like the claim above, some of the best evidence that Hoagland is wrong is that we see the images in the first place!

This is a good point, but in addition it also highlights another logical fallacy of Hoagland and co. Perhaps you should mention that some of the probes that have failed, Hoagland has actually claimed they weren't lost (http://www.enterprisemission.com/mpl.htm), but went 'covert' as you were suggesting they would do. The pick and choose mentality of what nefarious business NASA shoots another hole in TEM's pseudologic.

Peter B
2004-Mar-10, 05:59 AM
Not strictly on-topic, but a wit on James Randi's Bulletin Board wrote a football commentary with people like Mr Hoagland as the commentators:

LINK (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=916aea8ae54438698cbb8168a12e4056& threadid=18308&highlight=hoagland+football)

JohnW
2004-Mar-10, 06:23 AM
Not strictly on-topic, but a wit on James Randi's Bulletin Board wrote a football commentary with people like Mr Hoagland as the commentators:

LINK (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=916aea8ae54438698cbb8168a12e4056& threadid=18308&highlight=hoagland+football)
I'm not sure whether the authors know this, but David Icke really was a sports commentator for the BBC at one time, before the lunacy started.

dummy
2004-Mar-10, 12:40 PM
Here is JPL's image policy (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/).




By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

1. that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.

2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."

3. that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.



Hmmm...I dunno. I'm no lawyer but Hoagland might be in trouble.

I think he's broken several of the Special Cases rules too :o

N C More
2004-Mar-10, 01:36 PM
Ok, I've finally read through most of Mr. Hoagland's "evidence" (please pass the aspirin). I've come down to this question: How does any reasonable person accept and apparently, believe in this "stuff"? Now, we can say that Mr. Hoagland and his minions simply aren't "reasonable " people and that would be correct but I suspect there's something more going on here.

There's so much that involves conspiracy and "wrong doing" by "them" (the government, NASA, Masons etc...) that I think part of this is some sort of personal vendetta, that is reinforced by those that choose to "follow" Mr. Hoagland. It's also probably very reinforcing just to be able to publically attack your enemies under the guise of uncovering the "truth". I can also see that money can be made off of this nonsense. As we all know money is an excellent reinforcement. Basically, my contention is that Mr. Hoagland is more than likely, no more than a new age confidence man.

Kudos to the BA for bringing Mr. Hoagland out into the light. Perhaps exposing his illogical and unsubstantiated claims will serve to show people exactly what he is... just another charlatan.

SciFi Chick
2004-Mar-10, 01:46 PM
I remember the first time I read this a couple of years ago. I was particularly fascinated by the Egyptian stuff with the pyramids and everything. It was just before the year 2000, so all that scare was going around.

Anyway, I went out on a date with an astronomer from JPL. We went back to his place, and he had tons of pyramid pictures and little pyramid sculptures.

I admit, I was a touch freaked out. Later, I realized that as an astronomer, it would be natural for him to like pyramids since there's all that theorizing that pyramids serve an astronomical function, and are beautiful works of architecture, etc.

For those of you that have always known how to think critically, it's difficult to understand how people can buy into this, but all it really takes is a good imagination, a fear of the unknown - and NOT knowing A LOT. :lol:

[edited to add: You won't be surprised to know that he was not a fan of Hoagland.] :)

jfribrg
2004-Mar-10, 03:21 PM
BA: Just in case you missed the other zillion posts saying thanks for the great job, I'm saying it too. I don't want you to feel unappreciated.

Also, Hoadland is saying that NASA is covering up that "bunny" on purpose. Since the goal of the mission is to find evidence that conditions for life on Mars were favorable at some time, what would motivate them to deliberately hide what he seems to claim is a Martian lifeform? I know that these kinds of arguments are rather weak and unconvincing, and in any case no explanation will get him to change his mind (he would lose too much money if he did), but he must at least have to answer this question at some time on C2C. Unfortunately C2C is on too late for me to listen in, so I don't know what it is like. Do they ask any kind of probing questions, or do they just take everything the guest says and accept it?

Spacewriter
2004-Mar-10, 03:26 PM
BA,

Good job! I'm still reading it

Thanks. But shouldn't you be at the 'tute learning about the HUDF? :D

You could stare at that pic all day... I'm still marveling at it a day later.

Also finished reading the rest of your Hoagland-DeBunking. Good STUFF!!!!

But I already said that. Have you been contacted by them yet?

;)

kucharek
2004-Mar-10, 03:41 PM
Also, Hoadland is saying that NASA is covering up that "bunny" on purpose. Since the goal of the mission is to find evidence that conditions for life on Mars were favorable at some time, what would motivate them to deliberately hide what he seems to claim is a Martian lifeform?
That's the basic problem I have with these guys: NASA is desperately looking for evidence of life and already did (ALHwhatwasthenumber) some risky press conferences. If they find water, men may walk on Mars in 30 years. If they would find life, in 15 years. If they find any artifact, less than 10 years.

Harald

Gmann
2004-Mar-10, 04:25 PM
What can be said that hasn't already been said. =D>

I especially like the "Say What?" section.

As for C2C:


Unfortunately C2C is on too late for me to listen in, so I don't know what it is like. Do they ask any kind of probing questions, or do they just take everything the guest says and accept it?

The answer is both yes and no. The show is formatted to allow the guest to present his/her idea, and to let the listener decide. The hosts, George and Art, do ask soft questions, but will very rarely jump on on a guest and shoot holes in their story. Although Art has had RCH on many times, discussing his "finds", he has openly disagreed about a few things including the "artifacts" found by Spirit. Hoagland is a good draw for C2C, and the whole radio business is about ratings. The nice thing about the show is that differing veiwpoints on the same subject are also given time. It would be nice to have the BA 8) square off against RCH, as I would also like to see Bart Sibrel attempt to defend himself against JayUtah. Perhaps one day...

daver
2004-Mar-10, 05:08 PM
If they find water, men may walk on Mars in 30 years. If they would find life, in 15 years. If they find any artifact, less than 10 years.

Harald

Agreed. If they find an artifact, it's Orion time in a race to gather alien technology.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-10, 09:22 PM
But I already said that. Have you been contacted by them yet?


If you mean Bara, Hoagland, or the rest of his "team", then no, not yet. I expect something will go up on their website at some point. That's not idle vanity; he already was very dismissive of me on C2C a couple of weeks ago. he said a lot of wacky wrong stuff that night, in just under an hour. He works fast!

ToSeek
2004-Mar-10, 09:38 PM
You're being accused of quote-mining and "lazy skepticism" in a message on talk.origins. (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=Kpu3c.92772%24PR3.1540401%40attbi_s03&rn um=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dhoagland%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch)

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-10, 09:54 PM
Hmmm, I disagree with them. In the new pages I tackle both the idea that Hoagland claims there is an ocean, and the claim that there is life in it. I did that very much on purpose, just to make sure there was no way Bara could once again claim Hoagland never said what he did in fact say.

On my C2C debunking of Hoagland, I wasn't trying to be incredibly thorough, I was trying to give a quick, bulleted overview of the issue. Still, I will look over it more carefully when I get a chance. If it smacks of quote-mining, then I will remove it, and simply link to the new "credentials" page.

freddo
2004-Mar-10, 10:52 PM
Hmmm, I disagree with them. In the new pages I tackle both the idea that Hoagland claims there is an ocean, and the claim that there is life in it.

It might be a good idea then to link from the C2C page to the appropriate discussion?

Rift
2004-Mar-10, 11:49 PM
Whoooo Hoooo, very nice Phil. I've been waiting for someone to tackle Hoagland for years. There is just SOOOO much nonsense to deal with. I hope you expand your pages everytime Hoagland comes along with something collosally stupid.

I've followed the TEM for years, and am really surprised that many people don't know about all his nonsense such as the Corbett stuff, or the West Wing. And he very rarely takes pages down, he is so convinced he is right I doubt he'll do it now.

I'm surprised he hasn't gotten a rebuttal up already. More nonsense about RATing fossils though... ::sigh::

Ian Goddard
2004-Mar-11, 12:55 AM
Examining the question of the first consideration of the possibility of life on Europa (raised here (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/credentials.html)), I tracked down this abstract from 1974 (underline added):

Consideration of probability of bacterial growth for Jovian planets and their satellites

Life sciences and space research XIII; Proceedings of the Seventeenth Plenary Meeting, Sao Paulo, Brazil; June 17-July 1 1974. pp. 111-118. 1975.

Taylor, DM; Berkman, RM; Divine, N

Abstract: Environmental parameters affecting growth of bacteria (e.g., moisture, temperature, pH, and chemical composition) were compared with current atmospheric models for Jupiter and Saturn, and with the available physical data for their satellites. Different zones of relative probability of growth were identified for Jupiter and Saturn, with the highest in pressure regions of 1-10 million N/sq m (10 to 100 atmospheres) and 3-30 million N/sq m (30 to 300 atmospheres), respectively. Of the more than two dozen satellites, only the largest (Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, and Titan) were found to be interesting biologically. Titan's atmosphere may produce a substantial greenhouse effect providing increased surface temperatures. Models predicting a dense atmosphere are compatible with microbial growth for a range of pressures at Titan's surface. For Titan's surface the probability of growth would be enhanced if (1) the surface is entirely or partially liquid (water), (2) volcanism (in an ice-water-steam system) is present, or (3) access to internal heat sources is significant.

JohnOwens
2004-Mar-11, 01:51 AM
Another minor typo, on the Green Mars page, just beneath the side-by-side Davis pictures:

The first image was meant to be preliminary, one step on the way top making truer images, and was never meant to be seen by the public.

Added: Near the end of the "Face to Face" or "Face the Face" page (which title should probably be more consistent, or was that on purpose?), last paragraph of "Whose Conspiracy Is It, Anyway?":

Once again, Hoagland is pulling a sleight-of-hand: the MOLA images were not being used to justify the "just a hill" argument, they were augmenting the very conclusive images from the MOC! he has mischaracterized the NASA arguments in such a way as to mislead anyone reading his web page. That's a big no-no.
Other than the title, just the capitalization.

Added: In "City Slicker", "The Numbers Game", seventh paragraph:

How do I know? Because someone did exactly this! Mathematics professor Ralph Greenberg at the University of Washington stumbled on Hoagland's claims one day, and set about showing how what Hoagland is saying, is to be polite, full of it.
Should read "...what Hoagland is saying is, to be polite,...", with the comma moved to the right.

majic
2004-Mar-11, 03:01 AM
Good work Phil - although I realise that the amount of debunking you attempted to do simply is so immense that you can hardly debunk each one to the extent that would be needed to numbify EVERY believer out there;-)

A bit extra debunking on this topic, as I stumbled upon it..not wanting to open a whole new thread for it :

This image is on Hoaglands page (quite recent article) :

http://majic.gamepoint.net/crinoid_cover-up_clip_image002_0008.jpg

For a high resolution version click here (http://www.enterprisemission.com/articles/03-08-2004/images/Jill-1M129516156EFF0312P2933M2M1(2).jpg)

Hoaglands description of this image is :


"In a carefully composited color version of this same image, created by another Enterprise associate, Jill England, the details of some "berries" become clear. "

After looking at the photo I did know that that was not a composite - or one meddled with to such an extent that it could hardly be regarded accurate...well it's worse : After a few minutes of trying to find NASA original RAWs I wondered : Why cant I find the multiple images from the same perspective (with different L filters to be combined in an RGB like fashion) ? Well ...things being obvious - it's a photo taken by the Microscopic Imager - Which has no filters as far as I am aware, and just shoots in B&W!

Examination of the high resolution version of the above image shows that it is simply a locally colorised image to perhaps highlight features or shapes - but by no means a composite, and completely artificial except for luminance. Some research on Jill England showed me that he is not actually saying images such as this mean anything, just that they are strange and and interesting enough to scientifically explore, further.

Jill England commenting on this specific image on his homepage (http://hyperfaceted.com/mars/merb/blue_marbles/) :


This is a colorized Microscope image. I used colors from an L457 channel image of this same rock. (Left, 4, 5, 7 is a ‘normal’ looking color composite)

He does not specificy which image he borrowed the colors from, but its clear that he a) colorised b) On the other image used manual composition of RAW data using the L4 L5 and L7 filters, known to result in erroneous output if not processed in accordance with other recorded image data - not available to us mere mortals yet -.

This kind of slight misleading is so hard to put the finger on, but is just enough for Hoagland to drop the jaws of the unwary / uneducated reader in awe and amazement, and perhaps make him more tolerant for other Hoagland claims - "hey, this is the guy that showed me these blue berries that nobody else tells me about, not even NASA!"

As a last note, Jill England is not exactly looking at his own postprocessing a lot - some images show the same rocks either as an intense salmon pink, in others they are straight gray, and in others they have a light sandy tint - consistency is the least we expect in postprocessing, something he lacks.

Sources :

Original NASA RAW image (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/m/015/1M129516156EFF0312P2933M2M1.HTML)

Hoaglands Article about the berries (http://www.enterprisemission.com/articles/03-08-2004/crinoid_cover-up.htm)

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-11, 03:19 AM
Interesting. I'll look into that.

By the way, in America, "Jill" is a female name.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-11, 03:45 AM
The Microscopic Imager indeed has only a single broad filter, and therefore only gets images in greyscale, according to the MI webpage (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_instru_mi.html). That means the image was colorized, and not "carefully composited". Given that on Jill England's site she says it is colorized, that is Hoagland's error. Perhaps it was an honest error.

She says she based the color on the L457 imaging done of the rock by the PanCam. But that makes me suspicious; how does she know what color to use on the "blueberries"?

Now here it gets a bit confused, which isn't surprising given Hoagland's propensity for misdirection. The image he shows here (http://www.enterprisemission.com/articles/03-08-2004/images/Holger-37-1P131476124EFF0518P2392L5M1_L4L5L5L5L7(2).jpg), which he says is of the blueberries, is not of the blueberries. They are simply rocks. The berries are all round, while the rocks in that picture are not. They are rounded, but clearly not spheroidal balls like the smaller rocks are. But now the reader is primed to think that the blueberries are blue.

He shows this picture near the colorized picture by Jill England. However, the blue rocks picture is by Holger Isenberg (http://mars-news.de), who is another pseudoscientist (read his page, it's obvious). Isenberg makes reference to the green Mars Express image, which I have shown in my own debunking page (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/green_mars.html) to be incorrectly colored. So Isenberg's ability to understand color imaging is already suspect to me.

That blue rocks picture by Isenberg, posted as it is above the England picture on Hoagland's page, can easily mislead a reader into thinking the colorized blueberries picture by England is connected. In fact, they are of two different types of objects. This is at best a sleight-of-hand on Hoagland's part.

I will add this to my pages about his shenanigans when I get a chance. Maybe tonight if I can. Thanks, Majic!

themusk
2004-Mar-11, 04:33 AM
Oh, you have got to be kidding me. (http://www.enterprisemission.com/corbett.htm) #-o

I've just read that section on Hoagland's site and was bowled over by a deja vu of sorts.

I've seen exactly that kind of thinking before -- that "discovery" of bizarre "secret messages" hidden in all sorts of completely innocuous objects and publications of various sorts. I've seen it at work in a few people I've known over the years. It's a classic-- very nearly definitive-- feature of paranoid schizophrenia.

Hoagland, et. al, are almost certainly not schizophrenic -- another symptom of schizophrenia is a progressive disorganization which simply doesn't fit with persons who are promoting any set of ideas so vigorously. But there is a lesser cousin of paranoid schizophrenia, Delusional Disorder, in which the afflicted appear normal except for the persistence of one particular delusion.

Now I'm not a psychiatrist, and what's more no competent shrink would diagnose someone on the basis of a website or even a body of public work ("fraud", after all, is a perfectly plausible differential diagnosis and to know which is which requires more than a little bit of browsing). But after seeing that section of his site, I'm forced, in my own thinking, to consider delusional disorder as one possible explanation for the enigma that is Richard Hoagland.

JohnOwens
2004-Mar-11, 05:13 AM
More minor typo on the Hoagland's Credentials (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/credentials.html) page:

Second, the idea of oceans on or in the moons of Jupiter had been around for many years before Hoagland published his article. John Lewis, a scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona published an article in 1971 about this in volume 15 of Icarus, a (scientific!) journal of planetary sciences. The article was entitled "Satellites of the Outer Planets: Their Physical and Chemical Nature". At teh time, his arguments were based on somewhat incomplete data, but later he published a paper (with Guy Consolmagno)....
Should be self-explanatory. :wink:

Added: Same page, beginning of the "Pioneer Plaque" section:

In in the 1970s, NASA was planning....

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-11, 05:19 AM
Man I hate typos introduced when correcting other typos. :D

JohnOwens
2004-Mar-11, 05:24 AM
Same "Credentials" page, first paragraph of "The Angstrom Medal":

When Hoagland is introduced on "Coast to Coast AM", he is frequently said to have received the Angstrom Medal, referred to as a scientific medal. This is technically, true, but the people who gave it to him, as it turns out, didn't have the authority to give it out. Also, they gave it to him for an idea of his which is easy to show is meaningless.
First should be either "is, technically, true," or "is technically true," both commas or neither. Second should be "which it is".

Added: Last paragraph of "The Angstrom Medal":

So we have here a very clear claim that even if the people who gave him the reward now admit it was a mistake.
I think the "if" should be taken out, unless something else (like the rest of the clause) was supposed to be there.

Added: All done now. :D 8) A fine read!

freddo
2004-Mar-11, 05:36 AM
Also, they gave it to him for an idea of his which is easy to show is meaningless.
I would have said: "... which is easy to show to be meaningless.

majic
2004-Mar-11, 11:48 AM
The Microscopic Imager indeed has only a single broad filter, and therefore only gets images in greyscale, according to the MI webpage (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_instru_mi.html). That means the image was colorized, and not "carefully composited". Given that on Jill England's site she says it is colorized, that is Hoagland's error. Perhaps it was an honest error.

She says she based the color on the L457 imaging done of the rock by the PanCam. But that makes me suspicious; how does she know what color to use on the "blueberries"?

Now here it gets a bit confused, which isn't surprising given Hoagland's propensity for misdirection. The image he shows here (http://www.enterprisemission.com/articles/03-08-2004/images/Holger-37-1P131476124EFF0518P2392L5M1_L4L5L5L5L7(2).jpg), which he says is of the blueberries, is not of the blueberries. They are simply rocks. The berries are all round, while the rocks in that picture are not. They are rounded, but clearly not spheroidal balls like the smaller rocks are. But now the reader is primed to think that the blueberries are blue.

He shows this picture near the colorized picture by Jill England. However, the blue rocks picture is by Holger Isenberg (http://mars-news.de), who is another pseudoscientist (read his page, it's obvious). Isenberg makes reference to the green Mars Express image, which I have shown in my own debunking page (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/green_mars.html) to be incorrectly colored. So Isenberg's ability to understand color imaging is already suspect to me.

That blue rocks picture by Isenberg, posted as it is above the England picture on Hoagland's page, can easily mislead a reader into thinking the colorized blueberries picture by England is connected. In fact, they are of two different types of objects. This is at best a sleight-of-hand on Hoagland's part.

I will add this to my pages about his shenanigans when I get a chance. Maybe tonight if I can. Thanks, Majic!

I must mention that I see several "berrie-like" shapes (starting to dislike the word allready) on the rockfaces, and scattered on the ground between the rubble ... so dismissing it alltogether might not be the best thing - the photo is at least not detailed enough to conclusively say that there are or are not spherules. The broad point Hoagland makes however is, although far fetched, not one of color perse but more about the origins of the spherules which - according to him - are fossils. He uses several oddly colored or composited images to "prove" that the spherules are blue, possibly because this simply adds a bit of magic for the laymen out there - a bit like storytelling by a shaman, and secretly throwing a bit of flammable liquid in the fire to suddenly make it roar - aweing the poor peasants, obviously.

Now besides that I've never seen a blue fossil (and Mr Hoaglandhas not delivered proof of colored fossils on earth either) I can deliver a dozen versions that show the color of the land and these spherules to be of the regular martian tonality range - e.g. sandish/butterscotchlike. Postprocessing them wrongly results in wrong conclusions - and from these conclusions other people build their theories ... resulting in hand-colored photos and Hoaglandish claims on their origins.

Also him trying to depict the spherules as non-round is quite farfetched..we have seen them from all possible angles, even sliced through - and they are all more or less "perfectly" round...something he does not mention in his review.

All in all I hope that your debunking articles will remain as flaw-free as possible - its very easy for the hoaxers to look for errors / flaws in your statements and then have a reason to make people doubt your entire site for that - "hey he's the guy who wrongly accused me of this and this so why believe the rest bla bla" ...

To clarify my point - Einstein and Darwin generally did a very good job in forming their theories, but certain creationist soals out there simply say "Well, we have shown some parts of their theories to be flawed, so the whole theory is [must be] wrong! "

Narthex
2004-Mar-11, 12:23 PM
Perhaps you should mention that some of the probes that have failed, Hoagland has actually claimed they weren't lost, but went 'covert' as you were suggesting they would do.

While Hoagland's speculations on this point may be less likely than mainstream speculations that the probes simply failed in whatever fashion, is there any factual evidence about where the probes are now and what their condition is? Or are both sides merely speculating on something that is not conclusively known?

themusk
2004-Mar-11, 01:19 PM
While Hoagland's speculations on this point may be less likely than mainstream speculations that the probes simply failed in whatever fashion, is there any factual evidence about where the probes are now and what their condition is? Or are both sides merely speculating on something that is not conclusively known?

I'm sitting here waiting for a taxicab at the moment. The mainstream view is that the taxicab isn't here because I just called it a moment ago. But my neighbor may believe that the taxicab isn't here because it has been commandeered by aliens who are part of a CIA plot. Do I have factual evidence that my belief about the cab is true? Or are both sides "merely speculating" on something we don't "conclusively" know?

There's no such thing as "conclusively" known. There's only more likely, less likely, plausible, and implausible. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that things are behaving in familiar, normal, ways. I'm sure there are excellent reasons that others can point to (radio signals, etc.) why it's implausible that the probes went "covert"-- I don't have that degree of technical expertise to say. But I do know that there is no evidence that they have "gone covert", and in the absence of any evidence that they have, the assumption has to be the usual reason we don't get what we want from machines-- that they break.

If the absence of "conclusively proven" becomes an excuse for assuming anything, then reason in any form breaks down.

(Edited to correct first-thing-in-the-morning, pre-coffee English "grammar")

Archer17
2004-Mar-11, 04:49 PM
Perhaps you should mention that some of the probes that have failed, Hoagland has actually claimed they weren't lost, but went 'covert' as you were suggesting they would do.

While Hoagland's speculations on this point may be less likely than mainstream speculations that the probes simply failed in whatever fashion, is there any factual evidence about where the probes are now and what their condition is? Or are both sides merely speculating on something that is not conclusively known?If the probes were lost, there wouldn't have to be "factual evidence" as to their disposition. That's not speculation, that's common sense. BTW, what did you think of the BA's rebuttal? GREAT, wasn't it?

digitalspector
2004-Mar-11, 05:30 PM
OH please Rh (http://www.enterprisemission.com/articles/03-08-2004/crinoid_cover-up.htm)

Think the BA needs to add this to the Hoagland article.

Question...is that even the same hunk of rock that Opportunity's RAT tried to drill into? Doesn't look it....

Rift
2004-Mar-11, 05:44 PM
I still don't get how Hoagland can take a NASA picture and put his copyright on it... (http://www.enterprisemission.com/articles/03-08-2004/images/Crinoid%20Martian%20Fossil.jpg)

digitalspector
2004-Mar-11, 05:56 PM
He can, because he took the picture himself...... :D


It takes almost no imagination (so, even the current Rover Team might handle it …) to picture this site several million years ago (below) -- a quiet tidal pool, filled with gently waving creatures of the sea … until one day, something extraordinary happened … and this pool and all of Mars forever changed.
*Bolding is mine*

Ain't he a sweet guy.

SciFi Chick
2004-Mar-11, 06:01 PM
It takes almost no imagination (so, even the current Rover Team might handle it …)
*Bolding is mine*

Ain't he a sweet guy.

Well, nobody has ever said that Hoagland doesn't have an overactive imagination, so they might seem kind of boring to him by comparison. :lol:

Gmann
2004-Mar-11, 06:08 PM
Man I hate typos introduced when correcting other typos. :D

Don't ever say "correct me if I'm wrong" on this board. They will! I have extensive experience in this matter. #-o

JohnOwens
2004-Mar-11, 06:24 PM
Man I hate typos introduced when correcting other typos. :D

Don't ever say "correct me if I'm wrong" on this board. They will! I have extensive experience in this matter. #-o

And some of us will, even if you don't. :wink:

Lycus
2004-Mar-12, 04:04 AM
It looks like Hoagland is going to be on C2C for an hour on Monday.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2004/03/15.html

I wonder if these pages will come up at all.

JohnOwens
2004-Mar-12, 04:08 AM
It looks like Hoagland is going to be on C2C for an hour on Monday.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2004/03/15.html

I wonder if these pages will come up at all.

And Robert Zubrin, of the Mars Society. He's the "Mars Direct" booster, isn't he? This should be good! Grab your popcorn, folks! =D>

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-12, 05:58 AM
Ah, I can't imagine Hoagland won't mention all this. That's not just ego on my part.

When I was first writing the pages, I had them online, but not linked. They got out anyway. I don't know if the pseudoscientists searched (the pages got to at least one UFO mailing list), or if word leaked (I gave the URLs out to a few people for opinions, so who knows?), but Hoagland wound up reading a few of the pages. They were not ready to be seen; most were little more than notes.

He mentioned them on the air to George Noory. Hoagland made the (very old and tiresome) joke that I was living up to my name of The Bad Astronomer, har har. He and George discussed how no one will debate Hoagland, and Hoagland said "Because they can't" which is not true. As I have pointed out on my page, Ralph Greenberg repeatedly tried to get on C2C to debate Hoagland on his "City" claims. Dr. Greenberg has this all on his own site. Since Greenberg went through Art Bell, I think George Noory was honest when he said he couldn't find anyone to debate Hoagland. I suspect that if George knew of Greenberg, he would invite him on the show.

I need to listen to that archived show again. I'd like to be able to get direct quotations from it. I am pretty sure the one above is accurate.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-12, 05:59 AM
Holy cow! Hoagland is in C2C tonight, in five minutes!

I'm taping this one.

Lycus
2004-Mar-12, 06:10 AM
I can't believe that I went to the C2C site, saw that he was going to be on Monday yet completely missed this. What a dunce! #-o :P

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-12, 06:45 AM
Heh, Lycus, I found out he was on tonight because I went to C2C after reading your post! :D

Donn
2004-Mar-12, 06:17 PM
Thanks for the Hoagland debunk.
It has simplified my life greatly:

NASA-Conspiracist> Hoagland says, "Oogah boogah moo!"
Me>Ho-hum; www.badastronomy.com/....

Brilliant, it's like a kook mute button.

XB9R
2004-Mar-13, 09:03 PM
< /clip> ...own postprocessing a lot - some images show the same rocks either as an intense salmon pink, in others they are straight gray, and in others they have a light sandy tint - consistency is the least we expect in postprocessing, something he lacks.


That you don't like my photos is ok by me, you are more than welcome to mix your own.

However, don't expect that multiple pictures of the same rock will all look the same. If I were to color match the actual colors in the different images I would be guilty of exactly the type of duplicitous information distortion of which you accuse RCH.

However I do wish you would get the pronouns right, its she.

Thanks,

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-13, 09:39 PM
majic is from The Netherlands, and may not recognize that "Jill" is a female name. I did mention it in a previous post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=221470#221470).

Since you are here, how do you feel about how Hoagland characterized your colorized image? He did say it was "carefully composited", when it is actually colorized.

And also (serious question), why did you color the spheres blue, and how did you come to use that color?

XB9R
2004-Mar-14, 04:29 AM
majic is from The Netherlands, and may not recognize that "Jill" is a female name. I did mention it in a previous post (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=221470#221470).

Since you are here, how do you feel about how Hoagland characterized your colorized image? He did say it was "carefully composited", when it is actually colorized.

And also (serious question), why did you color the spheres blue, and how did you come to use that color?

Ok, he's forgiven then :)

Some fair questions I guess and there is rampant speculation about it I'm sure.

As to the second question, the little marbles embedded in the matrix are blue because that is the color that they are.

I've looked at the little marbles in a lot of different ways and they reflect no IR, no red, some green and lots of blue light. So the marbles (and I'm not calling them berries of any color) are a grayish blue, aqua, or blue green in color. I can't change their color. They are blue. Take any set of grey scale images you want, these little marbles reflect some green, lots of blue and violet light. <flame away if you must> ;)

Here is the image I used for colorization, I sampled it and used those colors. (It’s cropped down a bit for this posting)

http://hyperfaceted.com/mars/merb/ballistic_blue_marbles/129421355-L457-browse.jpg

Regarding the first question as to RCH's qualification of the image I'm afraid I don't see anything exactly wrong with it. I’m not even sure that ‘composited’ is actually a word. It's just a colorized image, and the third of forth version of it at that. Though I'm still not exactly satisfied with the image it does represent the colors in the L457 image. RCH is using it, as far as I can tell because it looks very good vs. a plain grayscale image, and RCH is trying to show things that his audience has not seen before. Myself I really like this picture.

For some reason, colors are really sensitive things to people. I gave it my best shot and did not distort the channel mix in any way to create colors that are not there.

PS. I know the official color for the little marbles is 'gray' but, it's a blue-green gray, the marbles don't reflect red.

Again, feel free to mix them yourself if you want a different result. It's not hard to do just time consuming.

TrAI
2004-Mar-14, 12:44 PM
Ok, he's forgiven then :)

Some fair questions I guess and there is rampant speculation about it I'm sure.

As to the second question, the little marbles embedded in the matrix are blue because that is the color that they are.

I've looked at the little marbles in a lot of different ways and they reflect no IR, no red, some green and lots of blue light. So the marbles (and I'm not calling them berries of any color) are a grayish blue, aqua, or blue green in color. I can't change their color. They are blue. Take any set of grey scale images you want, these little marbles reflect some green, lots of blue and violet light. <flame away if you must> ;)

Here is the image I used for colorization, I sampled it and used those colors. (It?s cropped down a bit for this posting)


Regarding the first question as to RCH's qualification of the image I'm afraid I don't see anything exactly wrong with it. I?m not even sure that ?composited? is actually a word. It's just a colorized image, and the third of forth version of it at that. Though I'm still not exactly satisfied with the image it does represent the colors in the L457 image. RCH is using it, as far as I can tell because it looks very good vs. a plain grayscale image, and RCH is trying to show things that his audience has not seen before. Myself I really like this picture.

For some reason, colors are really sensitive things to people. I gave it my best shot and did not distort the channel mix in any way to create colors that are not there.

PS. I know the official color for the little marbles is 'gray' but, it's a blue-green gray, the marbles don't reflect red.

Again, feel free to mix them yourself if you want a different result. It's not hard to do just time consuming.

Actually, Making a color image from the R, G, B filters(thats L4, L5, L6 by the way) grayscales are not as easy as just putting them together. You have to compensate for the PanCams auto gain/reference system. This system will make the lightest part of the image white and the darkest black, this means that even if the spheroids only reflect a little in the blue frequencies, but more than the surrounding features, they will be mapped to white in the grayscale. if the spheres also reflect less red than the surroundings the red channel grayscale will show them as dark. This system might seem a bit strange, but it works this way for a reason. If the reference was fixed, pictures could easily be very dark or very light, since grayscale digital photography samples each picture element to a level, for example from 0 to 255, you will get less information if the picture is for example to dark, say it only reaches to level 15. You could use an image processing software to brighten up the image after it was sent to you, but you would still only have 16 levels of grayscale information.

If you use a program like Photoshop you could emulate the effect of this to see how it would look. Load a good grayscale image, use the levels adjustment tool(it is under Images -> Adjustment in Photoshop, Other programs might have something like it with a different name) to set output level to 0-15 while the input level is 0-1,00-255 and press OK. Now the picture is quite dark. Use the levels tool again, but this time set the input level to 0-15, while the output level is 0-1,00-255. Now the image is bright again, but you only have 16 levels of grayscale, so the picture quality is much poorer than the original image... This is also how it would look if one tried to brighten a dark grayscale from a digital camera...

majic
2004-Mar-14, 02:52 PM
< /clip> ...own postprocessing a lot - some images show the same rocks either as an intense salmon pink, in others they are straight gray, and in others they have a light sandy tint - consistency is the least we expect in postprocessing, something he lacks.


That you don't like my photos is ok by me, you are more than welcome to mix your own.

However, don't expect that multiple pictures of the same rock will all look the same. If I were to color match the actual colors in the different images I would be guilty of exactly the type of duplicitous information distortion of which you accuse RCH.

However I do wish you would get the pronouns right, its she.

Thanks,

I am wise enough not to try to "mix my own photos", since I realise that I only have the basic raw data - without about (if my memory services me right) 10,000 other image settings in DATA that are captured and should be taken into account. I dont have that information, and as has been mentioned before by NASA - a lot of that extra image information needed to properly process the RAWs color and contrast wise will be released in a couple of months with the start of the Plantery Atlas for the new Mars images.

It is fine that you mix & try your own images, but the problem is that other people will be using your completely unscientific work to make scientificish conclusions from. A bit of common sense, not a personal attack, and more a comment towards people using your hand-mixed results to somehow get to a point. No photo properly calibrated by NASA shows these berries as blue - just a faint gray with HINTS of blue, with the most of the surrounding material being of a yellow-softreddish nature. This is constant with the shift in color I see with your images - gray surroundings, bluer sphericals.

Just taking into account that the photos taken by the ESA satellite show a yellowbrownreddish soil, that photos taken with the Hubble telescope show a yellowbrownreddish planet, yet to get to blue berries your soil has turned pale, gray, with only the faintest hints of yellow, but with a very gray-blue overall appearance. Doesnt this make you think? "Hey the soilcolor I just created is not even remotely the same color of the other images of this planet, this region, this specific site!"

Furthermore I'm not a native Englishman so Jill did not ring a female bell right away, my apologies for that.

majic
2004-Mar-14, 03:13 PM
PS. I know the official color for the little marbles is 'gray' but, it's a blue-green gray, the marbles don't reflect red.

Again, feel free to mix them yourself if you want a different result. It's not hard to do just time consuming.

Actually that is the basic problem I have with Hoagland using your material.

It's ok if you experiment with the photos yourself - but it is simply impossible to make a conclusion about the color with such little information as you have.

There are many articles about this, information from NASA itself, information from third party image analysts, very lengthy and detailed, that explain why it is impossible to derrive proper color from just the RAW files we have.

You cannot tell if the marbles do not reflect red since you do not know the exposure for that single image - what shutterspeed was used? Was it the same as the other two captures? Did the sunlight change in the meantime? (Photos are not taken within seconds of each other, usually) . What processing did the photo undergo before being transmitted / released? What was the color temperature of the light of the moment of capture? So many things that we have no clue of, yet are _crucial_, I repeat _crucial_ for making even the vaguest semi-accurate composite image, color/contrast wise.

Since we have no idea how the seperate channels relate to each other, and how the light / exposure changed during each capture, we do not know which channel should be corrected - and in which way, e.g. darkened, lightened.

The above is just my photographer-view of the problem - one of many factors that will totally mess up color if not taken into account when postprocessing, I can only sit in horror thinking of the many other factors I am blessfully unaware of to create a close represenation of the color on Mars, by capturing through filters that capture color in different color spaces, in strange light, millions of miles away.

One last thing - you know that the channels you paste each image in is labelled "red" "blue" "green" .

Now for normal images captured using red green and blue filters that would be approx. right - however the images you are pasting in the RGB channels arent just RGB! The red image for example captures far deeper into the infrared spectrum - and obviously you need to know how far it does so, and you somehow need to know how much infrared light was emitted at the moment of your capture. This is not a predictable value - depends on the atmosphere, on the reflectivity (material) of your object for infrared light etc etc. As said, so many factors we know nothing about..... so many factors _you_ know nothing about either.... hopefully you see my point.

I suggest you take do a search for "mars color" in the martian chronicles subforum - there are several threads that cover this subject in a manner that is far more scientific, accurate and clear than my humble-jumble visual approuch (and my uncomfortable steps in scientific territory;-).

- michael

Narthex
2004-Mar-14, 04:41 PM
The issue of copyright has been brought up.

I tend to doubt that there is case law on Mars images, and I'm not a lawyer, but as a writer and artist I tend to read what comes across my path on it.

The MGS images are free to be used for news, educational, scientific and personal noncommercial use. They do ask that permission be asked, and a fee paid, for commercial uses. I know of at least one case in which they were said to be downright uncooperative about giving permission to a major publishing house to use some of their images in a book.

The MER website requires multiple random pages clicks to even get to a search box (which is not listed in the site map). I tried to search for some copyright boilerplate for mission images, but all that seemed to come up was the individual copyrights for some 700+ pages.

I'm sure the usual crediting would be in order, in this case "Image credit:
NASA/JPL/Cornell."

My understanding is that if there has been substantial alteration of the image, putting your own copyright on the image would be justified. This is referring to images that are publicly free, not someone's private image for which they alone have the ability to allow changes. Hoagland's merely putting the image number on an image would probably not be justified. A processing of the raw data to bring out raw information that is not readily available (like details in shadows) might have justification for an individual's copyright. The image shown paired with another image for comparison might be justified for copyright. Ripping off Star Trek or other images without permission (even if you include the original copyright information) is definately not justified.

The higher up you go in the Internet food chain, the more accountable to standard practices you need to be. If you have a little website without many visitors, or post something under fair use clauses for discussion on a fast moving bulletin board, none but the most meanspirited will generally get bent out of shape. The more commercial and visible you are, the more you need to stick to the letter of the law.

Your article and website are defacto copyright once they are created. However, if your intellectual property is stolen from you before you have actually registered with the US Copyright Office, your legal position to sue will be compromised. It all comes down to money and power, as usual. If someone has the money and power to make you stop using their image, they can and will at their discretion, and you may not want to fight it.

Note that in all the discussions I've heard and read by people with copyright expertise, one of the biggest urban legends is that mailing your material back to yourself in a registered letter will suffice for copyright protection. It really doesn't work that way.

More information from:

http://www.copyright.gov/
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

dummy
2004-Mar-14, 05:36 PM
The issue of copyright has been brought up.

I tend to doubt that there is case law on Mars images, and I'm not a lawyer, but as a writer and artist I tend to read what comes across my path on it.

The MGS images are free to be used for news, educational, scientific and personal noncommercial use. They do ask that permission be asked, and a fee paid, for commercial uses. I know of at least one case in which they were said to be downright uncooperative about giving permission to a major publishing house to use some of their images in a book.

The MER website requires multiple random pages clicks to even get to a search box (which is not listed in the site map). I tried to search for some copyright boilerplate for mission images, but all that seemed to come up was the individual copyrights for some 700+ pages.

I'm sure the usual crediting would be in order, in this case "Image credit:
NASA/JPL/Cornell."

My understanding is that if there has been substantial alteration of the image, putting your own copyright on the image would be justified. This is referring to images that are publicly free, not someone's private image for which they alone have the ability to allow changes. Hoagland's merely putting the image number on an image would probably not be justified. A processing of the raw data to bring out raw information that is not readily available (like details in shadows) might have justification for an individual's copyright. The image shown paired with another image for comparison might be justified for copyright. Ripping off Star Trek or other images without permission (even if you include the original copyright information) is definately not justified.

The higher up you go in the Internet food chain, the more accountable to standard practices you need to be. If you have a little website without many visitors, or post something under fair use clauses for discussion on a fast moving bulletin board, none but the most meanspirited will generally get bent out of shape. The more commercial and visible you are, the more you need to stick to the letter of the law.

Your article and website are defacto copyright once they are created. However, if your intellectual property is stolen from you before you have actually registered with the US Copyright Office, your legal position to sue will be compromised. It all comes down to money and power, as usual. If someone has the money and power to make you stop using their image, they can and will at their discretion, and you may not want to fight it.

Note that in all the discussions I've heard and read by people with copyright expertise, one of the biggest urban legends is that mailing your material back to yourself in a registered letter will suffice for copyright protection. It really doesn't work that way.

More information from:

http://www.copyright.gov/
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

While we're on the subject of copyright, it depends on which country you're in too. Different countries have different copyright laws. Here in England, there's no requirement to register copyright, and (to my knowledge) no official copyright agency. The second you create something from scratch you own the copyright. There are several agencies you can register your work with that act as a sort of witness to the work existing on a certain date, but you don't have to register with them to prove you created a piece of work.

The mailing yourself material isn't an urban legend (at least not here in England). A post-office date stamped, sealed envelope can be used to show that an unaltered piece of work existed on a certain date. Posting a copy of such document to a solicitor/accountant/legal professional/etc will also give more evidence that you created and own the copyright. Those aren't fool proof though, and the best evidence are things such as scores, midi/sequencer sources, early recordings/mp3s etc which show how your piece of work progressed. Sorry if this is all music-based but I only need to know about music related copyright so it's all I've researched. Some pages with info if you want to check them out : bpi.co.uk (http://www.bpi.co.uk/piracy/content_file_80.shtml), vocalist.org.uk (http://www.vocalist.org.uk/copyright_royalties.html), etc.

Back on topic, the main reason I bought up Hoaglands copyright thing earlier was because I noticed he has no JPL disclaimer anywhere near a lot of his images, and he also has 'copyright enterprise mission' on a lot of images that he's simply added text onto. He has also used the NASA/JPL logos a lot. The image disclaimer (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/) states that you require permission to display this (commercially or non-commercially). I doubt anything would come from it though, as I wouldn't think JPL/NASA care too much (or want to stir up any more drama than there already is). I do think legally they could ask Hoagland to remove the pictures, or add disclaimers though.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-14, 07:01 PM
There are several issue with making color images. I touch on these in my "What Color is Mars?" page, but don't give details.

1) Exposure times: if the blue exposure is twice the red one, you need to divide the image by 2.

2) Filter "grasp": filters let different amounts of light through them. The blue filter may have twice the wavelength range of the red one. It also may have a higher efficiency; say, letting 80% of the light through in blue versus the red peaking at 60% (I am just making up examples). You need to account for both of these. If you plot the filter efficiency versus wavelength, the area under that curve (remember calculus?) is called the filter's "grasp". To compensate for different grasps, you need to integrate under both curves, and compensate for the difference. If the red has twice the grasp of the blue, you need to divide the red by 2.

3) Intrinsic emission from the source: some objects reflect light different than others. Of course, that's why we have colors! But some objects may give off light at a very narrow wavelength range (fluorescent nebulae do this) and that makes color composition a complete mess. Our eyes expect things to have a continuous spectrum, not line emission, so that it also a problem. I am not sure it's ever really been solved well. This couples with filter range as well. Now, I doubt this is an issue with Mars, as the rocks should have a more or less broad spectrum, with no sharp emission peaks. I am just being thorough here. :-)

4) Detector issues: the detector itself may not be as sensitive in blue as red, for example. This is similar to the filter grasp issue. So you need to know the detector's response to color to compensate for that as well.

My point is that simply taking the three color images and combining them will yield an incorrect color almost every single time. You must compensate for all these factors to get a "real" color image, and even then it may not be quite right.

Most of this information is available online for the Mars images, though I have not seen the detector response function anywhere. I have links to the filter efficiencies in another thread. I haven't seen exposure times either, but that's almost certainly in the raw data headers.

XB9R, this is an honest question: did you compensate for all these factors, or did you just take the raw data and add them together? Or was it something in between?

I ask because I really do want to see correctly balanced color images from Mars. This is of real interest, obviously!

Joe Durnavich
2004-Mar-14, 07:31 PM
1) Exposure times: if the blue exposure is twice the red one, you need to divide the image by 2.

Phil, would dividing by 2 still work if the raw image data is, say, logarithmically encoded? The CCD camera generates 12-bit output, but the raw images we receive are only 8 bits. It would make sense that they might convert 12-bit linear data to 8-bit data using a log or power function. Such encoding better matches our visual response to intensity, making it perceptually efficient.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-14, 10:18 PM
In general, raw data is linear. But I cannot say for sure with the Mars data. Someone would have to track that down.

Glom
2004-Mar-14, 10:23 PM
Regardless, you might want to say that linearity isn't always the case so as not to give the wrong impression to the public. I believe linearity of response has come up in the dealings with HBers.

Matt McIrvin
2004-Mar-15, 04:26 AM
I recall reading somewhere that the rovers actually do a stretch on the data to fill the range of possible brightnesses prior to transmission-- an operation similar to a Photoshop "auto levels". If that's so, then the necessary calibration could easily vary from shot to shot as well as from channel to channel, even if the filter settings, exposure time, etc. are all the same. And you'd naturally expect combining the raw channels to produce pictures with a white sky (since the sky is likely to be the brightest thing in every channel, it will get clamped to white by this procedure) and soil much less red than in reality. This does not mean that those are the actual colors of Mars, by any reasonable criterion.

Shadowhawk
2004-Mar-15, 08:00 PM
Has anyone done any more on the whole 'hyperdimensional physics' angles nonsense? After reading BA's page on that, I did some experimenting myself.
I'm not at home, so I don't remember exactly what I got, but, I laid out some points, connected them all to each other, and counted the number of angles at line intersections, which is what Hoagland does:
3 points = 3 angles
4 points = 16 angles
5 points = ~60 angles
6 points = ~116 angles
At this point, the number of intersection angles became rather difficult to count (and my paper quite messy). Anyone have a formula to obtain, or an estimate on, the number of possible intersection angles for Hoagland's 17 points?

I'm also curious as to how one discovers a revolutionary form of physics from angles. :D

dummy
2004-Mar-15, 10:29 PM
What the heck is hyperdimensional physics anyway?

JohnOwens
2004-Mar-15, 11:32 PM
Has anyone done any more on the whole 'hyperdimensional physics' angles nonsense? After reading BA's page on that, I did some experimenting myself.
I'm not at home, so I don't remember exactly what I got, but, I laid out some points, connected them all to each other, and counted the number of angles at line intersections, which is what Hoagland does:
3 points = 3 angles
4 points = 16 angles
5 points = ~60 angles
6 points = ~116 angles
At this point, the number of intersection angles became rather difficult to count (and my paper quite messy). Anyone have a formula to obtain, or an estimate on, the number of possible intersection angles for Hoagland's 17 points?

I'm also curious as to how one discovers a revolutionary form of physics from angles. :D

Should be, for number of points n, n*(n-1)*(n-2)/2, or (n^3-3*n^2+2*n)/2. That gives 3, 12, 30, and 60 for the numbers above, though. But I'm pretty sure that at least for the four points, 12 would be the correct number rather than 16, since you'd have three angles at each point.
If this is correct, than the relevant number for 17 points becomes 2040! :o

Added: I just realized, are you counting where the lines cross each other when it isn't one of the original points? If so, that would account for the discrepancy; I'm only considering angles measured at one of the original n points.

daver
2004-Mar-15, 11:39 PM
Has anyone done any more on the whole 'hyperdimensional physics' angles nonsense? After reading BA's page on that, I did some experimenting myself.
I'm not at home, so I don't remember exactly what I got, but, I laid out some points, connected them all to each other, and counted the number of angles at line intersections, which is what Hoagland does:
3 points = 3 angles
4 points = 16 angles
5 points = ~60 angles
6 points = ~116 angles
At this point, the number of intersection angles became rather difficult to count (and my paper quite messy). Anyone have a formula to obtain, or an estimate on, the number of possible intersection angles for Hoagland's 17 points?

I'm also curious as to how one discovers a revolutionary form of physics from angles. :D

I'm just trying to guess from the phrase, but if he's talking hyperdimensional, shouldn't there be some sort of condition like "no four points coplanar"? Which would mean that the number of points should be n * (n-1) * (n-2) / 2. That doesn't jibe with your numbers, though. If not, you're not going to be able to come up with a specific number (take the 6-point example. I think you end up with different numbers if the 6 points are in a regular hexagon, so that all the diagnoals cross in the middle, than if you stagger it a bit).

XB9R
2004-Mar-16, 06:25 AM
There are an incredible number of bright people here intelligent enough to mix their own photos. You have enough information.

Something many of you do not know, because you have not mixed them yet, is that the images from the pan cam are taken in a programmed sequence and not randomly.

The important point is that a sequence of images for example, left and right filters L2-7 and R1-7 are taken at a comparable exposure level so that the light received bandwidth is correctly balanced for all of the filters. In English, this means that you don't have to know the exposure, filter band pass, filter light pass, or any of the other parameters. This is done so that the team back on earth does not have to spend days trying to generate an accurate picture.

What this means is that all of us can easily and accurately mix images without concern for the exposure level of individual frames.

Clearly, you may not believe this without an experiment; fortunately there is a color and grayscale wheel on the rover to make you feel more comfortable about your mixes.

First you will need the following information;

http://www.hyperfaceted.com/mars/merb/lets_mix/mer_filters.gif

Next take any set of 456 or 457 images and put them in their respective channels;

http://www.hyperfaceted.com/mars/merb/lets_mix/color_a.jpg

Here you can see, that without ANY extra work on my part I have perfectly balanced and perfect human visual field images. You can also see that there is no practical difference between using L6 vs. L7. This is because they cover the same colors it's just that R7 has a narrower band pass, obviously compensated for the automatic exposure parameters.

I can do this every time.

The marbles are BLUE.

Please don't take my word for it. Mix the images yourself. You will get the same result as I have.

Shadowhawk
2004-Mar-16, 07:16 AM
Added: I just realized, are you counting where the lines cross each other when it isn't one of the original points? If so, that would account for the discrepancy; I'm only considering angles measured at one of the original n points.

Yes, that's what I was doing. In a 4-point square, you've got 3 angles at each corner, and another 4 in the middle. For a 6-point figure, I got 10 angles in each corner, 12 4-angle intersections inside, and a 24-angle point in the center. Ignoring anything >180 degrees, though.
I did it this way because it seemed that's what Hoagland is doing in his "Proof of Hyperdimensional Physics" picture--several of his magi...er, hyperdimensional angles appear to be based off points made from other line intersections.

Too tired to see what happens without a regular polygon, though. :)

TrAI
2004-Mar-16, 07:26 AM
XB9R:

The pictures are optimized for optimal use of the grayscale brightness levels, not for multifilter color balance. You might not have noticed, but all the raw grayscales posted on the rover site have at least some 255 white and 0 black in them, this would not be the case in a color optimized picture. You would have some channels with lower intensity levels than the others. Now, this gives us the problem I talked about in my post earlier on this tread, some channels would have a lower range of steps than the others. This is OK for the use in color images, but it would mean lost information for that frequency.

The pictures with the calibration target is not very indicative of how this will skew the results of a composite, as the white surface of the dial will be mapped to white in all frequencies used for a color composite, the skewing in these pictures can be lower than in the others.

I don't know if you truly understand what this grayscale optimization does.
I'll try to give you an example. Say you have a surface that reflects 60% red, 50% green but only 1% blue. on this surface there sits an object with the reflectance of 55% red, 55% green and 55% blue(gray)(of course this is simplified, a real scene would contain much more levels, but these two is enough for a simple demonstration). If you took a picture using a color optimizing tactic you would get approximately this balance between the levels. But using a grayscale optimization like that of the rovers the object would be mapped to 0% red 100% green and 100% blue, as it is the point with the highest reflectance in the green and blue channels, while the surface would be 100% red, 0% green and 0% blue, since it has the highest reflectance in the red channel. You understand? The surface would be red, while the object would look cyan in a color composite made without the appropriate information to compensate for this, and other effects, something that can be very complex to do.

This problem would be very pronounced in some pictures from an environment like mars, where there is a large predominance of red/orange/yellow. The most reflective in the blue channel would look very blue. I would believe the spheres are more grayish in color, than blue..

JohnOwens
2004-Mar-16, 07:34 AM
Added: I just realized, are you counting where the lines cross each other when it isn't one of the original points? If so, that would account for the discrepancy; I'm only considering angles measured at one of the original n points.

Yes, that's what I was doing. In a 4-point square, you've got 3 angles at each corner, and another 4 in the middle. For a 6-point figure, I got 10 angles in each corner, 12 4-angle intersections inside, and a 24-angle point in the center. Ignoring anything >180 degrees, though.
I did it this way because it seemed that's what Hoagland is doing in his "Proof of Hyperdimensional Physics" picture--several of his magi...er, hyperdimensional angles appear to be based off points made from other line intersections.

Too tired to see what happens without a regular polygon, though. :)

Well, then, I'd halve what the internal angles count for. After all, when you have the four angles at each intersection, the opposite angles will be equal. It'd only be fair to count each of those intersections as two angles instead.
With that in mind, I might need to ponder a bit before coming up with a solid answer (when I do, though, it will be assuming that the polygon isn't regular).

Added: I just realized one fault of my own earlier math, that I assumed a convex polygon, i.e. one that doesn't have points within the boundaries of the other points (I'm not sure what the formal geometric definition is, but I think you should at least know what I mean). If that isn't a limitation, then the number of angles goes up to n*n*(n-1)/2, or (n^3-n^2)/2. If you rule out the angles over 180 deg, the number becomes variable depending on the exact arrangement, but will be such that (n^3-3*n^2+2*n)/2 <= x <= (n^3-n^2)/2, where x is the number of angles. This still doesn't include the angles that aren't at any of the n points, though.
Added^2: Ah hah, better definition: A polygon where all interior angles < 180 deg. Much better now. :)

dummy
2004-Mar-16, 12:26 PM
....

This problem would be very pronounced in some pictures from an environment like mars, where there is a large predominance of red/orange/yellow. The most reflective in the blue channel would look very blue. I would believe the spheres are more grayish in color, than blue.

Just as a small example of what TrAI is talking about:

color_balance.jpg (http://games.paradum.com/mars/color_balance.jpg)
Two unprocessed L4/L5/L6 composite images

Sol 48 (on the left)
1P132444941ESF05AMP2131L4M1.JPG
1P132444961ESF05AMP2131L5M1.JPG
1P132444982ESF05AMP2131L6M1.JPG

That picture has the Opportunity's arm in the shot. Merging those, the colour of the rocks is pink, and the blueberries are a shade of grey. The arm provides a large range of red/green/blue intensity, and the image needs minimal calibration.

Sol 46 (on the right)
1P132274870ESF05AMP2565L4M1.JPG
1P132274900ESF05AMP2565L5M1.JPG
1P132274932ESF05AMP2565L6M1.JPG

However if we merge a shot without the arm the colour of the rocks is white and the blueberries are considerably more blue. This is because the blue channel is stretched due to the lack of blue in the soil/rock.



....

Please don't take my word for it. Mix the images yourself. You will get the same result as I have.


I can find many examples where the blueberries are grey in L4/5/6 filter images (sol 46 has several, as well as sol 48. There are probably more if you take time to look through).

If what you said (about the images not needing balancing due to exposure compensation), then the only explanation is that the rocks and blueberries on mars change colour? I think a much more plausable explanation is that the individual images all need different colour balancing depending on a range of different properties (what is in the picture, what time it is, etc). There is no way any of us can create composite colour images and claim we know exactly what colour anything is.

[Edited to remove direct image links]

2004-Mar-16, 02:09 PM
Fellow BABBers-

After many years, and as promised here in this forum, I have finally taken on Richard Hoagland's nonsense about Mars. He has been relentless with his rubbish on "Coast to Coast AM" over the past few months, and I couldn't stand it any more. :evil:

The opening page is posted on my site (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html) and from there you will find several more taking on the "Face", the "City", his generic, bizarre conspiracy claims, and even his claims about his credentials.

Enjoy. And of course, I welcome comments, and look forward to reading what you have to say, positive or negative.

See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534435

Its pretty good. Hoagland admits he never graduated from college.

majic
2004-Mar-16, 07:52 PM
I can do this every time.

The marbles are BLUE.

Please don't take my word for it. Mix the images yourself. You will get the same result as I have.

1) No you cannot do this every time - since mixing them manually with yield photos ranging from BLUE colorcast to RED colorcast to YELLOW colorcast - the variations between seperate photos are simply tremendous, and we can all pick our share of "appropiately" colored images to prove a point.

2) The marbles are not BLUE, your copypasted colorchannel version from the grayscale images shows them as blue while NASA, the same people that deliver you the RAW data to start with, show them in gray. Now why do you trust the data they deliver to you, yet you take the stand that THEIR color is false and YOUR color is good (NASA portrays the balls as gray, you portray them as blue).

This is very, very dubious. You basically tell me and other people that NASA has no clue what they are doing to their data, colorwise - and to prove it, you use small parts of their data they chose to publicly release! This is hilarious, sorry ..if you do not understand the contradiction in your "proof", the shallow evidence you try to mount a color theory on, then I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this.

At *BEST* we can say "I dont think the color NASA is showing in their processed photos is right - but I have no clue what it SHOULD be except probably more ...<insert color tone> because <insert theory>"

3) Thankyou, I have mixed many images myself in the beginning, and quickly noticed the complete inconsistency in color without having all the image information/data, and appropiatly adapting the way in which I merge my RAW data into a color composite. My findings stand liniearly against your own - yes I have found plenty of images where the color of mars is a dull gray with blue rocks, yet I have found just as many that portray a different color alltogether, be it yellowish or reddish.

sarongsong
2004-Mar-17, 03:38 AM
A handy site for adjusting monitor settings:
http://www.oceanlight.com/html/about_color.html

XB9R
2004-Mar-17, 04:56 AM
Yep the Marbles are BLUE
as I said you can demonstrate this every single time.

And yes the Marbles do change color with the lighting conditions. What makes you think that they don't? They are extremely reflective and dense objects, almost as if they were made of glass. You can see them reflect light in the sun for miles around the opportunity landing site.

CARPE DIEM!

I'm glad to see you are mixing some images. I'd like to see more. Do you have more posted someplace?


Lets try another one;
http://www.hyperfaceted.com/mars/merb/lets_mix/color_b.jpg

Yep, just as I suspected, this color chart is just the same as the first one. And the result will be exactly the same on the next one. Every single mix of 457 and 456 will give similar results of the color wheel, because they have programmed the camera to take correctly exposed images.

Or at an exposure level that does not turn the ground almost black.

http://www.hyperfaceted.com/mars/merb/lets_mix/L457.jpg

I'm a fairly accomplished photographer by the way and know how to take and process images. I'm not doing anything special here.

The cameras on the landers are beautiful instruments. Extremely sensitive and very precise.

By the way, I don't need to know the exposure to create a carefully balanced image and since all the frames in a set are exposed similarly I don't have to worry about those shifts either.

I have to say it one more time (just because);

The little round marbles are a pale BLUE/GREEN!. They have no red component in their reflectivity. Furthermore they are very reflective in the sunshine (like little deep blue gems) and they get hot when the sun shines on them, probably because the reflect even less IR than they do red. Except I notice in the very far 980 band and above, when the marbles are not in the shade they start to radiate a bit on the very long frequencies, this is probably due to them getting hot. (ok I'll say probably because I don't want to sound like I'm preaching ... I could be wrong ;) )

It's kind of hard to say but, I noticed that the marbles closest to the rover, presumably in or near the shade of the rover do not reflect the longer IR frequencies but the marbles out in the sun on the craterside do. Something to be looked at further I presume.

Since they took the spectrometer reading in the berry bowl I wounder when they will have a conclusion about their composition.

Since they took the spectrometer reading in the berry bowl I wonder when they will have a conclusion about their composition.

Any bets yet? Silica? Calcium? In all of the slices of them through the rocks there are no signs of layering on the inside, though they are very dense. In the first drill you can see where the rat chipped the edge of the slice. Also you can tell how hard and dense they are by the fractured/scratched surface. My bet is still on them being the result of a pyroclastic flow from a large meteor impact. Which doesn't explain how they became so evenly distributed throughout the rock 'matrix' ...

I guess I don't know. It's a mystery :)

XB9R
2004-Mar-17, 09:02 AM
That picture has the Opportunity's arm in the shot. Merging those, the colour of the rocks is pink, and the blueberries are a shade of grey. The arm provides a large range of red/green/blue intensity, and the image needs minimal calibration.

However if we merge a shot without the arm the colour of the rocks is white and the blueberries are considerably more blue. This is because the blue channel is stretched due to the lack of blue in the soil/rock.

...

I can find many examples where the blueberries are grey in L4/5/6 filter images (sol 46 has several, as well as sol 48. There are probably more if you take time to look through).

If what you said (about the images not needing balancing due to exposure compensation), then the only explanation is that the rocks and blueberries on mars change colour? I think a much more plausable explanation is that the individual images all need different colour balancing depending on a range of different properties (what is in the picture, what time it is, etc). There is no way any of us can create composite colour images and claim we know exactly what colour anything is.
Actually yes, the marbles change color depending on the light shining on them. When the sun is directly behind the camera the marbles reflect a deep sapphire blue light directly into the camera. You can see this in numerous images.

Mars Sparkles! < in sapphire blue no less ...>

As to your image above you did process the images slightly. It appears as though you white balanced the rat image, more or less. I'm not picking, I agree that it should have been white balanced. If you take that just a little bit further you can white balance the ground in the scene and you get ~exactly~ the same image color balance, including the blue marbles, as you get when you mix scenes without bright silver white metal objects in the picture.

What the pan cam did in the instance was correctly balance the light in the three frames to account for the brilliant white and silver rat in the image leaving the image with an orange cast. White balancing the background, something that the human eye-brain does automatically, is necessary to see what colors the rocks sand, and marbles are. (That would be white/yellow - rocks, grey black- soil, and cyan for the marbles..

http://hyperfaceted.com/mars/merb/lets_mix/the_rat_L456_browse.jpg

Regardless this does demonstrate at least in part how the pan-cam exposes a set of images and it also demonstrates that the data in the 456 and 457 filters can be mixed properly without a lot of skewing to get them to look 'right'.

Another Thought;

Pictures taken at different times of the day don't need to all look the same, in fact they most certainly should not all look the same. I see no reason to drive colors all to some 'orthodox' view of what Mars looks like. Honestly, I didn't want the ground here to be cyan with traces of green glass in it, that's just the way it turned out. In my first image processing I did everything I could to minimize the blue channel and finally I let the instruments speak for themselves.

I have a pilots license and one thing you have to do eventually is let go of your preconceptions and trust your instruments. All of mine, and the pan-cam are telling me the marbles are Blue. I don't get any similar sort of illusion from mer-a so I have to take the data seriously and accept the fact that the ground at mer-b, is, in fact, blue.

CARPE DIEM!

PS. Thanks for putting the first two shots together for me this is a good exercise!

TrAI
2004-Mar-17, 09:51 AM
XB9R, you might know about photography, but you do not seem to understand how the PanCam works. Firstly, it does not do white balancing, only cameras that produce color images needs to do that. The Pancam treats each imaging as a separate grayscale image, it does not use the same settings for each grayscale in a series. What it does is manipulating the exposure time before it reads the CCD, and changing the references used by the analog to digital conversion of the pixels so that the picture will use the entire grayscale. This means that the most reflective within the band pass frequencies of the current filter will be mapped to white, it doesn't matter if it is 100% reflective or 1% in that frequency band, if it is the brightest, it is mapped to white. The darkest is mapped to black, no matter how reflective it is, as long as its the darkest feature in the picture, it becomes black, this is probably why the "berries" looks dark in the red frequencies, it is not as reflective in the red as the other features in the picture. But that doesn't mean it does not reflect red, its just the way the camera optimizes the use of the grayscale that stretches the picture to use the entire grayscale. This will seriously skew the color in a composite made from these grayscales, if one didn't process the grayscales to compensate for this.

dummy
2004-Mar-17, 10:36 AM
As to your image above you did process the images slightly. It appears as though you white balanced the rat image, more or less. I'm not picking, I agree that it should have been white balanced. If you take that just a little bit further you can white balance the ground in the scene and you get ~exactly~ the same image color balance, including the blue marbles, as you get when you mix scenes without bright silver white metal objects in the picture.
I didn't white balance anything. My image was a simple rgb channel merge. The image you provide as 'Unaltered' has far too much blue (either from you adding it, or from the program you're using merging the channels incorrectly). I'll show you again. This image below is unbalanced. I'm simply merging L4/L5/L6 channels without processing or balancing them.

unbalanced.jpg (http://games.paradum.com/mars/unbalanced1.jpg)

Sol 48
1P132444941ESF05AMP2131L4M1.JPG
1P132444961ESF05AMP2131L5M1.JPG
1P132444982ESF05AMP2131L6M1.JPG

It was you who told us that merging these channels will give the same blue results you have. I've shown many instances where I do not get the same result. You can't just dismiss my results and pick and choose images that back up your blueberry claim.


Regardless this does demonstrate at least in part how the pan-cam exposes a set of images and it also demonstrates that the data in the 456 and 457 filters can be mixed properly without a lot of skewing to get them to look 'right'.
Surely you just contradicted yourself? You're saying that you don't need to skew the data to get them to look right, yet in the image provided, you have turned the rocks from pink to white? Does that not count as 'a lot of skewing'?



I have a pilots license and one thing you have to do eventually is let go of your preconceptions and trust your instruments. All of mine, and the pan-cam are telling me the marbles are Blue. I don't get any similar sort of illusion from mer-a so I have to take the data seriously and accept the fact that the ground at mer-b, is, in fact, blue.
It's no use trusting your instruments if you don't understand them fully, or don't know how to read them. The same colour differences occur with the Spirit rover too:

spirit.jpg (http://games.paradum.com/mars/spirit.jpg)

Left is Sol 10 : 2P1272556*L4M1.JPG/L5M1.JPG/L6M1.JPG
Right is Sol 07 : 2P126991*L4M1.JPG/L5M1.JPG/L6M1.JPG

Both are unbalanced/unprocessed L4/5/6 images. In the right-most image the ground looks a lot brighter and pinker and the rocks appear to be a similar bright cyan to the blueberries in several pictures.


XB9R, you might know about photography, but you do not seem to understand how the PanCam works. Firstly, it does not do white balancing, only cameras that produce color images needs to do that. The Pancam treats each imaging as a separate grayscale image, it does not use the same settings for each grayscale in a series.

I was trying to figure out a way to explain it for XB9R, but had another idea of actually showing an example:

I took a picture of my carpet which is quite a dark shade of blue. First I take a picture of this carpet. My digital camera is made for creating colour images, so it takes the colour photo and I get quite an accurate image of the colour (http://games.paradum.com/mars/stretch_1.jpg). As you can see from that image, when I split the image up into three 8-bit images, the blue is considerably brighter than the other 2 channels, as the carpet is blue.

Now lets suppose I have a rover in my room which I use that to take the photographs. The pancam can't take colour images so it simply takes greyscale images through 3 seperate filters. These images end up as 8-bit greyscale images. Scientists want to get as much detail as they can, so each channel has the highest contrast possible. The darkest feature will alway have a value of 0/black and the brightest feature will alway have a value of 255/white. So if I was to use the rover to create a colour image of my room I'd get something like this (http://games.paradum.com/mars/stretch_2.jpg). Notice how my carpet now looks red. For this image to correctly show the colour of my carpet, we would need to reduce the red/green channels or stretch the blue.

I then do the same thing, but this time I include my white door and my black wallet in the picture. This is comparable to having the rover arm in the scene, which provides a whole range of colours. I used my digital camera again to get the image, and the carpet looks blue (http://games.paradum.com/mars/stretch_3.jpg). The blue channel again is slightly brighter (and has less contrast) than the other 2 channels.

Again I use the rover. However, this time there are white/black objects in the picture. The white door will appear white in all 3 of the greyscale images, and the black wallet will appear black. This means the rover needs to do very little contrasting. The final 3 greyscale images (and composite RGB) accurately show the carpet as blue (http://games.paradum.com/mars/stretch_4.jpg). Minimal colour balancing is needed to get an accurate colour image.

[Edited to fix a few typos and remove direct link to images]

Irishman
2004-Mar-17, 04:28 PM
Excellent demonstration, dummy.

XB9R, Steve Squyres said the blueberries are hematite.

Psi-less
2004-Mar-17, 05:22 PM
Oh, I almost forgot: I too am concerned about pages on Hoagland's site getting changed. Is there an easy way to spider the site and grab all the text? I'll probably do the pages individually so I have a backup in case things get changed.

You may not need to--you can always use the "Wayback Machine" internet archives. Checking

http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.enterprisemission.com they archived Hoaglands site showing changes made from 1996 to 2003. You could always drop them a line and verify that they're planning to "shoot" the site again (assuming that it's been changed from 2003).

I add my applause to everyone else's =D> =D> =D> You did a great job!

Psi-less

Papermache Prince
2004-Mar-17, 05:52 PM
Today's SciTech Daily Review (http://www.scitechdaily.com/) has this as the first item in their "Analysis and Opinion" column.
Richard Hoagland has an unusual view of space, encompassing NASA-led conspiracies, sentient aliens and a mile-long translucent Martian worm -- and astronomer Philip Plait is tired of hearing about it ...with a link to Space.com.

majic
2004-Mar-17, 06:03 PM
Excellent demonstration, dummy.

XB9R, Steve Squyres said the blueberries are hematite.

Irishman, XB9R.

Hematite has some very well described properties. Knowing that this mineral makes up the larger part of the minerals in the spherules, we at least know what shades of color they will lean to :

infobit :
"Color is steel or silver gray to black in some forms and red to brown in earthy forms."

The spherules sometimes appear slightly shiney in bright light, this is also a possible property of Hematite :

infobit :
"Luster is metallic or dull in earthy and oolitic forms."

This is what the steel/gray hematite looks like :
http://majic.gamepoint.net/mars/streak1.jpg

infobit :
"Hematite gets its name from a greek word meaning blood-like because of the color of its powder."

The the red version of hematite looks like this :
http://majic.gamepoint.net/mars/streak3.jpg

With this direct evidence as well as the detailed and proovable information provided by dummy and TrAI about image postprocessing/MER photoprocessing we can safely rule out that the color of the spherules is blue. (Obviously a faint blue tinge due to other minerals present in the spherules is always a possibility - but so is a green, red yellow etc)

XB9R
2004-Mar-18, 05:19 AM
Again I use the rover. However, this time there are white/black objects in the picture. The white door will appear white in all 3 of the grayscale images, and the black wallet will appear black. This means the rover needs to do very little contrasting. The final 3 grayscale images (and composite RGB) accurately show the carpet as blue (http://games.paradum.com/mars/stretch_4.jpg). Minimal color balancing is needed to get an accurate color image.

[Edited to fix a few typos][/quote]

Just an aside … I'm slightly offended that you accuse me of ignoring your results when I addressed your image directly. FYI. I use the current version of Photoshop, CS, to mix the channels and am very confident that it does so correctly and that my technique is accurate.

I have addressed your only image, and shown that, in fact, in your image the marbles are not flat gray but are in fact pale blue or if you like blue-gray in color.

What software are you using to mix images? What is your technique and I'll try to duplicate that. You now I'm using the latest version of Photoshop so you, or someone else out here can demonstrate that I mixed my images correctly. If not we can chase down the bugs and get this settled.

Here is another set of images, of the same terrain one with, and the other without the arm in the image. When the image backgrounds are white balanced they look the same with pale blue marbles.
The top image is from the L456 images at timestamp 131296862. The lower image is from the L456 at Mer-B timestamp 130847696;

http://hyperfaceted.com/mars/merb/lets_mix/L567_carpediem.jpg

Or we can take a look at this image which is a composite of the ditch dug by MerB
http://hyperfaceted.com/mars/merb/lets_mix/merb_first_ditch_browse.jpg


By the way that last image of the sundial on your post looked like it was from Mer A and not Mer B. It can't help us resolve learn more about colors at Opportunity, which is what this thread is about.

Carpe Diem!

Everyone here can correctly mix and white balance images from the rovers. It's really not hard to do.

Does anyone have an image set where they can conclusively show that the marbles are neutral gray in L4, L5, and L6?

JonClarke
2004-Mar-18, 05:36 AM
Specular and closely packed fine-grained haematite can be highly reflective and possess a slightly bluish cast to the grey. Some of the less extreme colour composites of the concretions that show this tint are thus not reasonable. However, there is no reason to expect this to be visible in every image - light angle, weathering of the concretions, and deposited dust could change their hue significantly.

Some references to "blue" (really blue-grey) haematite:

In a hydrothermal iron ore deposit in Mauritania http://staff.aist.go.jp/h-murakami/Zouerate.pdf (figure 8 )

In weathered tectonised iron deposits in Brazil ("blue dust" ore, page 2)

In a mineralogical description http://www.uwrf.edu/~wc01/hematite.htm (see reference to Iron County)

In a standard description of Banded Iron Formation (BIF) http://geowords.com/histbooknetscape/k26.htm

In a public information publication on the Hamersley iron ores, Western Australia http://www.sbgeo.org.br/rgb/vol30_down/3002/3002274.pdf (several pictures on page 10)

Polished in jewelry http://www.trinigems.com/products/twist.htm (pretty)

Jon

XB9R
2004-Mar-18, 07:47 AM
Specular and closely packed fine-grained haematite can be highly reflective and possess a slightly bluish cast to the grey. Some of the less extreme colour composites of the concretions that show this tint are thus not reasonable. However, there is no reason to expect this to be visible in every image - light angle, weathering of the concretions, and deposited dust could change their hue significantly.

Some references to "blue" (really blue-grey) haematite:


Thank you, I can't wait to read all of the references. These little marbles are different colors in different lighting conditions. One possibility that I've not mentioned is that I often get the impression that the marbles are covered by a light dusting of grayish dust. Usually the marbles are their brightest and deepest blue when the sun is reflecting directly off of them.

Everyone can try this image, it is easy one and it has a flag on it for color reference though there are not many little marbles on the wall. It’s timestamp number is 130935799, it is properly exposed in all color channels and has the American Flag visible on the arm.

Post processing in this image included the inserts, logo addition and copyright. The image its self was color balanced once and weighted slightly to spread out the contrast balance which I’ve found leads to a better saturated image. It just makes it look a bit sharper. The colors in the image, except for the slight white balance effect are unchanged.

The marbles are, again of course, pale blue or, if it makes everyone more comfortable, blue gray. I would love to see the results of other people mixing this image to compare results.

(It would probably make you more comfortable if I called the marbles gray-blue ;) They are still blue ...

http://hyperfaceted.com/mars/merb/lets_mix/130935799.jpg

PS.
A question; Does anyone have any information as to what frequencies haematite rocks actually reflect? We could compare that information against what we see in the images. Also, I've not seen any reference to the Nasa scientist releasing the composition of the marbles. Is this just a rumor or did he actually say this, if so to who? I can't find a story on the web anywhere.

JonClarke
2004-Mar-18, 09:30 AM
Well Jill, a press report about the haematitic nature of the concretions can be found at http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/mars_blueberries_040317.html

There are many spectral libraries on the net, most are in the IR, which is much more useful for mineral identification that the visible band. You may find what you want from here http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/spectral.lib04/spectral-lib.desc+plots.html

Your colour image looks over saturated, all the colours seem excessively bright to me, and the concretions are too blue. What blue tint they may have should be very subtle, more like the space.com link, although even those may be too blue. I strongly suggest you list to the advice of the others on this board who are very knowledgable about image processing and the traps of colour perception.

Jon

dummy
2004-Mar-19, 03:45 AM
...I would love to see the results of other people mixing this image to compare results...
opp_spec.jpg (http://games.paradum.com/mars/opp_spec.jpg)
The flag appears normal as does yours, but the concretions are shades of grey/brown. The rocks in the background appear a shade of brown, similar to images released by JPL. I could even have slightly too much blue in that image, but seeing as I don't have any details about the picture other than the raw images, it's the best I can do for now.

The best kind of images for getting the colours of things are the dials. The images the rover takes with the dial in them contain a large range of colours (from the coloured chips, as well as the white background and the dark base it's mounted on) so the contrast on each channel is at it's greatest. It's also easy to tell if you have the right colour balance as the chips show the 4 colours. Simple RGB composites give the results below:
opp_dial.jpg (http://games.paradum.com/mars/opp_dial.jpg)

I didn't provide any L4/L5/L6 filenames because it occurs in all the dials you'll merge. In all these images the floor appears a deep reddish brown and the concretions are a dark shade of grey. In none of these dial images do we see anything that is shiney/metallic blue.

Also note that you can find similar blue images from the Spirit rover. The following images are from some of the recent sols:
spr_blueish.jpg (http://games.paradum.com/mars/spr_blueish.jpg)

From Left to Right
2P132839867ESF2000P2557L4M1.JPG
2P132839897ESF2000P2557L5M1.JPG
2P132839929ESF2000P2557L6M1.JPG

2P132756332EFF1957P2352L4M1.JPG
2P132756363EFF1957P2352L5M1.JPG
2P132756385EFF1957P2352L6M1.JPG

2P132756838EFF1957P2352L4M1.JPG
2P132756869EFF1957P2352L5M1.JPG
2P132756920EFF1957P2352L6M1.JPG

2P132757581ESF1957P2111L4M1.JPG
2P132757673ESF1957P2111L5M1.JPG
2P132757703ESF1957P2111L6M1.JPG

But this does not mean the ground is white dust layered over blue soil as the first 3 images suggest. The rightmost image of the sundial shows that the ground is still the same orangey/pinkey/red shade we're familiar with. The difference is that the blue channel has been stretched in the first 3 by the rover due to lack of blue in the image. It's this same thing that makes the concretions at the Opportunity's site appear blue.

Donn
2004-Mar-19, 05:51 PM
On the Hoagland front, just read
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/17/alien.debunk/index.html
which is about the BA vs Hoagland thing. I think the article comes down hard on Hoagland, but it does give him the parting shot which is done in fine fruitcake style.

The closing paragraphs:
"Any random set of numbers, when played with as Hoagland did, will yield many coincidental mathematical relationships," Plait said. "His mathematical analysis is so full of holes, flaws, and misdirection that it is completely worthless."

Hoagland, in response, said Plait should talk with others who have checked the math and shown it to be solid.

"There is a reasonable hypothesis that there could have been an ancient civilization on Mars," Hoagland said, adding that the idea has a lot of adherents around the world. "At no point has NASA chosen to address this scientifically."

His beef with NASA is that the space agency should conduct systematic studies -- based on standards that he would be involved in setting -- to answer the questions he poses.

Hoagland said that as his group's effort has come closer to figuring out "the truth regarding the science and politics of 'extraterrestrial artifacts in the solar system,'" the opposition has become "rabid and relentless."

Charlie in Dayton
2004-Mar-19, 11:03 PM
...The closing paragraphs:
"Any random set of numbers, when played with as Hoagland did, will yield many coincidental mathematical relationships," Plait said. "His mathematical analysis is so full of holes, flaws, and misdirection that it is completely worthless."

Hoagland, in response, said Plait should talk with others who have checked the math and shown it to be solid.
Ahhh, Richard, your DNA patterns should be sold in pastry shops at Christmas, you're such a fruitcake...the mathematics is absolutely solid. 1+1 does equal 2. It's the analysis that isn't worth a hill of beans. Yes, 1+1=2, but 1 what? That's the bone of contention here.


"There is a reasonable hypothesis that there could have been an ancient civilization on Mars," Hoagland said, adding that the idea has a lot of adherents around the world. "At no point has NASA chosen to address this scientifically."
Probably because they can't find a spokesperson who can get through the presentation without bursting into laughter...


His beef with NASA is that the space agency should conduct systematic studies -- based on standards that he would be involved in setting -- to answer the questions he poses.
NASA has conducted studies based on suggestions from JQPublic&Co -- but only if the suggestions were found to make a lick of sense.


Hoagland said that as his group's effort has come closer to figuring out "the truth regarding the science and politics of 'extraterrestrial artifacts in the solar system,'" the opposition has become "rabid and relentless."
Relentless? Definitely. Rabid? Open to discussion. "...the truth regarding the science and politics of 'extraterrestrial artifacts in the solar system..'"? Not a snowball's chance in h3ll...

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-20, 12:00 AM
Hoagland, in response, said Plait should talk with others who have checked the math and shown it to be solid.


I could go on and on about the misleading things Hoagland said in that interview, and on his site about the interview.

But that line is great. I did talk to a mathematician. Greenberg! It doesn't matter how many people say it's solid if one can show conclusively it isn't. That's how science works. And unlike his "conclusive" evidence, Greenberg's really is. It's reproducible, and easy to understand.

JohnOwens
2004-Mar-20, 12:12 AM
And unlike his "conclusive" evidence, Greenberg's really url.
Typo? What's that supposed to mean? Is there supposed to be a link? :-k

ToSeek
2004-Mar-20, 12:51 AM
And unlike his "conclusive" evidence, Greenberg's really url.
Typo? What's that supposed to mean? Is there supposed to be a link? :-k

It's modern geek slang meaning that the guy is really upfront and a good source of information.

Actually, Phil probably intended to put in this link. (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html)

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-20, 04:57 AM
I corrected that statement. I think I typed that when someone was talking to me, and I lost track of what I was writing. :oops:

Narthex
2004-Mar-21, 07:00 PM
Why are Hoagland's ideas (whether his originally or not) considered part of his "credentials" ? It's been my understanding that when credentials are given, that would customarily be defined as university degrees, professional society memberships, employment in the field, etc. If asked to state his credentials, I don't think Phil would give the ideas he's linked with primary focus, as he's done with Hoagland.

Hoagland may have been awarded the award he got, but IMO after the Alan Archer article it shows poor judgement to do so.

I don't ever recall seeing Hoagland claim any college degrees. I trust that if someone states otherwise they will supply links.

If college degrees are such an issue for Robert Roy Britt, perhaps he had better look closer to home and publicize his fellow space.com writer's shortcomings as well. According to his vita, Leonard David does not have a college degree .
http://www.reston.com/sdri/leonard.david.html

Archer17
2004-Mar-21, 08:17 PM
Why are Hoagland's ideas (whether his originally or not) considered part of his "credentials" ? It's been my understanding that when credentials are given, that would customarily be defined as university degrees, professional society memberships, employment in the field, etc..Do you know what "credential" means? From the Merrian-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm):
1 : something that gives a title to credit or confidence
2 plural : testimonials showing that a person is entitled to credit or has a right to exercise official power.Hoagland's takes credit for "ideas" that are not his and uses them as "credentials" in an attempt to give his hokum some legitimacy.
.. If asked to state his credentials, I don't think Phil would give the ideas he's linked with primary focus, as he's done with Hoagland..Ideas?!? Your use of the word "ideas" here is very curious. The BA is an astronomer that addresses astronomical inaccuracies. What "ideas" are you talking about?
..If college degrees are such an issue for Robert Roy Britt, perhaps he had better look closer to home and publicize his fellow space.com writer's shortcomings as well. According to his vita, Leonard David does not have a college degree..So? Is Leonard David the issue here? Is Mr. David making claims about NASA coverups and inflating his "credentials" with embellishments, if not outright lies? This is about Hoagland, not Leonard David. I'm not surprised you didn't like the space.com article. You haven't liked any criticism of Hoagland. Hey, that's your purview Narthex, but this whiny stuff is lame.

R.A.F.
2004-Mar-21, 10:58 PM
If college degrees are such an issue for Robert Roy Britt, perhaps he had better look closer to home and publicize his fellow space.com writer's shortcomings as well.

A very clumsy attempt at shifting the focus. That argument doesn't "fly" here.

Irishman
2004-Mar-23, 12:24 AM
Narthex, "credentials" also applies to a person's areas of primary research, and main topics of study. For example, check out the BA's self description (http://www.badastronomy.com/info/whois.html).

"I am currently working on a NASA-sponsored public outreach program for a satellite named GLAST (Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope)."

"In my last position, at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center I worked on the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS). I help calibrate STIS, which means I analyzed test images taken by STIS and figured out how well it was working. I also did some actual science with STIS, which means I also got to analyze actual observations of astronomical objects. So far I have helped analyze the first ever brown dwarf discovered (a brown dwarf is an object that is too small to be a star but too big to be a planet), and also helped analyze images and spectra taken of a star that blew up in 1987, called Supernova 1987A (you can read my web page about that). I have also worked on data taken of asteroids, quasars, galaxies, normal stars, dying stars, and stars being born. "

Credentials are anything which give legitimacy to a person's claim to knowledge on a topic. For Hoagland, he is claiming a larger role in Europa's science discovery than is warranted, and accusing scientists of dismissing his role. He uses his small involvment with the Pioneer plaque idea to suggest he was more of an active science participant with Carl Sagan. He uses the unorthodox attainment of an Angstrom medal to cast himself as a prize-winning scientist. These are distortions of his own status to provide legitimacy to his claims.

DeathFromAbove
2004-Mar-23, 01:09 AM
Awsome Debunking glad you tackled this.

You'd think this crazy stuff would end ](*,)

Tripp
2004-Mar-23, 08:15 AM
Here is a good demonstration of what is going on and leading to these "blueberries".

Here is what the MER Imaging team at JPL has had to say about the subject:


"We target the exposure times to give every image roughly the same average density value, regardless of filter. So because of that, it's dangerous to just blindly use the raw images for an RGB composite. The reason it works for some scenes, like the calibration target or spacecraft parts, is that if there is enough 'gray' stuff in the scene (metallic spacecraft parts, for example) then that is what sets the exposure time. When looking at Mars, though, which is quite red, the blue and green exposure times are significantly longer and so the resulting 'raw' RGB composite will look way too blue. Cool, but still 'too blue.' At the very least they should scale the values by the exposure times."


The below images demonstrate the effect of these density weighed exposures on color. Take note of the color changes of the two rocks evident in all images and how the blue hue is a result of other colors in the images, particularly red density.

On the left, is the scene shot in color, with its red, green and blue channels displayed next to it. The right images were composites created by shooting three individual black and white images through red, green and blue filters. much as MER does it. Each of these shots were averaged, so that the exposures of the scenes have about the same approximate density.

http://www.highmars.org/niac/education/mer/images/rocks01a.jpghttp://www.highmars.org/niac/education/mer/images/rocks01b.jpg

http://www.highmars.org/niac/education/mer/images/rocks02a.jpghttp://www.highmars.org/niac/education/mer/images/rocks02b.jpg

http://www.highmars.org/niac/education/mer/images/rocks03a.jpghttp://www.highmars.org/niac/education/mer/images/rocks03b.jpg

Source:
Using Color to See More - Looks Can Be Deceiving (http://www.highmars.org/niac/education/mer/mer00e.html)

Other Relevant Color Information (http://www.atsnn.com/story/30048.html)

majic
2004-Mar-23, 01:50 PM
Beyond excellent post, Tripp - this should explain it to everyone, a "believer" in oddities on mars or the sober type - we cant argue about this.

Again, wonderfull!

ToSeek
2004-Mar-23, 02:36 PM
Tripp, the BA is liable to yell at you if you leave those images up - posting images directly from another website is against the FAQ since it's taking advantage of their bandwidth for our benefit.

On the other hand, it's great information!

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Mar-24, 05:21 AM
Those aren't personal sites, so I think it's okay, like linking from NASA sites.

By the way, I was offered an opportunity to debate Hoagland on a "national network" (it wasn't specified which one, which makes me think the offer may not have been 100% genuine; I've heard this song before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10690)). Even if true, I declined it for reasons I stated on my website. I don't feel the need to provide a venue for Hoagland to make his claims.

So keep an ear open for what Hoagland will say. I'm sure his record of accuracy will remain the same. :-?

Tripp
2004-Mar-24, 04:45 PM
By the way, I was offered an opportunity to debate Hoagland on a "national network" (it wasn't specified which one, which makes me think the offer may not have been 100% genuine; I've heard this song before (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10690)). Even if true, I declined it for reasons I stated on my website. I don't feel the need to provide a venue for Hoagland to make his claims.

Hello Mr Plait (not sure how you're commonly addressed here). Please call me Tripp.

I agree with your comments about engaging Hoagland over any broadcast media. He has far too great of a command over his areas of personal focus and that combined with his polished showmanship would give the false impression of his having won the day in pretty much any exchange. You might be somewhat gratified to know that onlookers to these exchanges do generally understand and agree with your reasoning for declining a live debate.

I think the only suitable way to engage in such a debate with Hoagland is to arrange for a bulletin board or forum response area which allows for only the responses and counters of the two participants and no one else's direct 'input'. In such a manner issues can be adequately referenced and addressed. Such an exchange would take far more time and far greater effort than a one-shot media exchange but the outcome would be far more fruitful. I also highly suspect that Hoagland would decline such an exchange.

You did an excellent job in your "debunking' of Hoagland although I have some contradicting beliefs in one particular arena which I may address more thoroughly in the near future. Incidentally you somwhat mischaracterize "Bamf' and his relationship with Hoagland in writing "On this page, he talks about someone he calls "Bamf" who worked with Hoagland, and who Hoagland now thinks deceived him, faking some of his image processing." (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/saywhat.html) Bamf, aka Noel Gorelick, works at Aizona State University and has been personally involved in TES Software Development for Odyssey satellite under geologist Dr. Phil Christensen. I was witness to Gorelick's initial appearance on what was then Hoalgand's Anomalies forum where Gorelick as "Bamf" initially challenged persons claims regarding infrared revelations of Cydonia and ultimately provided a host of helpful technical understanding regarding A.S.U.'s proprietary IR imaging system on Odyssey in both direct, personal communications and forum posts. Gorelick's involvement in the melodrama was not quite as characterized by Hoagland in the unsupported fantasy he portrays on his site. Eventually I myself became so fed up with the false claims made by Hoalgland et al regarding a "Cydonia Buried City" (http://www.enterprisemission.com/tale.htm) shown in one nighttime IR image that I provided a lengthy demonstration that the artifacts were not actually present on Mars itself but rather were induced in extremely inadvisable image processing here on earth.

Thanks much for providing this forum as means to exchange ideas and illuminate false claims.

Regards, ~Tripp