Quote:
Originally Posted by rhw007
NASA says:
The panoramic camera took them through the camera's 750-nanometer, 530-nanometer and 430-nanometer filters. The false color enhances subtle color differences among materials in the rocks and soils of the scene.
rhw:
To me this statement does NOT state that the colors shown were NOT there and are a result of 'processing' artifacts. It states that these filter combinations ENHANCES colors ALREADY there...i.e it is NOT 'making colors up'...they are enhancing EXISTSING colors.
This is a big difference to me.
PS: As to the moving of the thread. I am sad to see that the decision was made to move it. To me this means that no matter WHAT evidence we present and continue to TRY and present...if it challenges ANY mainstream theory...it is going to get relgated to here. I wonder if we go back years before when people were saying the seeps were liquid water and NOT CO2 which as Nick Hoffman's favorite mainstream theory or dry dust slides if ALL those threads, posts and folks were relgated to this partituclar forum...which has now been shown to just jump any anti-mainstream discussion here. Which means we can only discuss 'NASA accepted' theory in the Science forum without debate. Sad...I had thought things had improved here. I seem to have been mistaken.
Bob...  |
I don't see why you have a problem with the colors that even Nasa admits are not Red and Blue wavelength, but Near IR and Near UV. The only filter that was in the visable light spectrum was the green filter.
This combination of filters shows differences in minerals, as to what the bluish/black is, I haven't seen infomration on that yet.
As to how much of red and blue true color makes it though those filters, someone would have to dig up specifications on them. Usually filters only let that specific wavelenght through, but not always, some have a bandwidth. I don't know if these do or not.
There is plenty of evidence for Water on mars, such as the crater with a lake of Ice in the crater floor. This isn't needed. We are just 'proving' what a poor job of checking facts that New Scientist and Ron Levin did.