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.
|
What's your definition of color? This is assigning colors to a combination of images that are partly outside the human visual range from a visual system that does not closely model a human's. The color selection is not being done to approximate what a human would see. Therefore, the result is "false color."
Quote:
|
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.
|
Do you understand that the evidence for the claim (puddles of water) was shown to be unreasonable? As it was
put here:
Those can't be puddles -- unless the amazing "liquid" that puddles here on Mars in a freezing near-vacuum also has antigravity properties.
The claim as it was presented in the New Scientist article simply isn't credible. If the article misrepresented Levin and Lyddy, then I would expect to see a statement by them. As it is, it raises big questions about the quality of their research, which appears to be edging into Hoagland-like pseudoscience.