Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian
To reduce the confusion, if you don't mind, I'll summarize the argument in numbered paragraphs, and you can tell us which parts you think require additional evidence.
1. The landform in question is a hill.
|
Nobody has disputed this, except Hoagland and his followers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian
2. The image in the press release was processed badly. Very, very badly. Normal 3D shading cues were aggressively suppressed-- so aggressively that the hill doesn't even look like a hill!
|
First of all what you see as evidence of "aggressively suppressed" 3D cues are in fact a reflection of the image being taken under suboptimal conditions - hazy aatmosphere, of axis imaging, and unfavourable light aangles.
As for the hill not looking like a hill, that is your opinion. I can see considerable relief in that image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian
3. The use of bogus data in a press release, whether accidental or deliberate, is Bad Astronomy.
|
You have not established that the data is bogus. The image is real, a range of standard processing techniques were used. What is bogus about this? You realise that accusing JPL and MSSS of releasing false data is very serious charge, in fact you are accusing them of something that is not only unethical, but contrary to their legal obligations?
What aspect of this image is invalidated by later images by MOC, THEMIS, HRSC and HiRISE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian
4. If the people who issued the press release had somehow fooled themselves, and honestly thought that their image was an accurate depiction of the shape of the landform, then they certainly must have learned very quickly-- within a few days, at most-- that this was not the case.
|
In what way does this image not accurately reflect the landform in question?
Again, you are making a servious accustation of dishonest, illegal behaviour, which you should substantiate, of withdraw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian
5. Deciding not to issue a retraction, when you learn that you've used bogus data in a press release, is Bad Astronomy.
|
Why should they retract the best image available, processed by experts? The MIPL are one of the most experienced image interpretation teams on the planet? MSSS built the system, Tim Parker is a very experienced planetary scientist. Despite using different processing their images are very similar.
Incidently the initial press release contained on error, with respect to the image size. This was corrected the following day. This is evidence of the intergrity of the people who made it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian
6. Conclusion: Fight fair. Don't cut corners, don't cheat.
|
So far you have not produced any evidence that there was any unfair fighting, corner cutting, and cheating. Unless you do so, you should with draw this false accusation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian
I don't think Jerry was trying to hijack anything. He was only trying to explain the ethical principle that I was stating. I could try to state it more clearly, but instead I'll let Feynman say it...
|
Jerry has a record of long convoluted discussions aabout the entry profiles of space probes. I would hate to see this discussion being hijacked into another one.
As for the Feynman quote, let's look at it.
It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty-- a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid-- not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked-- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Let's see - the full details of the conditions under which the image was taken were reported, the camera specifications are available to all interested people, the processing done on the image were stated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can-- if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong-- to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.
None of the statements by MIPL, Parker or MSSS that were released on the 6th of April 1998 contained much in the way of interpretation. The describe the images and the processing. The interpretation is left to the viewer
Jon