Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > The Proving Grounds > Conspiracy Theories
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 21-December-2007, 03:49 AM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default Fighting Bad Astronomy with Bad Astronomy

This is mainly a question of ethics.

Dr. Plait, how would you handle the following hypothetical scenario? You have a press conference, at which you debunk some sort of Bad Astronomy. Hours later, you discover that the data that you presented at the press conference were bogus. Someone on your staff transcribed them incorrectly. The true data, though they don't exactly support the BA that you were trying to debunk, are much less harmful to it than the bogus data that you presented. What will you do? Will you call another press conference, and apologize for the mistake? If you do this, your retraction may bolster the same BA that you were trying to debunk. Will you choose to skip the apology, and just keep quiet, and hope that no one notices that your data were bogus? This would surely be a violation of scientific ethics, and in the long run this would probably do more harm than good. It's a painful decision to make, but I think we all can agree which choice would be the right choice.

While browsing recently, I came across a number of angry web pages which argued that a certain image of the "face" on Mars, in a certain JPL press release, was a fraud. To me, personally, the "face" has always seemed to be an accident of nature. But when I encountered this controversy a few days ago, I saw it as an opportunity for a fascinating mathematical challenge: an attempt to determine the exact algorithm that was used to "flatten" the landform in the image. I tried some Fourier tricks, and succeeded. The algorithm is a very simple 1x31 convolution, which resembles a crude and grossly exaggerated unsharp mask. It produces all of the expected effects: it eliminates vertical streaks, and destroys real 3D shading cues, and creates false shading cues, and gives the surrounding flat land a "grainy" texture, and creates "false shadows" above and below a small bright feature near the east edge of the image.

I experimented with similar convolution kernels in varying sizes, and it does indeed seem that the size 1x31 is particularly well suited to the purpose of deceiving the viewer about the true 3D shape of this particular hill.

Was the deception deliberate, or accidental? I don't know.

If the people who issued the press release were fooled by their own deceptive image processing, and really believed that the "face" was not actually a hill, as it appeared in the Viking images, but instead was a jumble of boulders encircled by a trough, as it appeared in their press release image, then their mistake was an honest mistake. But even if they were honestly ignorant of the problem, they could not have remained ignorant for long. Tim J. Parker's enhancement was released that same day, and anyone who looked at both images could see that the processing of the original image had been deceptive-- so deceptive, in fact, that it could reasonably be expected to inspire conspiracy theories.

The right thing to do, at that point, would have been to issue another press release, retracting the bogus image, and apologizing for the mistake. Someone decided not to do the right thing. This, then, would be two individual acts of Bad Astronomy: first, the original, possibly accidental, use of bogus data in a press release; second, the decision to refrain from issuing an apology and retraction, when they learned that an image in their press release was bogus.

If this story has a moral, then I suppose it must be something like this: when you attack Bad Astronomy, be conscientious, and fight fair. If you cheat, then you may get caught, which will only make the situation worse. If you innocently use bogus data by accident, then you'll have to issue an apology and retraction, which will only make the situation worse. If you accidentally use bogus data, but then you deliberately refuse to issue an apology and retraction, then... well, then we're back to cheating; see above.

--------
Update, 1/15/2008: I've uploaded the full-size animation, with no cropping or scaling, to an image host which doesn't have a file size limit:

(catbconv.gif, 512x480 pixels, 12 frames, 3,193,898 bytes, sha1sum 6b4d1f23915d3342e5888363d409fdaa97b82f17)

http://s2.supload.com/free/catbconv-...3559.gif/view/

--------
The text of this message is released into the public domain.
Attachment: an animation which shows the convolution in action.
Attached Thumbnails
fighting-bad-astronomy-bad-astronomy-catbconv112.gif  

Last edited by Bad. Guardian; 15-January-2008 at 12:51 PM.. Reason: added update, with link to full-size animation.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 21-December-2007, 04:26 AM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default The script that was used to create the animation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
Attachment: an animation which shows the convolution in action.
I had to shrink the animation from 512x480 to 112x105, so the forum server would accept it. I'm attaching a script which will allow you to see the full size animation. If you don't intend to run the script, and if you don't like to read source code, you may still want to view the script, and read some of the comments.

Wait... the forum server thinks that ASCII text is an unacceptable attachment type! OK, I'll just paste the script here.

Code:
#!/usr/bin/scsh -s

WARNING: this script can destroy files in the current working directory.
Run it in a directory which you've created specifically for this script.

This script is released into the public domain.
First publication:
http://www.bautforum.com/bad-astronomy-stories/68345-fighting-bad-astronomy-bad-astronomy.html

This script requires scsh and netpbm and gifsicle.  If you're running
Debian 4.0, "aptitude install scsh netpbm gifsicle" will install what
you need.  (You might also want to install scsh-doc.)

Start with cydonia1.tiff in the current working directory.

  cydonia1.tiff sources:
  ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/miscellaneous/planetary/mgs/cydonia1.tiff
    (sha1sum: 611771f7cec388c7640f6110eba8aa0012379ab1  cydonia1.tiff)
  http://windsor.gsfc.nasa.gov/miscellaneous/planetary/mgs/cydonia1.tiff
    (sha1sum: 611771f7cec388c7640f6110eba8aa0012379ab1  cydonia1.tiff)
  http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/cydonia1.tif
    (sha1sum: 9d9204ad231666ab0a0c3ecca65cd64e4c28a7da  cydonia1.tif)

  cydonia1.tiff information:
  http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mgs_cydonia.html
  http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/

This script generates an animation which demonstrates the effects of the
following algorithm:  Choose a convolution kernel height, and call it h.
Create a matrix with h rows and 1 column.  Set the middle element of the
matrix to 1, and set all the other elements to 1/(1-h).  Convolve each
column in the image using this matrix.  Normalize contrast.

In the original "catbox convolution," h was 31.  The image had been scaled
down, to a swath width of 512 pixels, before the convolution was applied.

In the limit, as h approaches infinity, the algorithm above becomes
equivalent to the following even simpler algorithm:  Subtract, from each
pixel, the average of all pixels in the same column.  Normalize contrast.

!#

;;; This function creates a convolution kernel for pnmconvol.  This is not the
;;; catbox kernel, because unfortunately pnmconvol isn't general enough to use
;;; it directly.  Instead this is the kernel you would get if you started with
;;; the catbox kernel, and multiplied the middle row by 0, and multiplied every
;;; other row by -1.  Later we'll undo the multiplication by -1 (using
;;; pnminvert) and undo the multiplication by 0 (using ppmmix).

;;; to do: a simple scsh function could perform the catbox convolution
;;; directly, without needing pnmconvol and pnminvert and ppmmix.  And it could
;;; be faster, because it could take advantage of the fact that nearly all of
;;; the elements in the kernel have the same value.

(define (make-kernel height)
  (format #t "P2 1 ~d ~d~%" height (* (- height 1) 2))
  (let ((f (lambda ()
             (do ((i (/ (- height 1) 2) (- i 1)))
                 ((<= i 0))
               (format #t "~d~%" height)))))
    (f)
    (format #t "~d~%" (- height 1))
    (f)))


;;; to do: instead of redirecting output to these silly throw-away files,
;;; use pipelines.  Scsh and netpbm both work beautifully with pipelines.

(define (prelim)
  (&& (epf (tifftopnm cydonia1.tiff)
           (> a.ppm))
      (epf (ppmtopgm a.ppm)
           (> b.pgm))
      (epf (pnmdepth 65535 b.pgm)
           (> c.pgm))
      (epf (pnmscale -reduce 2 c.pgm)
           (> d.pgm))
      (epf (pnmflip -lr d.pgm)
           (> e.pgm))
      (epf (pamcut -top 1769 -height 1440 e.pgm)
           (> f.pgm))))


(define (per-height height)
  (let ((subtrahend (format #f "~a.pgm" height)))
    (and (cond ((number? height) ; not infinity
                (&& (epf (begin (make-kernel height))
                         (> k.pgm))
                    (epf (pnmconvol k.pgm f.pgm)
                         (> ,subtrahend))))
               (else ; infinity
                (&& (epf (pnmscale -width 512 -height 1 e.pgm)
                         (> l.pgm))
                    (epf (pnmscale -width 512 -height 1440 l.pgm)
                         (> ,subtrahend)))))
         (&& (epf (pnminvert ,subtrahend)
                  (> m.pgm))
             (epf (ppmmix "0.5" f.pgm m.pgm)
                  (> n.ppm))
             (epf (ppmtopgm n.ppm)
                  (> o.pgm))
             (epf (pamcut -top 480 -height 480 o.pgm)
                  (> p.pgm))
             (epf (pnmnorm -bpercent "0.005" -wpercent "0.005" p.pgm)
                  (> q.pgm))
             (epf (pnmdepth 255 q.pgm)
                  (> r.pgm))
             (epf (ppmlabel -colour white -x 239 -y 475 -text
                            ,(if (number? height) height "inf.") r.pgm)
                  (> s.ppm))
             (epf (ppmtogif s.ppm)
                  (> ,(format #f "~a.gif" height)))))))


(define (list-heights)
  (do ((n 0 (- n 1/2))
       (l '("inf")
          (cons (+ 1 (* 2 (inexact->exact (round (* #i480 (expt 2 n)))))) l)))
      ((< n -5) l)))


(define (gifsicle-args height)
  (list "--name" height (format #f "~a.gif" height)))


(let ((heights '(31 43 61 85 121 171 241 341 481 679 961 "inf")))
  (and (prelim)
       (every per-height heights)
       (run (gifsicle -l -V
                      -d165 ,@(gifsicle-args (car (reverse heights)))
                      -d33 ,@(apply append (map gifsicle-args
                                                (cdr (reverse (cdr heights)))))
                      -d165 ,@(gifsicle-args (car heights)))
            (> catbconv.gif))))

Last edited by Bad. Guardian; 15-January-2008 at 01:00 PM.. Reason: don't create needless invisible frames.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 21-December-2007, 06:53 AM
JonClarke JonClarke is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
While browsing recently, I came across a number of angry web pages which argued that a certain image of the "face" on Mars, in a certain JPL press release, was a fraud. To me, personally, the "face" has always seemed to be an accident of nature.
Are you referring to the so-called "catbox" image?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
But when I encountered this controversy a few days ago, I saw it as an opportunity for a fascinating mathematical challenge: an attempt to determine the exact algorithm that was used to "flatten" the landform in the image. I tried some Fourier tricks, and succeeded. The algorithm is a very simple 1x31 convolution, which resembles a crude and grossly exaggerated unsharp mask. It produces all of the expected effects: it eliminates vertical streaks, and and gives the surrounding flat land a "grainy" texture, and creates "false shadows" above and below a small bright feature near the east edge of the image
What is the basis for stating that the image was "flattened" (other than "angry web pages")? It does not look flattened to me.

Eliminating artefacts like vertical streaks is why images are processed. Is this bad?

Whaat is the evidence that "real 3D" shading cues have been destroyed and "false" shading cues and shadows created?

Whaat evidence you you have that the surrounding flat land has been given a "grainy" texture?

Are you aware that this image, taken under poor conditions (off axis, and with haze and cloud) still show much more detail than the best Viking image?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
I experimented with similar convolution kernels in varying sizes, and it does indeed seem that the size 1x31 is particularly well suited to the purpose of deceiving the viewer about the true 3D shape of this particular hill.

Was the deception deliberate, or accidental? I don't know.
Whaat is your evidence that there has been any deception at all? The processing of this image is a matter of public record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
If the people who issued the press release were fooled by their own deceptive image processing, and really believed that the "face" was not actually a hill, as it appeared in the Viking images, but instead was a jumble of boulders encircled by a trough, as it appeared in their press release image, then their mistake was an honest mistake. But even if they were honestly ignorant of the problem, they could not have remained ignorant for long. Tim J. Parker's enhancement was released that same day, and anyone who looked at both images could see that the processing of the original image had been deceptive-- so deceptive, in fact, that it could reasonably be expected to inspire conspiracy theories.
What is your evidence that the people who issued the press released were fooled?

What is your evidence that they did not think it was a hill, but a "jumble of boulders surrounded by a trough"? To the contrary, MSS have repeatedly called it a hill.

Tim Parker's image looks a bit different because it was processed slightly differently. This is normal. The features in both images are the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
The right thing to do, at that point, would have been to issue another press release, retracting the bogus image, and apologizing for the mistake. Someone decided not to do the right thing. This, then, would be two individual acts of Bad Astronomy: first, the original, possibly accidental, use of bogus data in a press release; second, the decision to refrain from issuing an apology and retraction, when they learned that an image in their press release was bogus.
So far you have not shown any evidence that the MSSS release was bogus. So there is no need for apology and retraction.

Jon

Last edited by JonClarke; 21-December-2007 at 10:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 21-December-2007, 07:38 AM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default No, that's not the same image.

Sorry, I guess I should've provided a link to the original deceptive image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
Are you referring to the so-called "catbox" image?
Hi Jon, thank you for replying. Yes, I was referring to the so-called "catbox" image, but... No, I wasn't referring to the image to which you've linked the word "catbox" above. I believe that you've linked to an enhancement which was done later, and which is noticeably different from the so-called "catbox" image that was used in the press release.

I was referring to this image: http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/targe...ydonia1c-s.gif, which I found on this web page: http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/. This is the so-called "catbox" image that was used in the press release.

I'll be glad to answer your other questions, but I'll wait until we're both looking at the same image, and then we'll see how many of those questions you'll still want to ask. I think that you'll agree, when you're looking at the same image, that it exhibits the characteristics that I mentioned.

Last edited by Bad. Guardian; 21-December-2007 at 12:43 PM.. Reason: fix typo: s/at same/at the same/
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 21-December-2007, 07:48 AM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default You're looking at the wrong image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
Are you referring to the so-called "catbox" image?
Hi Jon, thank you for replying. I posted an answer, but it's been held for moderation, probably because it included links. You'll probably see it eventually, but for now I'll just give you this capsule summary: you're looking at the wrong image. The image to which you've linked the word "catbox" above is not the so-called "catbox" image.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 21-December-2007, 11:24 PM
JonClarke JonClarke is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 3,210
Default

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/..._face_release/

I'll be glad to answer your other questions, but I'll wait until we're both looking at the same image, and then we'll see how many of those questions you'll still want to ask. I think that you'll agree, when you're looking at the same image, that it exhibits the characteristics that I mentioned.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for linking to the image you meant. So we have three differentially processed versions of the same raw image. One by parker, one by MIPL, one by MSSS. Each is slightly different, which is what happens when different people process the same data differently. But each is clearly the same original image and shows the same features.

You realise that all in the metadata for all the processing is in the links we have both provided? You don't have to reconstruct what you think was done, it is all there. And it is different to what you said was done.

And there is no evidence of deliberate or accidental deception in this.

Jon

Last edited by JonClarke; 21-December-2007 at 11:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 21-December-2007, 11:31 PM
Jerry's Avatar
Jerry Jerry is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,113
Default

It is an unfortunate fact that when scientific data does not seem to mesh with scientific theory; it is often withheld from publications or qualified in the footnotes. As long as the data is being withheld because of uncertainty, this is reasonable, but only if there is an effort underway to verify whether or not the data can be better qualified.

If data is withheld because it may throw doubt upon prevailing theories and sparkle the eyes of unconventional theorists, then it is just bad science. We have an obligation to report our failures as well as our successes. Throwing out data that does not agree with prevailing theories may 1) include the baby with the bathwater or 2) inspire more confidence in a prevailing theory than is reasonable; given the iffy nature of the data.
__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 21-December-2007, 11:50 PM
JonClarke JonClarke is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
It is an unfortunate fact that when scientific data does not seem to mesh with scientific theory; it is often withheld from publications or qualified in the footnotes. As long as the data is being withheld because of uncertainty, this is reasonable, but only if there is an effort underway to verify whether or not the data can be better qualified.

If data is withheld because it may throw doubt upon prevailing theories and sparkle the eyes of unconventional theorists, then it is just bad science. We have an obligation to report our failures as well as our successes. Throwing out data that does not agree with prevailing theories may 1) include the baby with the bathwater or 2) inspire more confidence in a prevailing theory than is reasonable; given the iffy nature of the data.
And the relevance of this to the case in point is?????
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 21-December-2007, 11:55 PM
JonClarke JonClarke is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 3,210
Default

To see how unface like the "face" really is in the Viking data when processing exposes what is in the shadowed area, look here.

http://www.msss.com/education/facepage/face.html
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 22-December-2007, 01:21 AM
Jerry's Avatar
Jerry Jerry is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
And the relevance of this to the case in point is?????
Bad Guardian is asking if it is reasonable to withhold or not report erroneous data reduction when doing so may spark a new round of drum beating by crackpots. I say it is not; for the two reasons in my post above, but also because any time you make the judgement call: It is better to withhold or not correct erroneous data than muddy the water, you are flirting with conspiracy - or at the very least, giving crack pots more ammunition if the omitted information comes to light for other reasons.

NASA did not publish the fact Spirit was within a whisker of failure when it safely landed on Mars. I don't know what the margins were for Opportunity, but I would like to.
__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 22-December-2007, 02:49 AM
JonClarke JonClarke is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Bad Guardian is asking if it is reasonable to withhold or not report erroneous data reduction when doing so may spark a new round of drum beating by crackpots. I say it is not; for the two reasons in my post above, but also because any time you make the judgement call: It is better to withhold or not correct erroneous data than muddy the water, you are flirting with conspiracy - or at the very least, giving crack pots more ammunition if the omitted information comes to light for other reasons.
Bad Guardian has posted no evidence to support his claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
NASA did not publish the fact Spirit was within a whisker of failure when it safely landed on Mars. I don't know what the margins were for Opportunity, but I would like to.
Yes they did, otherwise how else would it be known? And this has nothing to do with Bad Guardian's claims about the first MOC image of Cydonia. I hope you are not trying to hijack this thread.

Jon
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 22-December-2007, 07:34 AM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default Which claim do you think requires additional evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
Bad Guardian has posted no evidence to support his claim.
Which claim?

This discussion has suffered some confusion, probably because we were discussing different images.

Which claim do you think requires additional evidence?

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.

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!

3. The use of bogus data in a press release, whether accidental or deliberate, is Bad Astronomy.

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.

5. Deciding not to issue a retraction, when you learn that you've used bogus data in a press release, is Bad Astronomy.

6. Conclusion: Fight fair. Don't cut corners, don't cheat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
I hope you are not trying to hijack this thread.
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, because he said it best:

Quote:
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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 22-December-2007, 09:58 AM
JonClarke JonClarke is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 22-December-2007, 12:23 PM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default Are you still looking at the wrong image?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
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.
Jon, either you're still looking at the wrong image, or you've been misunderstanding everything I've been writing.

I've been writing about the processing that was applied to the image _after_ it was sent back to Earth. Normal 3D shading cues, which were _present_ in the image that was returned by the spacecraft, were _absent_ in the image that was used in the press release.

Please look at the animation attached to this message. One frame is the image that was returned by the spacecraft (with left/right inversion corrected, and contrast normalized) and the other frame is the image that was used in the press release. I've applied a simple streak removal algorithm, and 50% scale reduction, to both frames.

When you watch this animation, I'm sure that you'll see how the normal 3D shading cues have been suppressed.

--------
Update, 1/15/2008: I've uploaded a full-size version of this animation, with labels identifying the frames, to an image host which doesn't have a file size limit:

(before-after.gif, 512x480 pixels, 2 frames, 532,569 bytes, sha1sum 6020a9d54b876cff135ab8fd09bff0a5668f1e2e)

http://s2.supload.com/free/before-af...3559.gif/view/

.
Attached Thumbnails
fighting-bad-astronomy-bad-astronomy-before-after.gif  

Last edited by Bad. Guardian; 15-January-2008 at 01:13 PM.. Reason: added update, with link to full-size animation.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 22-December-2007, 02:57 PM
aurora's Avatar
aurora aurora is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
When you watch this animation, I'm sure that you'll see how the normal 3D shading cues have been suppressed.
I see two different amounts of shading. In both images, it is quite clear to me that the object is a hill with irregular (and, between the images, matching) topography. Both images have shadows that indicated the hill is in fact really a hill with a change in elevation.

In reading this thread, I have to say I am unable to discern why you are in such a twist about this. Seems to me like you are trying to make something out of nothing, which makes me think you must have some sort of agenda.
__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 22-December-2007, 05:08 PM
djellison djellison is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
NASA did not publish the fact Spirit was within a whisker of failure when it safely landed on Mars. I don't know what the margins were for Opportunity, but I would like to.
Sorry to steer this away from the subject - but I can not let that comment go unchecked. The 'whisker of failure' is, in my opinion, an exaggeration started mainly by Bruce Moomaw, an occasional space writer who wanted to sex up a story.

The IMU data for both landings has been on the PDS, along with the MPF IMU data, for several years.

There are also many reports regarding MER EDL on the JPL Technical Reports server - just a few extracts from one paper in particular

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/37788
Quote:
"Current numerical models for this canopy type were validated to the variation ranges assumed. The drag coefficient for this type DGB is within the range of 0.38 to 0.52, including all sources. The deployments occurred at dynamic pressures between 730 and 764 Pa at a Mach number from 1.71 to 1.94. However, uncertainty in atmospheric properties suggest that the dynamic pressure could have been as high as 842 Pa or as low as 656 Pa. Peak inflation loads were difficult to assess from returned data and are assumed to be well within the limits suggested by pre-landing analyses (64.5 kN)"
and the rather interesting results from EDL reconstruction. Spirit First, underlined, Opportunity Second, italics - there are the facts you said you wanted to see - they've been available for more than two years - the raw IMU data for more than 3.

Quote:
..
Time from Entry (s) – Pre-Flight Analysis 3σ Range6
237.3-253.8
234.5-249.7
Time from Entry (s) – Reconstruction
251
250

...

TERMINAL DESCENT
Velocity at RAD Initiation (m/s) – Pre-Flight Analysis 3σ Range6
61.6-84.5
61.4-84.1
Velocity at RAD Initiation (m/s) – Reconstruction
67.4
71.2
Parachute CD at RAD Initiation – Pre-Flight Assumption
0.384-0.488A
Parachute CD at RAD Initiation – Reconstruction
0.52
0.43
Notice that the often repeated ' the chute opened late, but the mission was saved because the chute overperformed ' story is not born out by facts. The chute was predicted to open 237.3 to 253.8 seconds after entry, and opened 251 seconds after entry. The long end of, but within predictions. Spirits 'chute does appear to have overperformed - but the deployment was not 'late' - indeed, a first order analysis would suggest that Opportunity was the one that was 'late' (by 0.3 seconds outside a 15.2 second predicted window)

I'd also recommend http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/38898

This is an example of a rumor, a hint of something, turning into a widely held belief because people can not be bothered to get out and find the FACTS of the situation. A lesson that could well be exercised in the case of the old MOC Cydonia image. The full story of what processing was done, when, and why, is out there. Some people just refuse to read it or refuse to believe it when it deflates their over inflated desire for conspiracy and the need to be, to mal-quote Jim Oberg 'Cultural Vandals'

No shading has been subdued. What you are comparing is an image published to the PDS after careful calibration and processing - to a rapidly processed and stretched, uncalibrated, raw image that MSSS put online as rapidly as possible to appease the conspiracists. No corners were cut - the fact that you have the fully calibrated imagery from which to work proves that.

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 23-December-2007, 01:24 AM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default That's an extraordinary claim!

Quote:
Originally Posted by djellison View Post
No shading has been subdued. What you are comparing is an image published to the PDS after careful calibration and processing - to a rapidly processed and stretched, uncalibrated, raw image that MSSS put online as rapidly as possible to appease the conspiracists.
Doug, your claim above contradicts everything I've read on every other web site, including JPL's web site. Before I begin to debate it, I want to ask you a question; your answer will clarify whether you really intended to make that extraordinary claim.

The first frames in both of my animations above, catbconv.gif and before-after.gif, are from the image named cydonia1.tif, downloaded from http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/.

Did you really intend to make the claim that cydonia1.tif is NOT the raw image that was received from the spacecraft, and was subsequently processed by MIPL and by Tim J. Parker?

What is your evidence for this extraordinary claim?
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 23-December-2007, 09:35 AM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default The suppression is selective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aurora View Post
I see two different amounts of shading.
aurora, I think that you and Jon may have misunderstood what I meant when I wrote that "Normal 3D shading cues were aggressively suppressed."

What I meant by "normal 3D shading cues" was this: large-scale variations in brightness, which allow a normal human visual system to perform a kind of "shape from shading" process, and thus perceive the three-dimensional shape of the landform.

What I meant by "aggressively suppressed" is that these large-scale variations in brightness, which serve a very important purpose in helping a normal human viewer to perceive the 3D shape of the landform, were _selectively_ eliminated from the image. Smaller-scale variations, which help the viewer to perceive the shape of small lumps and boulders, but which do not help the viewer to perceive the overall 3D shape of the landform, were _not_ eliminated from the image.

To help you understand this, I'm attaching a new animation to this message. This animation was prepared in the same way as "before-after.gif" above, except that instead of including the entire image reduced in size, this time I've extracted only a small square, and highlighted an important 3D feature.

This animation shows a small lump or boulder (informally known as "the teardrop"), and the approximately level surface (or "platform") on which it lies, and the slope below the platform, and the approximately level plain below the slope. The slope is highlighted.

If you look at the animation, you'll notice that in the original raw image the platform is brighter than the level plain, and much brighter than the slope. This phenomenon is of course caused by the position of the sun in the sky, and by the shape of the landform. This large-scale variation in brightness helps the normal human viewer to perceive the 3D shape of the platform, and the slope, and the plain.

When you look at the animation, you'll also notice that in the image that was used in the press release, the difference in brightness between the platform and slope and plain has been very aggressively suppressed. There's almost no difference. It's much more difficult for a normal human viewer to perceive the platform, and the slope, and the level plain.

Does this suppression result from a simple reduction in contrast?

No!

Look at the "teardrop." Like other small lumps and boulders in the image, the teardrop's 3D shading cues are actually _more_ prominently visible in the press release image than they were in the original raw image that was returned by the spacecraft.

In summary: the overall shape of the landform was suppressed, while the shape of individual lumps and boulders was enhanced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aurora View Post
In reading this thread, I have to say I am unable to discern why you are in such a twist about this. Seems to me like you are trying to make something out of nothing, which makes me think you must have some sort of agenda.
No hidden agenda. I had an interesting result in forensic image analysis, and wanted to share it. Contemplation of the implications of that result led to an interesting object lesson in the Ethics of Bad Astronomy, so I decided to share it here.

Most of my followups in this thread have just been clarifications for people who are confused about the basic facts, e.g. which image was returned by the spacecraft, and which image was used in the "catbox" press release.

Trying to make something out of nothing? Pshaw, I'm only doing what this site was designed for. We find clueless misrepresentations of real astronomical data, and we criticise them mercilessly. Right?
Attached Thumbnails
fighting-bad-astronomy-bad-astronomy-before-after-slope.gif  
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 23-December-2007, 10:42 AM
djellison djellison is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
Does this suppression result from a simple reduction in contrast?
Does it result from the rapid release of uncalibrated, quickly processed data.

Yes.


Doug
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 23-December-2007, 10:55 AM
JonClarke JonClarke is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
What I meant by "normal 3D shading cues" was this: large-scale variations in brightness, which allow a normal human visual system to perform a kind of "shape from shading" process, and thus perceive the three-dimensional shape of the landform.

What I meant by "aggressively suppressed" is that these large-scale variations in brightness, which serve a very important purpose in helping a normal human viewer to perceive the 3D shape of the landform, were _selectively_ eliminated from the image. Smaller-scale variations, which help the viewer to perceive the shape of small lumps and boulders, but which do not help the viewer to perceive the overall 3D shape of the landform, were _not_ eliminated from the image.
The primary image is low in contrast, but this does not mean to say that they selectively removed. Given the hazy atmosphere and the high sun angle the image is naturally and inevitably lacking in contrast with small shadows. The effect of the processing has been the opposite to what you claim. A low contrast image has had that increased.

Note that using the expressions "aggresively suppressed" and selectively eliminated" implies deliberate distortion by the people do did the processing. This is a very serious accusation of intellectual dishonesty and you musst substantiate it. So faar you have not done this, only expressed your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
To help you understand this, I'm attaching a new animation to this message. This animation was prepared in the same way as "before-after.gif" above, except that instead of including the entire image reduced in size, this time I've extracted only a small square, and highlighted an important 3D feature.

This animation shows a small lump or boulder (informally known as "the teardrop"), and the approximately level surface (or "platform") on which it lies, and the slope below the platform, and the approximately level plain below the slope. The slope is highlighted.

If you look at the animation, you'll notice that in the original raw image the platform is brighter than the level plain, and much brighter than the slope. This phenomenon is of course caused by the position of the sun in the sky, and by the shape of the landform. This large-scale variation in brightness helps the normal human viewer to perceive the 3D shape of the platform, and the slope, and the plain.
When you look at the animation, you'll also notice that in the image that was used in the press release, the difference in brightness between the platform and slope and plain has been very aggressively suppressed. There's almost no difference. It's much more difficult for a normal human viewer to perceive the platform, and the slope, and the level plain.

Does this suppression result from a simple reduction in contrast?

No!

Look at the "teardrop." Like other small lumps and boulders in the image, the teardrop's 3D shading cues are actually _more_ prominently visible in the press release image than they were in the original raw image that was returned by the spacecraft.

In summary: the overall shape of the landform was suppressed, while the shape of individual lumps and boulders was enhanced.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I don't find the animation useful. It's of too small an area, the extact context of each sub part is not clear, and it is not obvious which processed frames have beeen used.

What would be better a side by side comparison of the different images with labels highlighting the differences between them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
I had an interesting result in forensic image analysis, and wanted to share it. Contemplation of the implications of that result led to an interesting object lesson in the Ethics of Bad Astronomy, so I decided to share it here.
Unfortunately your "forensic image analysis" is simply wrong. Your "reconstructed" a processing methology has no relation to what was actually used and your claim that contrast was suppressed is contrary to the simple fact that contrast enhanced. In faact, almost nothing can be seen in the raw image.

The cropped raw MOC image can be seen at http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/...elease/raw.gif . Vastly more detail is visible in the image as processed by MIPL http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/targe...ydonia1c-s.gif , as well as those by Parker and MSSS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
Most of my followups in this thread have just been clarifications for people who are confused about the basic facts, e.g. which image was returned by the spacecraft, and which image was used in the "catbox" press release.
Not confused at all as to which basic image was being referred to, MOC2-41.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
Trying to make something out of nothing? Pshaw, I'm only doing what this site was designed for. We find clueless misrepresentations of real astronomical data, and we criticise them mercilessly. Right?
Let's see, so far you have been show links with the following facts:

Observing conditions were well below par.

The actual processing of the image used by MIPL, MSSS and Tim Parker

The original, image, washed out because of the poor observing conditions, was processed to enhance contrast enhanced, not supress it.

Since you don't appear to have taken any of these facts on board, I advise you to be careful who you call clueless, especially when passing judgement on people and groups of the calibre of the MIPL, Tim Parker, and MSSS.

Note that the different processed versions of the same image were all available on the same day. That's honest, showing different ways of processing the same data and letting people shose which one they prefer.

Jon
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 23-December-2007, 01:16 PM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default Sentence-by-sentence response

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
The primary image is low in contrast, but this does not mean to say that they selectively removed. Given the hazy atmosphere and the high sun angle the image is naturally and inevitably lacking in contrast with small shadows.
Jon, it doesn't make sense to attempt to use circumstances on Mars, e.g. haze and sun angle, to explain changes which occurred _after_ the image was received on Earth.

Quote:
The effect of the processing has been the opposite to what you claim. A low contrast image has had that increased.
You seem to be making the mistake of trying to view the "raw" image without first normalizing its contrast. The human visual system isn't well adapted for viewing images composed of pixels whose values are crowded together in the middle of the histogram. If you want to understand the processing that was applied to the image, you'll need to normalize the contrast of the raw image, before comparing it visually to the processed image. (In fact you won't need to normalize the contrast yourself, because I've already done it for you, in all the images that I've uploaded.)

Quote:
Note that using the expressions "aggresively suppressed" and selectively eliminated" implies deliberate distortion by the people do did the processing.
The word "selectively" bears no such connotation. Non-human processes can be selective in their effects. However, I can understand how you could misinterpret my use of the word "aggressively." You may consider that word retracted, and replaced with "severely."

Quote:
Sorry, I don't find the animation useful. It's of too small an area, the extact context of each sub part is not clear,
If the cropped version (before-after-slope.gif) shows too small an area for you, you can look at the uncropped version (before-after.gif). They are the same animation, except that one has been scaled down 50%, while the other has been left at 100% but cropped and highlighted.

Quote:
and it is not obvious which processed frames have beeen used.
The first frame (in both animations) is from cydonia1.tif, the image that was returned by the spacecraft (with left/right inversion corrected, and contrast normalized). The second frame is from cydonia1c-s.gif, the image that was used in the press release. I've applied a simple streak removal algorithm to both frames.

Quote:
What would be better a side by side comparison of the different images with labels highlighting the differences between them.
I'm attaching for you a side by side comparison, with a highlight showing the exact location where "before-after-slope.gif" was extracted. The left image is from the spacecraft, the right image is from the press release. Minimal processing has been applied, as in the two before-after animations, described above.

Quote:
Unfortunately your "forensic image analysis" is simply wrong. Your "reconstructed" a processing methology has no relation to what was actually used
No, my analysis is not wrong. Whether they knew it or not, they used the "catbox convolution" that I described in my first two articles in this thread.

Quote:
and your claim that contrast was suppressed is contrary to the simple fact that contrast enhanced. In faact, almost nothing can be seen in the raw image.
Almost nothing can be seen, because you're trying to view the "raw" image without first normalizing its contrast. Don't try to do that; your human visual system simply isn't equipped for that task.

Quote:
The cropped raw MOC image can be seen at http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/...elease/raw.gif . Vastly more detail is visible in the image as processed by MIPL http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/targe...ydonia1c-s.gif , as well as those by Parker and MSSS.
This is because all three (MIPL and Parker and MSSS) normalized the contrast. You need to do the same.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
Most of my followups in this thread have just been clarifications for people who are confused about the basic facts, e.g. which image was returned by the spacecraft, and which image was used in the "catbox" press release.
Not confused at all as to which basic image was being referred to, MOC2-41.
That clause of that sentence was meant to refer to someone else, not to you. I apologise for the misunderstanding.

Quote:
Let's see, so far you have been show links with the following facts:

Observing conditions were well below par.
True, but irrelevant. Observing conditions on Mars cannot explain changes which occurred _after_ the image was received on Earth.

Quote:
The actual processing of the image used by MIPL, MSSS and Tim Parker
The published description of MIPL's processing was vague; it wasn't detailed enough to allow outside people to replicate the effect exactly. My description of one part of their processing (the part that "flattened" the landform) is 100% explicit; it includes enough detail (even source code) to allow anyone to replicate the effect exactly.

Quote:
The original, image, washed out because of the poor observing conditions, was processed to enhance contrast enhanced, not supress it.
All images are contrast-normalized before publication. The "catbox" image, however, had another very important processing step, which selectively _suppressed_ all large-scale brightness variations, applied to it before its contrast was normalized.

Quote:
Since you don't appear to have taken any of these facts on board,
I know the facts, and have known them since before I initiated this thread.

Quote:
I advise you to be careful who you call clueless, especially when passing judgement on people and groups of the calibre of the MIPL, Tim Parker, and MSSS.
Thank you for your advice. I stand by my use of the word "clueless" in reference to that particular image.

Quote:
Note that the different processed versions of the same image were all available on the same day. That's honest, showing different ways of processing the same data and letting people shose which one they prefer.
That is well and good. But one of those images, which was very widely published in mass media around the world, was extremely deceptive. Its creation and dissemination were Bad Astronomy. The failure to retract it was Bad Astronomy.
Attached Thumbnails
fighting-bad-astronomy-bad-astronomy-side-side.gif  
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 23-December-2007, 06:15 PM
aurora's Avatar
aurora aurora is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post

That is well and good. But one of those images, which was very widely published in mass media around the world, was extremely deceptive. Its creation and dissemination were Bad Astronomy. The failure to retract it was Bad Astronomy.
I disagree.

The two images that you are up in arms about show exactly the same features.

It makes no difference which image you show to someone.

Therefore, it was not "extremely deceptive".

The rest is unimportant.
__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 23-December-2007, 11:50 PM
JonClarke JonClarke is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 3,210
Default

[
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
Jon, it doesn't make sense to attempt to use circumstances on Mars, e.g. haze and sun angle, to explain changes which occurred _after_ the image was received on Earth.
I agree, but the basic image is hazy, has short diffuse shadows, and low contrast and was taken off axis, all of which are due to the conditions under which it was obtained. Processing can greatly improve on this, but cannot eliminate it entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
You seem to be making the mistake of trying to view the "raw" image without first normalizing its contrast. The human visual system isn't well adapted for viewing images composed of pixels whose values are crowded together in the middle of the histogram. If you want to understand the processing that was applied to the image, you'll need to normalize the contrast of the raw image, before comparing it visually to the processed image. (In fact you won't need to normalize the contrast yourself, because I've already done it for you, in all the images that I've uploaded.)
If you normalise contrast you are no longer looking at a raw image, but a processed one. The raw image is this one: http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/...elease/raw.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
The word "selectively" bears no such connotation. Non-human processes can be selective in their effects. However, I can understand how you could misinterpret my use of the word "aggressively." You may consider that word retracted, and replaced with "severely."
But we are not dealing with non human processes are we? We are dealing with image processing that is done by people. When you write “selectively eliminated" in this context then there is the clear meaning that this was done deliberately. “severely eliminated” does not get you out of it, because once again we are dealing with deliberate actions by the image processes. If the contrast is suppressed, it is because the processes have deliberately suppressed it. But they have not. When you look at http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/ the MIPL image is captioned “Contrast enhanced”, a fact that is obvious when comparing it to the raw image. Are you accusing them of lying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
If the cropped version (before-after-slope.gif) shows too small an area for you, you can look at the uncropped version (before-after.gif). They are the same animation, except that one has been scaled down 50%, while the other has been left at 100% but cropped and highlighted.

The first frame (in both animations) is from cydonia1.tif, the image that was returned by the spacecraft (with left/right inversion corrected, and contrast normalized). The second frame is from cydonia1c-s.gif, the image that was used in the press release. I've applied a simple streak removal algorithm to both frames.

I'm attaching for you a side by side comparison, with a highlight showing the exact location where "before-after-slope.gif" was extracted. The left image is from the spacecraft, the right image is from the press release. Minimal processing has been applied, as in the two before-after animations, described above.
Thank you, that is very helpful and makes it much easier to compare. It is not a case that one is the raw image and the other processed, both are processed, the left hand image is by Parker, the right hand by MIPL. Those these images were released together by JPL. In the same press release.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
No, my analysis is not wrong. Whether they knew it or not, they used the "catbox convolution" that I described in my first two articles in this thread.
What do you mean when you say “Whether they knew it or not, they used the "catbox convolution" that I described in my first two articles in this thread.” Are you accusing them of not understanding what they are doing? This link, which we have both used, lays out the processing they did.

(1) The image is sized down by interpolation by a factor of two to reduce some of the noise.

(2) A long, narrow high-pass filter is applied in a vertical orientation to help reduce some of the instrument signature. This signature is seen as the streaking that is noticeable in the original data.

(3) A long, narrow low-pass filter is applied in a horizontal orientation to create an intensity average for the image.

(4) The results of these filtering operations are then stretched to approximate a Gaussian distribution.

(5) The results of the high-pass and low-pass processing steps are averaged together to form the final product.

(6) The image is flipped about the vertical axis to correct for the camera orientation.


Since this bears not relation to what you say they did: a very simple 1x31 convolution, are you accusing MIPL of lying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
Almost nothing can be seen, because you're trying to view the "raw" image without first normalizing its contrast. Don't try to do that; your human visual system simply isn't equipped for that task.
I am not trying to. I am pointing to it to illustrate the extremely low contrast in the original images and how all the processed examples improve on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
This is because all three (MIPL and Parker and MSSS) normalized the contrast. You need to do the same.
So you admit the MIPL normalised contrast? This means that the contrast is enhanced, but suppressed. This is quite contrary to what you claim they have done.

So you also admit that the Parker image is processed? This is not consistent with your use of it as representing the raw image in your thumb nails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
The published description of MIPL's processing was vague; it wasn't detailed enough to allow outside people to replicate the effect exactly. My description of one part of their processing (the part that "flattened" the landform) is 100% explicit; it includes enough detail (even source code) to allow anyone to replicate the effect exactly.
Why would they do this? It can’t be a simple typo, leaving out an additional step, as we know that JPL corrected typos, as the amended release of the 7/4/98 shows.

So in your opinion not only are they lying, they are with-holding information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
All images are contrast-normalized before publication. The "catbox" image, however, had another very important processing step, which selectively _suppressed_ all large-scale brightness variations, applied to it before its contrast was normalized.
And I am supposed to believe this do this, based on your say so?

Why would they do this anyway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
I know the facts, and have known them since before I initiated this thread.
Unfortunately your “facts” are not very factual. You use the Parker image as the raw image, when it is highly processed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
Thank you for your advice. I stand by my use of the word "clueless" in reference to that particular image.
So MSS, Parker and MIPL are all clueless as well as dishonest liars?

And your expertise for passing judgement on them is what, exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
That is well and good. But one of those images, which was very widely published in mass media around the world, was extremely deceptive. Its creation and dissemination were Bad Astronomy. The failure to retract it was Bad Astronomy.
So you don’t like the MIPL processed image, that is your prerogative. All three images processed images were released on the same day, two (MIPL and Parker) in the same press release. It is not JPL’s fault that the media used the image you don’t like. Take it up with them.

Jon
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 24-December-2007, 02:46 AM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default You need to understand which image is which.

Jon, I'm afraid that you're still confused about the most basic fact in this discussion: i.e. which image is which.

You wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
It is not a case that one is the raw image and the other processed, both are processed, the left hand image is by Parker, the right hand by MIPL.
And:

Quote:
So you also admit that the Parker image is processed? This is not consistent with your use of it as representing the raw image in your thumb nails.
And:

Quote:
Unfortunately your “facts” are not very factual. You use the Parker image as the raw image, when it is highly processed.
Jon, you still don't understand which image is which.

So far I've uploaded four images: three animations and one side-by-side. In all four of these images, the first frame is from cydonia1.tif, which was _not_ created by Tim J. Parker.

The forum server automatically uses the first frame of each animation to create a "thumbnail," therefore all four thumbnails are from cydonia1.tif, which is _not_ Tim J. Parker's enhancement.

There isn't a single pixel, in any one of my images or their corresponding thumbnails, derived in any way from Tim J. Parker's enhancement.

If we want to have an intelligent discussion about this subject, we really need to have all participants understand which image is which!

Quote:
But we are not dealing with non human processes are we? We are dealing with image processing that is done by people. When you write “selectively eliminated" in this context then there is the clear meaning that this was done deliberately.
My use of the phrase "selectively suppressed" was intended to make no statement about deliberate intent. As I wrote in my first message in this thread, I claim no knowledge about whether the creation and selection of the deceptive image was deliberate, or accidental.

Which word or phrase would you prefer me to use, instead of "selectively?"

Quote:
What do you mean when you say “Whether they knew it or not, they used the "catbox convolution" that I described in my first two articles in this thread.” Are you accusing them of not understanding what they are doing?
When you use computer software, are you always aware of the exact algorithms being used?

The person who used the software was probably not the same person who wrote the software.

Quote:
(2) A long, narrow high-pass filter is applied in a vertical orientation to help reduce some of the instrument signature. This signature is seen as the streaking that is noticeable in the original data.
Quote:
Since this bears not relation to what you say they did: a very simple 1x31 convolution, are you accusing MIPL of lying?
Step #2 above is the one that "bears relation." The person who wrote that text described the "very simple 1x31 convolution" as a "long, narrow high-pass filter." The convolution does, indeed, eliminate the vertical streaks, just as stated in #2. But it has several other effects which are not stated in #2. As I wrote in my first message in this thread, the convolution also "destroys real 3D shading cues, and creates false shading cues, and gives the surrounding flat land a 'grainy' texture, and creates 'false shadows' above and below a small bright feature near the east edge of the image."

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
This is because all three (MIPL and Parker and MSSS) normalized the contrast. You need to do the same.
So you admit the MIPL normalised contrast?
Of course. It's nearly impossible for human eyes to see anything in the raw images, if you don't normalize the contrast.

Quote:
This is quite contrary to what you claim they have done.
You've misunderstood what I've claimed. Large-scale brightness variations were selectively suppressed, and then, after this selective suppression was performed, the contrast was normalized.

Quote:
And I am supposed to believe this do this, based on your say so?
No, I don't expect you to accept my "say so." I expect you to look at the images that I've attached, and see the effects with your own eyes. Then, if you suspect that I might have faked the images, I expect you to download cydonia1.tif and process it yourself, using the convolution that I described, so that you can see the effects with your own eyes, without any need to trust my "say so."

But, of course, you first need to understand which image is which!

Quote:
Why would they do this anyway?
I don't know. Perhaps it was just an accident.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad. Guardian View Post
Thank you for your advice. I stand by my use of the word "clueless" in reference to that particular image.
So MSS, Parker and MIPL are all clueless as well as dishonest liars?
No, I was referring only to the MIPL image.

Quote:
All three images processed images were released on the same day, two (MIPL and Parker) in the same press release.
I thought that the original press release was issued _before_ 5:30 PM, when Tim J. Parker's image was posted. Can you provide a link that says that there was no press release before 5:30 PM?

Quote:
It is not JPL’s fault that the media used the image you don’t like. Take it up with them.
When you learn that you've released bogus data, you should issue an apology and retraction. It doesn't matter if you also released some correct data, on the same day, or even in the same press release. You still need to retract the bogus data.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 24-December-2007, 06:55 AM
The Bad Astronomer's Avatar
The Bad Astronomer The Bad Astronomer is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,634
Default

This is an interesting discussion, and it has two prongs:

1) Was the face image downplayed through processing (whether deliberate or not)? and

2) What do you do if you find out a press release was wrong/misleading?

The answer to the second one is easy: you retract it. First, you make absolutely 100% sure you need to retract, because if you do retract then later find out you were right in the first place, you've made things far, far worse. It gets too confusing for people to follow.

This may weaken your argument. Oh well, that's reality for you. We have to take it, lumps and all.

Now, as to the first part: I am not entirely convinced the image was processed in a way as to reduce its "faciness". It doesn't look like a face in either the raw or the processed data. It would be interesting to find out exactly how it was processed, and reproduce it.

Of course I have no idea what the folks at JPL were thinking when they did the processing (I don't know what they were thinking at NASA when they went out of their way to get an image of the landform at all; that was really dumb). I've worked on image processing for years, and making something ready for analysis is very different then prettifying it for a public release. I have no real stake in this issue (since I know that it's not a face), so it would again be interesting to know how it was processed, and why they chose that method. But to be clear, I am unconvinced the processing done made it look less like a face than it would anyway.
__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 24-December-2007, 07:38 AM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default That image isn't exactly raw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonClarke View Post
Jon, that image (*) isn't exactly raw. It has undergone some processing. It's been cropped, of course, and also its brightness values have been changed destructively. The pixels in raw.gif have only 41 different brightness values, while the corresponding pixels (the 4,513th through 5,632nd rows) in cydonia1.tif have 53 different brightness values. Twelve values have been removed. I'm attaching for you a graph of the algorithm (a non-invertible integer function) that someone used to create raw.gif.

I'm posting this followup, not because I believe that the slight alteration that was done to raw.gif has any practical importance, but instead because I think that we should try to be extremely clear about which images are raw, and which images have been processed.

(*) sha1sum ("raw.gif") == "6cc5bb505aae76422b9040ab4ddc226264aff32d"
Attached Thumbnails
fighting-bad-astronomy-bad-astronomy-cydonia1-tif-vs-raw-gif.gif  
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 24-December-2007, 09:00 AM
Bad. Guardian's Avatar
Bad. Guardian Bad. Guardian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 38
Default

Hi Dr. Plait, thank you for answering. I'm glad you agree that it can be important to retract a misleading press release, even when the retraction can be expected to bolster some Bad Astronomy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer View Post
Now, as to the first part: I am not entirely convinced the image was processed in a way as to reduce its "faciness". It doesn't look like a face in either the raw or the processed data.
To me, subjectively, the raw image shows only about 10% as much "faciness" as the Viking images. But the processed image shows only about 1%, so this would be a tenfold decrease in "faciness."

Of course we can't have a reasonable debate about "faciness percentages;" it's much too subjective.

How about this: for the sake of discussion, we could agree to assume that the image has 0% "faciness," both before and after processing.

I would argue that even if the raw image has no "faciness" at all, it still is Bad Astronomy to "flatten" a landform, and the processed image still should have been retracted.

Quote:
It would be interesting to find out exactly how it was processed, and reproduce it.
I would very much like to have an opportunity to convince you that I have indeed identified the exact algorithm, and reproduced it.

It would be extremely helpful if you could see the convolution animation at 100% scale, rather than 22%. Can I e-mail it to you? It's a 3 megabyte GIF file.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 24-December-2007, 09:44 AM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Not sure if this will help or simply fan a flame. While I do see differences in contrast, shadow, brightness etc between the pictures, I don't see enough difference to make me think anyone at NASA is trying to say there isn't a hill.

It may be a trick of the eye that's causing you so much trouble. It is hard for me to tell sometimes, because I spend a lot of time both at work and on the weekends looking at maps like on these pages.

To be specific, compare a shaded topo map to an unshaded one. The difference is quite drastic.

How it applies is this. From time to time it is necessary for me to teach people how to use these maps as part of my work. With a little explanation, most people can work out the basics of a non-shaded map, but it is not unusual for people to struggle with "seeing" the hills and valleys right away. The concept is there, but the practice is not.

Other times I have started with a shaded version. The shaded version adds shadows that make the relief jump right out at you. No practice needed.

Reading through this series of posts, I suspect this may be the root of the issue. It is a big deal if data was changed or manipulated--I'm not denying that. I would suspect it's a frustration on your/other people's parts though in seeing it as "severely flattened". Yes, a lot of the visual cues we are used to associating with hills are gone, but I still see what is unmistakably a hill to me. I can't give details on it's size because I have nothing near it for comparison, but it is a hill. Check out those maps and let me know your thoughts.

*Obviously there are no contour lines on the photo, but draw them in with your minds eye using the visual data that IS present and you may be pleasantly surprised.

And if I'm wrong? Well, then I'm wrong. It's just a suggestion.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 24-December-2007, 09:46 AM
man on the moon's Avatar
man on the moon man on the moon is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: depends on the day
Posts: 872
Default

So I just tried posting and it wouldn't work...then I was informed I had to wait for a moderator to approve it? If my name isn't on it (I was having issues with the log in) I claim the post with the topo stuff.
__________________
None to speak of
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 24-December-2007, 10:38 AM
djellison djellison is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,618
Default

MIPL
"Image Processing Steps:

(1) The image is sized down by interpolation by a factor of two to
reduce some of the noise.

(2) A long, narrow high-pass filter is applied in a vertical orientation
to help reduce some of the instrument signature. This signature is seen
as the streaking that is noticeable in the original data.

(3) A long, narrow low-pass filter is applied in a horizontal orientation
to create an intensity average for the image.

(4) The results of these filtering operations are the stretched to
approximate a Gaussian distribution.

(5) The results of the high-pass and low-pass processing steps are
averaged together to form the final product.

(6) The image is flipped about the vertical axis to correct for the
camera orientation."

Parker
"Image Processing Steps:

(1) Vertical banding in raw image removed using Vicar software with long,
narrow, highpass box filter, oriented parallel to banding in image.

(2) Performed moderate histogram stretch in Adobe Photoshop on
Macintosh desktop computer.

(3) "Flattened" broad shading variations in scene by
copying image and creating a "mask" in Photoshop with
the shading inverted with respect to the original image. This mask
was then merged with original scene and a second histogram stretch performed.

(4) Physically stretched image in Photoshop in direction perpendicular
to the narrow dimension of foreshortened craters by 151.25% in order to
approximate an orthographic view of the scene."

"RAW IMAGE POSTED - April 6, 1998 10:30 AM Pacific Daylight Savings Time
JPL MIPL CONTRAST ENHANCED IMAGE POSTED - April 6, 1998 1:45 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time
JPL TJP CONTRAST ENHANCED IMAGE POSTED - April 6, 1998 5:30 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time"

So - for 3 hrs 45 minutes - a rapidly processed image was published using their automated processes (which given they were not in a final mapping orbit was not yet perfected). Then, that afternoon, after Tim sat down and figured out the best manual technique - a better version was released. All the while, the raw data as recorded by MOC was published anyway, so anyone could have a go at processing it themselves.

Where's the crime, exactly? The raw image was there for all to see from the outset. And unless you are completely and utterly mad ( and by that I mean that you wake up in the morning and think 'I am an onion' ) - NONE of the posted images - the raw, the MIPL, Tim's - none of them - look like a face and none of them are a false representation of any sort. Because of the pressure that came from on high to take and release these images - fueled by the Hoaglanderati, it was a rushed job and a unique and new image release process that was always going to result in images processed less well than their very best. That MIPL image is not the very best that could be done with the data, but the data was there for other people to try with in the mean time. Does that mean there was an intentional effort to subdue details in any way - no. If they had removed the MIPL image and replaced it with Tim's would there have been a conspiracists uproar - yes.

Doug

Last edited by djellison; 24-December-2007 at 12:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your Astronomy Day Avian Astronomy 2 26-February-2006 05:58 AM
Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Merger Complete. projectorion Bad Astronomy Stories 13 22-October-2005 08:14 AM
Schools with astronomy degrees in the Northeast area of the US... Waco Jesus Astronomy 7 09-September-2005 05:21 AM
Attack of the BA, or Why the Clone's Astronomy wasn't so bad PhantomWolf Small Media at Large 36 23-April-2004 10:29 AM
Bad Astronomy in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Simmo Small Media at Large 54 25-January-2004 02:50 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today