|
| 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. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
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. Last edited by Bad. Guardian; 15-January-2008 at 12:51 PM.. Reason: added update, with link to full-size animation. |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Jon Last edited by JonClarke; 21-December-2007 at 10:59 PM.. |
|
||||
|
Sorry, I guess I should've provided a link to the original deceptive image.
Quote:
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/ |
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
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.. |
|
||||
|
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? |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
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 |
|
||||
|
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? |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Jon |
|
||||
|
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. 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:
|
|
|||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for the hill not looking like a hill, that is your opinion. I can see considerable relief in that image. Quote:
What aspect of this image is invalidated by later images by MOC, THEMIS, HRSC and HiRISE? Quote:
Again, you are making a servious accustation of dishonest, illegal behaviour, which you should substantiate, of withdraw. Quote:
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:
Quote:
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 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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/ . Last edited by Bad. Guardian; 15-January-2008 at 01:13 PM.. Reason: added update, with link to full-size animation. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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? |
|
||||
|
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:
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? |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
Quote:
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 |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
||||||||||||
|
[
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(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:
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. Quote:
So in your opinion not only are they lying, they are with-holding information. Quote:
Why would they do this anyway? Quote:
Quote:
And your expertise for passing judgement on them is what, exactly? Quote:
Jon |
|
||||||||||||||
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Which word or phrase would you prefer me to use, instead of "selectively?" Quote:
The person who used the software was probably not the same person who wrote the software. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But, of course, you first need to understand which image is which! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
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 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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" |
|
||||
|
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:
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 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. |
|
|||
|
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. ![]() |
|
||||
|
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 |
|
|||
|
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.. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |