The Free Masons have a pretty funny rebuttal page about Hoagland too-

http://www.masonicinfo.com/hoagland.htm

Of course it's all disinformation since they are really controling the world :P

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

I occasionally do things that require community education work. When we get bombarded with the same questions over and over, we remind ourselves that while stupid is forever, ignorance we can fix.

If people are flooding NASA with questions, it may be because NASA has not communicated well with the public, and needs to take a look at where it could not only do better, but do its utmost best. The hearings into astronaut deaths have shown that as a corporate culture, there are some aspects where they just haven't worked the way they should. While the consequences of failure are not so grave, their interface with the public leaves much to be desired.

I visited the Mars Rovers website today. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/classroom/

When I hear the same questions being asked over and over, I look to see what the FAQ says.

No FAQ on the Mars rovers. I was astounded.

But you know what? It was hard to even find out whether they had one. The search box is two levels in from the front page. In fact, to get to it I finally had to slick on a link at random, to bring up a page one level further down that had it, and that only because I remembered I'd seen one there somewhere. Sure, then I could search for a FAQ. In 736 pages searched, they couldn't think to do that. A FAQ page is not a state-of-the art, cutting edge, usability concept. It is quite unprofessional to omit one under the circumstances.

Take the color issue. Spirit wheels out, takes black and white images, lots of people whose names are on the CD squeak that they thought they were getting color. You'd think that someone would hear about it, and figure it out that they should say something about Opportunity to forestall this happening again. But no, they didn't, and the questions kept coming up again.

Then with the color images came the "true color" issue.

One explanation that peple seem to like is "no digital images are ever 'True Color'. They are all composites. We cannot at present make a digital camera that sees images as the human eye does. "

But millions of people have wielded their camcorders at their kids' birthday parties, and they know that when they look at it afterward the kids don't look like salmon fillets just because the camera doesn't see quite like we do. There was a year to prepare people for this issue, to figure out how to explain complicated optics information in a way the average person can understand. There was a year to let people know _why_ they couldn't manage to both get the filters needed for the science but also show what the human eye would see. Even here, where many posters are far more savvy about that sort of thing, you all had to scramble for explanations. They pay an army of technical writers to take care of this sort of thing.

I ran across a section of NASA/JPL boilerplate that someone turned up regarding press releases. What it boiled down to was refusing to take responsibility for any incorrect information in their press releases. Why the heck not? Out here in the real world we have to be responsible for everything we send out, to make sure it is accurate. What gets them off the hook?

Hoagland doesn't seem to pay attention to constructive criticism. But NASA/JPL ought to have someone who can look at what they put out with more distance, who can pay attention to what the taxpayers who fund them are asking. There's ignorance out there, but it can be fixed.

I heard back from the Principal Investigator of the High Resolution Stereo Camera (!), the instrument which took the "green" pictures. He confirmed my suspicions; the images were put together quickly for the press and are not color balanced accurately. He also said the rocks were "black-bluish" if done correctly. Don Davis said roughly the same thing; grey or blue-black, depending on the circumstances.

But not green.

Again, I'll have more on this later.

8)

Apart from all the really nasty stuff, consider this. The amount of images available from Mars is immense and it will continue to grow at a rate far faster than the handful of professionals can work with. That means that there is a real window here for the ordinary person with a computer, internet link, simple image processing software, plus time and enthusiasm, to make some real discoveries about Mars. There are many such people out there. This could be a real frontier for amateur scientists to make a great contribution. There are many people doing this, and they will become more numerous. Unfortunately they do not seem not looking to the scinetific mainstream as their source of information on how to interpret what they see, but to the nutty fringe. So rather than interesting interpretations on Mar processes, we get people seeing artefacts, vetebrate fossils and other "anomalies" in the images. rather than people working on mineralogy from multi-spectral data, we get arguments about the "true" colour of Mars. People who should know better are being seduced by this stuff.

Jon

Perhaps NASA should include a "human eye" camera on future missions if they don't already. I know it's better to have different frequencies available for spectral analysis. I know it would cost more to add a separate camera for marketing purposes. However, think of the money saved in image-processing for PR and the costs of debunking. Besides, it might bring dividends from the american public and more interest in space flight and therefore, more money into the NASA budget.

Just a thought.

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Narthex, as much as I hate to say it, I agree with you that NASA can be it's own worst enemy at times. I sent them an e-mail suggesting that they have a "donate" button on their website, so that folks can give 'em money if they feel that NASA's not getting enough. Haven't heard word one back from them on it.

The MER website is definitely disappointing. The latest news is often hidden away, the photos are crudely organized and not always up-to-date even though they say they are, and it's hard to dig out general information - as Narthex says, there's no FAQ page.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I'd love to see them do some sort of a map, even a rough one, showing where in the immediate area the rover is going.

Another useful tool would be to occasionally put together some images of local features with information on their actual sizes. Either a scale of some sort, or even pix of common household items would do. It's real easy to lose size perspective working just from the images in isolation.

Narthex…I totally agree with you! =D> NASA has been helpful but mostly overwhelming when looking for quick and easily digestible information. Pictures upon pictures having no clue at times what I am looking at until I come to this board. :x I forget who posted it but I got a map of mars and the areas (interactive too) which was great! =D> Type in Mars Map on the NASA site and you won’t find much helpful information. To very newbie’s (with a big interest) such as me, with no former training or education in science it can be very frustration and confusing. So what’s a newbie to do? Go to the internet.

The internet is a vast tool with a plethora of information. However, not all that is out there is true. How do you distinguish the difference? How do you educate your self with out loosing your mind?! I will admit, when I first heard of Hoagland’s face of Mars…I was AMAZED! ops: He peaked my interest into learning more. The more he gave me, the more I wanted to believe. You just couldn’t help it. Was it true?! Can that be real?! All along I had been perplexed by the abundant amount of information that was given to me and what the real answers were. Now again, go to the NASA site to confirm/dispel any type of Hoagland rumor and you get nothing. No Yea or Nay. So at some point you have to wonder…just who is telling the truth? So you delve in some more until it all becomes a big pile of crap.

So in the end, after endless hours of reading and searching…if you’re lucky, you come upon a board like this. One that wants to inform, teach, and share the good information rather than those OMG fantasy’s that life is out there on Mars. They (Hoagland and goonies) play upon the fact that some of us “weak of mind” types are dying to know…IS THERE LIFE OUT THERE? Because the truth is; in our hearts…that’s what we want.

In thinking about this, I think the best thing to do is perhaps; instead of debating with Hoagland; write NASA. Why give him anymore play? It makes me mad that I’ve been (for a lack of better words) bamboozled all this time. Instead, tell NASA about the things that will better educate the “weak of mind”, such as myself. Have them dispel fact and fiction because, well they don’t and they should. Have an easier to navigate websites and stronger search results as well. To have links to other sites (such as this one) for better points of reference/educational material. I don’t know…my two cents.

Katrina another 'Hyperdimensional Hurricane!?
President has landed ...
It's as if he entire Gulf Coast were obliterated by the worst kind of weapon you can imagine [emphasis added]."
http://www.enterprisemission.com
in just the last few days, we've uncovered compelling new technical information -- specifically, satellite microwave radiometer images of rainfall in Hurricane Rita (known as MIMIC images) -- which provide remarkable additional support for the hypothesis that "someone" is using a currently "unknown technology" to alter both hurricane strength ... and to steer the storms themselves
http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/weblog.htm
Katrina ... More Hints of Another 911? -- Updated
Bearden's thesis (paralleling ours) is that the laws of physics, as presented in the textbooks, are currently incomplete ... in fact, woefully inadequate. And that this "incomplete physics" masks the capability for some to have created terrible "scalar weapons" (paralleling our own independent research into what we've termed "hyperdimensional technologies")

weaponisation of Hurricanes,
has he finally gone bonkers !?

What do you mean "finally"?

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Shhh, the more he says about stuff like this, the more likely he is to lose creditability for all his theories and that's a good thing.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Hello
Just read the ESA Caption taken on their site and to the last sentence ::

Date: 23 Jan 2004
Satellite: Mars Express
Depicts: NASA Spirit Rover Landing Site
Copyright: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin (G. Neukum)
The center of the Gusev crater with the landing site of the NASA Spirit rover marked with a cross. The image was taken by the HRSC instrument in colour and 3D on 16 January 2004 from a height of 320 km. Gusev is a large crater about 160 km in diameter. Scientists believe that the crater was covered by standing water, maybe in the form of a lake, early in the history of Mars. This is a section of a larger picture, accessable as a high resolution download, which covers 60 m from top to bottom. North is at the top. (Note the green colouring is an effect of image processing)

I just realized I was reading a thread from 1.5 years ago...sorry, I thought this was new Hoagland stuff and got excited, but then realized it was old news

But on the bright side, I saw that Archer admitted that he was wrong about something

L8R

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Perhaps NASA should include a "human eye" camera on future missions if they don't already.

There's no such thing. Every camera records its own mix of hue and value. The human eye -- or rather, the brain attached to it -- does a lot of work to make what we see seem real. That's why you can look through pink sunglasses and still discern colors.

I know it would cost more to add a separate camera for marketing purposes. However, think of the money saved in image-processing for PR and the costs of debunking.

NASA doesn't spend much money in debunking. They don't pay attention to most of what Hoagland says. And the conspiracy theorists don't really pay attention to most of what NASA says, so it doesn't matter how much more information NASA provides.

It's more than just raw cost. NASA only has a limited amount of remote scientific capacity and a lot of scientists wanting to use that capacity. There is a lot of competition among scientists to get experiments on board a spacecraft like MER. If NASA said they were going to waste 3 kg of available payload on a camera whose only purpose is to provide pretty pictures of no scientific value, and limited debunking value, then those scientists whose experiments didn't get selected will be very angry.

Besides, it might bring dividends from the american public and more interest in space flight and therefore, more money into the NASA budget.

The American public really has only a fleeting fascination with space. It didn't take them very long to get bored with manned exploration of the moon. The science lobbyists stand a far greater chance of getting more money into NASA's budget these days.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

This is what always makes me laugh about the pseudoscientists like Hoagland. They complain that they aren't allowed direct access to the results for ages, yet they aren't willing to put their hand in their pocket, cme up with a good experiment and get it accepted for addition so they can have the results first. They want to ride on the coat tails of the scientists who have designed the experiments and so they can get the results without the hard work, and then moan when they can't do it.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran