- Then perhaps she was wrong to assume she saw pine tree's in the image. She sounds ignorant about this aspect of it. She says she will testifiy before congress. (Jail) Well she is accusing NASA of lying ot the pubic on more than one occaison.


Edgar Mitchell also said: "Yes, there have been ET visitations. There have been crashed craft. There have been material and bodies recovered. There has been a certain amount of reverse engineering that has allowed some of these craft, or some components, to be duplicated. And there is some group of people that may or may not be associated with government at this point, but certainly were at one time, that have this knowledge. They have been attempting to conceal this knowledge or not permit it to be widely disseminated….Perhaps a large part of the activity that’s classified as UFO abductions may very well not be due to ET activity at all. I would suspect if any is due to ET activity, it is a rather small part. A larger potion is due to human activity in a very clandestine fashion….People in high level government have very, very little, if any, valid information about this. Most have no more knowledge than the man in the street….[As to] the question, “How could it be kept secret?” It hasn’t been kept secret. It’s been there all along. But it has been the subject of disinformation in order to deflect attention and create confusion so the truth doesn’t come out….I believe it is a very important effort that we get Congressional oversight of all this. So far that hasn’t happened." - Edgar Mitchell.


What photo? She does'nt know the photo number or which one to look for from what I know. No one's looked for it. :wink:

The problem with her "story" as I see it is, is how long ago this was. Combined with the fact that she knows nothing about space imaging. In some way's her stories imperfect nature makes it seem more legitimate.

NASA is everybit as trustworthy as her, for it's nothing but people like her that are NASA. So if she's a liar she worked for NASA.

Perhaps she was wrong? How about she was wrong, and if she was wrong about that, what give her crediblity to the rest of the story? Heck for all you know, while the incident might have occured, the photo tech was merely yanking her chain as to what was in the picture and being done to it. You did know that she was a confirmed UFO nut before working at NASA? That she claims to have had an alien encounter at 25, that she was a UFO contactee counselor, and Associate Director of the UFO Contact Center International (UFOCCI)? Her views on UFO's even before working at NASA were hardly uncommon knowledge so I wouldn't put it past someone to have done it as a joke.

As to her claiming NASA has lied, wow, so has Bill Kaysing, Nancy Lieder, Bart Sibrel, Richard Hoagland, and dozens of others, are they all in jail for calling NASA lairs?

By the way, the quote I have from her on March 23, 1999 has her saying, "I will swear to this in any court of law. I have absolutely no reason to lie or deceive anyone about my experience. I swore about my experience at NASA before Congress, and if I were lying I could be placed in jail." Not that she -would- swear it before congress.

Of course all this doesn't include such fantasy as her claims that aliens caused the Apollo 13 accident to stop them landing on the far side of the moon, somewhere they weren't going anyways, and since the true cause of the incident is known and has nothing to do with aliens....

Why do you think that I used him? He's a UFO nut too, so you could hardly claim that he was lying about the spce missions not having UFO encounters. If I'm pulled Buzz and co out to refute the idea of every mission being chased by UFO's you'd have just claimed they were lying like the rest of NASA. Just because he was correct in saying that the Apollo missions weren't buzzed by aliens, doesn't mean everything he says is correct.

Again, incorrect. A number of people have looked for it, including doing what James Oberg termed "A vigorous search by several ufo buffs for such pictures in NASA's archives." They have never found any sign of anything resembling the described photo.

Her story is more legitimate because it's full of holes that you can fly a UFO through?

Perhaps the real reason is that it happily confirms all the things you want to believe, that UFO's exist and are aliens, that the Government and NASA know and the evil duo are hiding it from the general public, regardless of the errors and idiocicies of it that to any logical and thoughtful person quickly move the story from the real to the fanciful.

By the way, I never said she was a liar, I said she was delusional, totally different thing, but from her past and apparent inablity to determine reality from fantasy, it is an apt description.

[edited to fix typos and reword sentence, now bolded.]

__________________
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

NASA has tens of thousands of employees (probably hundreds of thousands if you count contractors like me). It's ludicrous to pick out any single person amongst such a large population and say that they're all like her.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Slinted, I really would like you visit this site! And then... :P

__________________
-- Jumpjack --

The way you word this makes it seem like JPL is doing something wrong or trying to hide something. I think a better choice of words is that they process the image to remove artifacts in the sky caused by contrast stretching. The colour and appearence remain the same, but unneeded detail in the image is removed.

Which really isn't JPL's fault and can hardly be considered as intentional. Going back to your original post, are you still "disgusted by NASA public images policy" now that the reason behind the pictures has been explained?

I intentionally didn't add any comments, I just wrote what is happening.

It's the same thing, I just used less words.


Obviously no: this is the reason of my last post, of course.

__________________
-- Jumpjack --

And if you think about it for a few minutes, maybe do a little reading up about just what is required to send delicate cameras to Mars, you'll figure out why your suggestion of a $300.00 camera is not well thought-out.

I still don't see anything here that causes one to jump up and down and scream "conspiracy"...

It is, however, always easier to sit back and poke holes in other people's work than to actually do a little research and educate oneself about what the actual science is, what the actual issues are, and what the constraints are before blasting the people who have worked so hard -- and transparently -- to bring us the pics of Mars.

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

So basically if you had taken a minute to look around the forums and find information about what you were looking at, you wouldn't have even had to make your original post.

I'm currently following 5 different Mars forums (including this), and I also read several sites explaining the "true colors" problem.
Nowhere I found anything about the reason of sky-cutting (or "embellishment" if you prefer), only found people complaining about it. So I decided to post my mex in TWO forums, to have some opinions, and I eventually had them: is it a problem for you if I post in some forums to ask people their opinion?

But probably you are just another of those people which didn't read completely my posts, and you are still thinking that my compliant was only about "false-true-color"... :roll:

It's quite curios how 90% of people replied to my posts just to talk me about the true-color problem, just cutting&pasting what they read in some sites, while only a little 10% talked me about the sky-embellishment and tried to explain it... Maybe because it was a too complex problem for them, and there were no sites already made to cut&copy from? [-X

First read, then write. Thx.

__________________
-- Jumpjack --

I used that simple sentence because I don't like reading long posts, and I think the other people don't, too, and anyway it was, IMHO, self explanatory.

Anyway, if you like reading...
A commercial 300$ camera would have been very useful to see which are "true colors" on Mars, as current non-professional digital camera uses one single CCD for the three RGB colors; this does not allow complex image processing, but it would also not allow calibration mistakes: it would be just like going to Mars with your camera, take some snapshots, and then look at them.
But, obviously, a commercial camera cannot be sent to Mars as-is, due to very hard environment conditions before the launch, during the launch, during the travel to Mars, during the landing on Mars, during the mission itself; each mission phase cause several problems to any scientific instruments, due to vibrations, acceleration, temperature changes, unpredictable events, un-maintenability, long-distance remote-control, and so on...
So, only the basic technology of a commercial camera should be used, we CAN'T just send a commercial camera on Mars: we should send a single-CCD-based camera, but the camera should have all the features to survive to all the foreseen (and even un-foreseen) conditions it will find during its mission.
Also, it shouldn't be the ONLY camera sent to Mars, the idea is to send it TOGETHER with highly-professional cameras (just like those ones actually there now).
(Should I go on? Ok...)
Obviously, not only the camera should be designed just for the mission: adding a new instrument to Spirit would require also re-designing the whole spacecraft and the rover, to ensure all the system will work fine: you can't just pick a camera at the local store and attach it to the rover.

Ok, I'm even bored of writing it.... :roll: Is it enough for you? Do you prefer a complete course for Aerospatial Graduation?... Sorry, I have no time to teach to you all about the Space, the Astronomy, the Physics, The Mathematic, the Chemistry a person must know to become a space-product designer; but I could, if just I wanted.

The worst thing all of this story is that The bad astronomer will say that I should moderate my speaking when posting, after reading this post... :roll:

__________________
-- Jumpjack --

I would like to point out (if it hasn't been already) that this whole "NASA is covering up the true Martian sky" bit is completely silly. There is almost no atmosphere on Mars anyway! The place is about as close to a vacuum as you can get. Odds are, it's probably almost black except for the dust floating around. Is it really worth NASA's time to conspire to hide the color of dusty vacuum?

You silly duck! NASA is hiding the UFO's / spacecraft visible in the Martian sky.

Well, yeah, but apart from that...

There was a post or thread here about how commercial cameras don't give "true color" either. I will try to dig it up and post a link.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

All that technical photographic stuff aside ..I can't see how anyone could think that NASA is pushing false-color pics of the Martian sky as fact for the simply reason that such an action would only be delaying the inevitable .. other space agencies transmitting their own images of the Martian sky. One would have to presume no one at NASA considered such an obvious development and/or whatever foreign space agency sends their own hardware to Mars would be party to the same subterfuge.

(If someone else already brought up this point, my apologizies. I leafed thru this thread and didn't see it)

I think you'll find I read your post and didn't 'cut & paste' something I'd read about true-colour off of another site. I didn't even mention the true-colour problem in my post. I addressed your problem with the sky being clean and the raw image being noisy. The reason you got true-colour responses is probably because you also took a dig at JPL for that as well: