Tampering?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />it does present a problem for the casual user of the MSSS website. We're forced to make a decision as to which conclusion we come to. Namely, how do we diffentiate between a mirrored-non-map-projected image, and a non-mirrored-non-map-projected image?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why do you care? The images you are talking about are all intermediaries. They represent neither raw data nor true, map-projected orientations. Why not just ignore them?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What criteria do we use to determine which one is which?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Trust the map-projected image for true orientation, or the unprocessed image for inferred orientation. Then do as the rest of us do with processed-but-not-map-projected images: orient them whatever way is most convenient for the purpose you have in mind. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /> The images you are talking about are all intermediaries. They represent neither raw data nor true, map-projected orientations. Why not just ignore them?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I find that very strange. That they would be willy nilly flipping things around, without rhyme or reason, and calling it "processed", and then leaving it as one of four definitive images of that feature.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
Trust the map-projected image for true orientation<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Trust? But that's true, that is one way to do it. Just assume the map-projected one is correct, and not just some permutation of an unknown starting point. Could be, but I can't really say that would have been my first choice.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Posted by tvanflandern, 21 May 2006: 18:36:18</i>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>In response to, originally posted by Trinket, 13, May 2006: 14:37:15</i>"Every Image ever released has gone thru the JPL Image muting and distortion process.."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
I'm no fan of JPL, but that is just nonsense. They'd be sacked in a heartbeat if they messed with the data. Every spacecraft image is available in raw, completely unprocessed format for anyone who wants it that way. And the processed images follow the formula posted, which uses legitimate image processing techniques except where otherwise noted. The three 1998 Cydonia images were a special assignment by NASA and had their own web site with the recipe used posted there. The raw, unprocessed data is also available, which is how we know what they did to the press release image.""" Tom<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

(Trinket.) You know I can understand if you feel only certain Images are tampered with.. Having a complete faith in the product I find absolutely absurd and feel you may be out of touch.. In a world full of corruption JPL is no oasis..It's 2006 and I find it hard to understand and disheartening why anyone can support this position.. My question would be ? Who exactly is going to sack them in a heartbeat?
Bob

(Response), by tvflandern, Posted - 21 May 2006 : 18:36:18<br /> No, I feel certain no image has ever been tampered with. That would be destruction of public property and lead to criminal charges, as well as the possible loss of a billion dollars a year for JPL's budget. And no scientist would ever agree to participate in such a thing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(Trinket); Having a complete faith in the product I find absolutely absurd and feel you may be out of touch..

(Tom’s reply); I appreciate that you must feel that way, because that is precisely how your suggestion strikes me. I've worked at JPL as an independent contractor in 1971, and went to graduate school with some fellow astronomers who are now JPL employees. Nobody I know would ever get mixed up in such a harebrained, illegal, and dangerous endeavor. Indeed, it seems without purpose. What would even make you suspect such a thing?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, I certainly do not speak for Trinket but I’ll tell you why I would suspect “...such a thing”. Following is an excerpt from, www.suppressedscience.net/mars.html . It would seem that if this web site is correct then not only was data of Cydonia “tampered with” it had an effect on your work.


"... [An] independent analyses of the Viking pictures done by DiPietro & Molenaar and Dr. Mark J. Carlotto showed a very high degree of probability that the formation was artificial. Their work was completely ignored by NASA, which stubbornly clung to its discredited ad-hoc claim of "light and shadow". The turning point came in 1993, when Professor Emeritus of Philosophy Stanley McDaniel made NASA's failure to acknowledge and act on the new evidence the subject of a scientific study of the sociology of science, titled "The McDaniel Report: On the Failure of Executive, Congressional and Scientific Responsibility in Investigating Possible Evidence of Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars and in Setting Mission Priorities for NASA’s Mars Exploration Program". In his report, Professor McDaniel states:" <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"As my study of the work done by the independent investigators and NASA's response to their research continued, I became aware not only of the relatively high quality of the independent research, but also of glaring mistakes in the arguements used by NASA to reject this research. With each new NASA document I encountered, I became more and more appalled by the impossibly bad quality of the reasoning used. It grew more and more difficult to believe that educated scientists could engage in such faulty reasoning unless they were following some sort of hidden agenda aimed at suppressing the true nature of the data."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
"The McDaniel Report was instrumental in forcing NASA to re-image Cydonia using the Mars Global Surveyor in 1998. The pictures obtained by MGS strengthened the case for artificiality, but NASA did everything it could to discourage this conclusion. On April 6, 1998, only hours after the first new data on the formation for 22 years had been acquired, NASA released a doctored image to the mass media that had virtually all three dimensional information removed by inappropriate filtering and showed what seemed like scratches on a flat plain. This image has become known as the "catbox"."

"Tom Van Flandern writes in his paper; Proof that the Cydonia Face on Mars is Artificial."<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As a direct consequence of this act [release of the 'catbox' picture], it has become extraordinarily difficult to get material on this subject considered in the scientific community. For example, a technical abstract on the subject of Cydonia submitted by this author in the summer of 1998 for oral presentation to the Division of Planetary Science (DPS) of the American Astronomical Society was rejected. This was the only rejection of an abstract by a member in good standing at this meeting, with over 600 other abstracts accepted. Rejection of a member-submitted abstract is a rare event (unprecedented for this author) because presentation of papers before peers is the primary means of getting feedback before submitting written versions of papers to journals for peer review, and because justification of conclusions is not normally provided in an abstract. The DPS abstract review committee based its decision on the evidence they had seen with their own eyes in the image released by JPL-PIO to the media. On appeal, they reversed their decision and accepted the abstract for a late poster paper; but the damage had already been done. The subject matter of Cydonia and the “Face” on Mars was by then on a list of topics not suitable for consideration by certain mainstream technical journals such as Nature magazine. By editorial policy, papers on the subject of the “Face” can no longer receive peer review at that magazine.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My questions are; is the article correct in re the tampering of the Cydonia picture? And, is the context of your response directly related to the “tampering”? Also, if the “tampering” is in fact true; was there any disciplinary action taken as a result of the “tampering”? Thank you.
thebobgy<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
<br />

is the article correct in re the tampering of the Cydonia picture?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I cannot identify with your inflammatory description because you insist on using the word “tampering”, and no such thing occurred, to my knowledge. Indeed, to ensure that they could not be criticized for their actions, JPL (who did this, *not* NASA) published the actual, raw spacecraft image, the filtered image, and the recipe to get from one to the other on a public web site.

JPL’s behavior is bad enough. It will not serve science or progress to inflame matters further by name-calling and accusations. Indeed, the reason for JPL’s irrational actions in the first place appears to be that Richard Hoagland inflamed Arden Albee on the Mars Exploration oversight committee at Caltech by suggesting that he was involved in a conspiracy to hide the truth. And when people irresponsibly charge that NASA did this when NASA had nothing to do with it merely forces NASA to be JPL’s ally in this matter. But NASA is 6000 scientists who are otherwise as divided on the artificiality question as is the public at large. Only JPL has a financial stake in the matter.

In fairness to McDaniel, who wrote his report ~1992, that distinction was not so evident back then, and he was unfamiliar with it. And his report was not instrumental in forcing NASA to do anything. However, McDaniel himself was. When he took a more moderate and reasonable approach, he and three others were able to persuade NASA to pay JPL to take the first three Cydonia photos with MGS in 1998.

Conspiracy sites do a lot of harm. I’ve never seen a conspiracy accusation lead to a good outcome. Let’s all do what we can to make the authors of such sites be reasonable and stick to undoctored, uncolored facts, or else ignore them. Publicizing such accusations does much obvious harm to science. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">is the article correct in re the tampering of the Cydonia picture?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I cannot identify with your inflammatory description because you insist on using the word “tampering”, and no such thing occurred, to my knowledge. Indeed, to ensure that they could not be criticized for their actions, JPL (who did this, *not* NASA) published the actual, raw spacecraft image, the filtered image, and the recipe to get from one to the other on a public web site.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Tom, first of all, the quoted material clearly used the words “doctored” and “inappropriate filtering”, I transcribed it to be “tampering”; clearly, the words ‘doctoring” and “inappropriate filtering” can be synonymous with tampering. There may very well be a different choice of words other than mine but I was giving an interpretation not an accusation that is why I used the quote marks with the use of “tampering”. Additionally, I did not identify either JPL nor NASA as being the “doctoring” or “inappropriate filtering” agency. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It will not serve science or progress to inflame matters further by name-calling and accusations.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I did not, by any construction of my words, engage in name calling or make accusations against anyone, (including yourself) or any agency and I take exception that you imply that I did.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Conspiracy sites do a lot of harm. I’ve never seen a conspiracy accusation lead to a good outcome. Let’s all do what we can to make the authors of such sites be reasonable and stick to undoctored, uncolored facts, or else ignore them. Publicizing such accusations does much obvious harm to science. Tom<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I read the article that included a passage from you and that is why I asked the 3.) Three, questions re; “ is the article correct in re the tampering of the Cydonia picture? And, is the context of your response directly related to the “tampering”? Also, if the “tampering” is in fact true; was there any disciplinary action taken as a result of the “tampering”?”

I was not, and am not, attempting to further a conspiracy; I was asking you because your name was involved and any clarification you would care to make would be more truthful than the article that I quoted. I accept your statement; “JPL (who did this, *not* NASA) published the actual, raw spacecraft image, the filtered image, and the recipe to get from one to the other on a public web site.” and the matter is settled as far as I am concerned. IOW, I have my answer However, why you chose to chastize me for seeking the truth and asking questions does cause me to wonder; (rhetorically) why? Thank you.
thebobgy

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
<br />why you chose to chastize me for seeking the truth and asking questions does cause me to wonder; (rhetorically) why?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We all suffer from the problem that words can sometimes contain unintended meanings. To add to that problem, readers frequently "read into" words, seeking hidden meanings or inuendo.

In my case, my mild rant against conspiracy theories was directed at all public advocates of conspiracy theories because of the harm they have done to the credibility of science and scientists, and was not directed specifically at you.

In your case, it was the following exchange that led me to think you were drawing a conclusion and not just asking a question:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Trinket]: Having a complete faith in the product I find absolutely absurd and feel you may be out of touch..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">[TomVF]: ... I've worked at JPL as an independent contractor in 1971, and went to graduate school with some fellow astronomers who are now JPL employees. Nobody I know would ever get mixed up in such a harebrained, illegal, and dangerous endeavor. Indeed, it seems without purpose. What would even make you suspect such a thing?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">[thebobgy]:Tom, I certainly do not speak for Trinket but I’ll tell you why I would suspect “...such a thing”. Following is an excerpt from ... It would seem that if this web site is correct then not only was data of Cydonia “tampered with” it had an effect on your work.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you read that again carefully, perhaps you can see why it can be read as suggesting that you find Trinket's conspiracy theory plausible. Still, I intended no offense. And I am at a handicap of having limited access and limited time while I am on travel this week. So I may have been shorter than good manners required, and I apologize. -|Tom|-