Nefertiti's Family

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />the case I am trying to make (or rather suggesting, because I don't know anything for sure here) is that the lower contrast is the result of natural processes, like cloud cover or more likely dust storms.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Weren't you just telling us how wonderful R12 was? How it had all those grey levels? Post an image. Give it your best shot. Spare us the rigamarole.

rd

emanual writes:

(04 05 06)

"I see R12 and R7 with a messed up brightness/contrast."

(04 06 06)

"I no longer think the new images are messed up."

(04 09 06)

15: 59; "But nothing is wrong with R07 and R12."

16:18; "I can see the vague image of the hat (in R12)."

17:15; " But we do get the broad range of greys." (in R07 and R12)

19:37; " R12 is really a good image."

22:50; "I don't know anything for sure here."

22:50; "The lower contrast is the result of...cloud cover or...dust storms."

Are you sure you weren't looking for the website marked, "Hegelian Dialectics?"

Neil

Hey now you guys are getting nasty. There is no shame in changing one's position, and I sure don't feel any. I'm trying to figure this stuff out the same way you are, and I have nothing to apologize for simply because at first I leaned towards artificiality and now I don't. Heck, if anything this shows I am willing to be self-critical, and to test my own biases. Tom made a comment in this thread which I liked so much I now quote it in my personal email signature file. It is this one:

"There are two kinds of people in the world -- those seeking the truth unconditionally, and those trying to prove the truth they already know." - Tom Van Flandern

I don't "already know" whether these images are artificial or not. What I am doing is trying to figure it out. And I am not afraid to appear foolish to those who think uncertainty equals foolishness. Engaging in dialogue about that which one is uncertain is an excellent way to learn, and I have no embarrassment over changing my position/inclination. I have no reputation at stake, nor is my ego wrapped up in the answer being one way or the other. I am no longer sure of the two of you, however, given your last responses.

Rd, you have just ignored my comment about dust storms being a highly probable reason why the contrast is not as good in R12, and dismissed it as "rigamarole," a term of condescension by which I can only presume you mean "irrelevant." This reflects bias, both in your choice of a condescending term and also in the fact that JPL says outright that these photos were taken during dust storms. And Neil you have resorted to a personal attack (an accusation that because I have changed my position what I say is not valid for this website), which there is never any other reason for except as an effort to silence opinion/expression that you disagree with. Are you sure you are not also trying to prove "the truth you already know?"

Someone in this thread made a good comment about all of us here being willing to engage in dialogue around a topic that might make us appear like "kooks" to others who are afraid of ridicule. (I think it was one of you who said it.) This is a very good observation, so let's try not to engage in the very ridicule that we presumably understand is useless in ascertaining truth.

In other words, please be respectful.

Emanuel

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />Hey now you guys are getting nasty. There is no shame in changing one's position, and I sure don't feel any. I'm trying to figure this stuff out the same way you are, and I have nothing to apologize for simply because at first I leaned towards artificiality and now I don't. Heck, if anything this shows I am willing to be self-critical, and to test my own biases. Tom made a comment in this thread which I liked so much I now quote it in my personal email signature file. It is this one:

"There are two kinds of people in the world -- those seeking the truth unconditionally, and those trying to prove the truth they already know." - Tom Van Flandern

I don't "already know" whether these images are artificial or not. What I am doing is trying to figure it out. And I am not afraid to appear foolish to those who think uncertainty equals foolishness. Engaging in dialogue about that which one is uncertain is an excellent way to learn, and I have no embarrassment over changing my position/inclination. I have no reputation at stake, nor is my ego wrapped up in the answer being one way or the other. I am no longer sure of the two of you, however, given your last responses.

Rd, you have just ignored my comment about dust storms being a highly probable reason why the contrast is not as good in R12, and dismissed it as "rigamarole," a term of condescension by which I can only presume you mean "irrelevant." This reflects bias, both in your choice of a condescending term and also in the fact that JPL says outright that these photos were taken during dust storms. And Neil you have resorted to a personal attack (an accusation that because I have changed my position what I say is not valid for this website), which there is never any other reason for except as an effort to silence opinion/expression that you disagree with. Are you sure you are not also trying to prove "the truth you already know?"

Someone in this thread made a good comment about all of us here being willing to engage in dialogue around a topic that might make us appear like "kooks" to others who are afraid of ridicule. (I think it was one of you who said it.) This is a very good observation, so let's try not to engage in the very ridicule that we presumably understand is useless in ascertaining truth.

In other words, please be respectful.

Emanuel

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Uh-huh.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />Dust storms implies the moving around of a lot of dust. So it doesn't come as a surprise to me that the area looks different in photos taken years later.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are thinking of terrestrial dust storms. The Mars atmosphere is more like a vacuum than like our atmosphere. The typical Mars dust storm is visible only because we are looking through dozens of kilometers of dust from afar. If we were standing on the surface, we could probably see nothing because the dust particles are too widely separated. Such storms do not have the ability to change the appearance of surface features over the short term because, if the whole cloud collapsed onto the surface, there might be only a few dust grains per square meter.

I suspect that the lower contrast, like the lower resolution, is simply to avoid spending valuable Deep Space Tracking Network time on images the imaging team considers a waste of resources. -|Tom|-

Emanuel writes: "There is no shame in changing one's position."

True enough, but you do seem to be all over the playing field--with all due respect.

Neil